Get Schooled

By Jeff

October 1, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

I support the Fair Tax as just that - a FAIR tax - so I personally have no problem with this proposal.

The only feature of it that causes me some concern is that the STATE would collect the money, then hand it to the local jurisdictions. To me, this causes an imbalance of power in the federal system. Not unlike the imbalance we already see coming from the National level.

By FCM

October 1, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Vouchers—make the schools compete for the $$$, the vouchers could be funded through the sales tax/consumption tax and property tax values (provided there are children in the house….easy enough to cross check on the tax return). People with no children/grown children should not be paying for our schools…even though I grant that all people benefit from an educated population.

By FCM

October 1, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Vouchers—make the schools compete for the $$$, the vouchers could be funded through the sales tax/consumption tax and property tax values (provided there are children in the house….easy enough to cross check on the tax return). People with no children/grown children should not be paying for our schools…even though I grant that all people benefit from an educated population.

By V for Vendetta

October 1, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

I don’t think spending money on schools, as long as the tax is fairly assessed, is a bad thing in any context. A more interesting discussion might be why certain counties seem so willing to grant developers free reign to build whatever new neighborhoods and apartment complexes they want, regardless of the impact on local schools and communities.

Less low-income housing means better schools. Hello? Gwinnett, Cobb, are you listening?

By Tony

October 1, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Taxation is always a hot topic. In this discussion about Richardson’s proposals, Jeff has hit one of the biggest problems sqare on the head - imbalance of power. With the state collecting all the taxes and disbursing the revenue as they see fit, local authority is completely usurped.

In addition to this problem, there are others. Property taxes align very closely to lifestyle choices people make. Most everyone chooses to live in a place that provides amenities that are paid from taxes. This is about the most fair way to tax citizens. If the taxes are too high for the services one receives, the citizen has options: sell or vote.

The proposed Fair Tax is about the most unfair idea on the table. It turns out that a consumption tax hits the poor and elderly harder than property taxes. Percentage-wise, poor people would pay higher rates on sales taxes than wealthier people do. This means that those of us with more expensive homes will have our services subsidized by the poor.

Finally, FCM should realize that education of the next generation is everyone’s responsibility. As FCM ages, he/she will become more dependent upon taxes generated by the younger, working citizens. Having a well educated citizenry is an investment that benefits everyone.

By Lisa B.

October 1, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

The problem with using Sales Tax instead of Property Tax to fund schools is that Sale tax revenues are not as reliable a source of money as Property tax revenues. Property taxes don’t fluctuate. I pay taxes on my house every year. All homeowners do. The amount of sales taxes spent fluctuate based on spending habits. In a good economy, we all spend. When the economy experiences a down turn, consumers curtail spending. Sales tax revenues would go down. Property tax revenues would mostly remain stable. When you throw in the fact that some people, like farmers, currently receive tax exemptions on heavy equipment like combines and irrigation systems, the Fair Tax isn’t fair at all when they lose their exemptions. Farmers would pay a MUCH larger chunk of taxes than they do now.

By Dragonlady

October 1, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

I vote with Tony and Lisa B. Both said clearly what is wrong with using sales tax.

These communites that have such high income from property taxes are likely to find their schools really suffering from lack of funds.

By Lisa B.

October 1, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Tony,

Your comments are exactly right.

By Lisa B.

October 1, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Tony made most of my remaining points in his post. Because the poor spend a much higher percentage of their income on food than middle class and wealthier people, the impact of increased sales tax impacts the poor more severely.

To set budgets, school systems must have a stable source of revenues. In Oregon a few years ago, the money ran out before the school year ended, and schools were closed something like 26 days early. That messed them up on end of year testing, Prom, graduation, summer school, teacher pay (a 26 day pay cut would really hurt!)and all sorts of other things. Later Portland, Oregon’s school system had to implement a “pay to play” system for athletics. Parents had to pay for coaches, uniforms, etc. I know that some believe schools really don’t need proms, athletic teams, summer school and all these tests anyway. However, if those things were cut, it should be by choice, not because the money runs out.

By jim d

October 1, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Seems to me that this could cause a drop in property values.

If that were to happen and people started appealing, would the county then be forced to accept less funds to provide other services?

Personally, I don’t mind taxing myself at a higher rate for services that I use. I do have a problem with taxing myself more for services for people in other areas.

When I built, one of the primary comsiderations was the schools in the area and I fully understood the tax burden I was assuming. I suggest they leave it alone.

By jim d

October 1, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

In answer to your question—it would depend upon how it is worded on the ballot. (if you know what I mean)

I personally would vote for no change.

By SET

October 1, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Interesting subject.

I generally support tax cuts for education because I believe the schools in CA are not even trying to educate anymore, so we should not be trying to fund them. Except in the most exclusive towns in CA decent families no longer send their children to public schools and have been spending their retirement savings to keep kids in the parochial or private schools K-12.

Having said that, those who want to fund the public schools have to decide the best way to keep funding stable and reasonable (asking a lot - the school finding efforts normally want excessive funding). I think a mix of funding including sales taxes might be indicated along with a huge dose of pay as you go for all non-academic & technical programs. Football should not get one penny of taxpayer money - without a vote for it.

I travel in Canada frequently over the years. Their sales taxes are 16%. Americans should pay attention to what that does to life. It appears that the US $ is on a plunge and Canadian retail & hospitality industries may crash with it as Canadian flock into the US to buy gas, cigarettes and weekly provisions. Reportedly the US pricing of merchandise is reaching 50% after tax of what they had to pay in Canada, and half of their population is supposedly within commuting distance of the US Border.

I’d prefer to keep sales tax lower and inflation adjusted income and inheiritance taxes increasingly higher for the top 5% of incomes. We will soon need to tax wealth being taken out of the country also, and that’s hard to structure. Above all I’d tax the (soul-less) corporations in favor of lower taxes for proprietorships and partnerships.

As a matter of policy, a corporate Starbucks should pay much more than a Mom & Pop Coffee Shop. In doing so we might actually start to take back power from the “Soul-less” who increasingly have amassed it.

By JustMe

October 1, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

There would already be plenty of money for education if the money actually made it to the classroom. The problem is that each school system has so many levels of administration, both at the central offices and in each school, that the money dwindles to a trickle into the actualy classroom.

As far as how to collect it….. it depends on the value that society places on educating the general population. As an adult without children, I resent paying for people with children to educate their children. I especially resent those that want ‘vouchers’ which basically translates into taking money from me and putting it directly into the hands of others with children - what a crock! In my world, that is called stealing!

By Ernest

October 1, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Tony is on the money with his comments. I also understand Speaker Richardson has not provided much detail with how this could possibly work which also makes me wary of this proposal.

By thomas

October 1, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Here’s something to think about:

The lawmakers in Alabama voted to fund education with sales taxes instead of property taxes. The Alabamian educational system nearly collapsed. All over the state there were huge cutbacks. Thousands of teachers were laid off. We saw a mass exodus of former Alabama teachers coming over to Georgia to get jobs.

The rich and well-to-do would love to cut property taxes. This would affect not only homeowners but businesses, too. But they are not the ones affected by the horrible effect it would have on education. People living in $400,000 and $500,000 homes already send their kids to a private school or are one of the few people who live in a “good” neighborhood (one with a “homogenous” population).

By decaturparent

October 1, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Thomas, I live in a $400,00-$500,000 house, but we are not rich (our house just went up in value over time) nor do we send our kids to private school. Our kids go to very diverse schools. Pretty much anything intown in even a reasonable school district is going to start at $400,000.

I could go on and on about why Richardson’s plan is idiotic. However, I don’t have time today. I will summarize it with three statements.

One…. I ran the numbers with the latest version of Glenn’s scheme, and we would only save about $600 per year. We currently pay $9000 in property taxes (I think about half of that is school tax.). It’s not worth the hit to my property values and to my kids’ educations to save a measly $600 per year.

Two…. I really don’t think that Jerry Keen and Glenn Richardson and their buddies need to be running my kids’ school district. I didn’t elect them to do that. I elected my school board reps to do that. Keen and Richardson don’t know the first thing about education. They do know how much they will save on their beachfront St. Simons property if the property tax is abolished though.

Three… my mom, who is 80, will pay a TON more in taxes under this plan. She currently pays very little property tax because of her age. This would absolutely kill her budget. I don’t think that she should have to do that to give Keen, Richardson and their St. Simons buddies a break on their beach house taxes.

By catlady

October 1, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

My thoughts on the proposal:

Besides what I think is an inherent unfairness due to the regressive nature of the sales tax, many seem to overlook that virtually everyone alive in Georgia pays property tax in one form or another. If you rent, the property tax is built into your rent payment. Of course, some companies and entities still get VERY FAVORABLE treatment on property taxes.

If we take away the property tax, it means multinational corporations holding thousands of acres don’t pay taxes on them. It means every little thing you do legally is subject to the sales tax. It means more people (not just “them Mexicans”) will be dealing under the table to avoid the tax—do you want more folks avoiding their share of the burden? Right now, even “them Mexicans” pay property tax on the substandard housing that Jim Bob rents to them—you can be sure that Jim Bob passes it on to them. It means you cannot claim those property taxes as offset on your income tax, since they won’t exist. ARe you ready for that? Less deductions means higher income tax for both state and feds.

Finally, higher sales tax will translate into higher welfare payments to cover the cost of living. Want to fund that, too?

By Lisa B.

October 1, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Fair Tax Forums are scheduled all around the state. Please attend a forum close to you, and sign up to speak. I’ve read some great comments on this blog today. I plan to attend the Fair Tax Forum October 17 in Albany. I hope to speak against the Fair Tax.

By WFC

October 2, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

It seems to me that a modified “hybrid” tax overhaul is in order. A reduction on “basic living” property tax (houses under $250,000) is good but not a reduction on commercial property or $700,000+ mansions. An increase on “conspicuous consumtion” sales tax (like my Mercedes) is good but not an increase on “must buys” like food or prescription drugs. I need to see the details.