Friday, April 15, 2011

Property Taxes And Funding Schools

Schools receive funding from the property taxes of nearby neighborhoods. Richer areas are bound to receive more money because the taxes the rich people pay are higher than the poorer communities. The poor communities pay less because their property is not valued as high and schools in that area get less funding which usually makes them worse off. In order to more efficiently fund schools, richer schools need to donate supplies or money to those in need. A rich school with all the supplies they need still has to spend the money it gets on things they do not need. Instead of helping a poor school get textbooks the rich school will get more comfortable chairs or a
different asset that is not needed. Efficient school spending would lead to higher education in less fortunate communities which could boost the community as a whole in years to come.
States experiencing taxpayer revolts among homeowners are tempted to reduce reliance on the property tax to fund schools. But a more targeted approach can provide property tax relief and also improve state funding for public education, according to this new report by Daphne A. Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute. “Those who have tried to reduce property taxes and improve school performance at the same time have not met with much success,” according to Kenyon.

The report includes a comprehensive review of recent research on both the property tax and school funding, and summarizes case studies of seven states—California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas, the majority of them heavily reliant on property tax revenues to fund schools. Among these states Massachusetts ranks the highest and California the lowest, according to the respective property tax relief and school funding principles presented in the report.

One objective of the report is to provide information helpful to state policy makers and others who are grappling with the twin challenges of court mandates regarding school funding and constituent pressure to lower property taxes. Another objective is to correct some common misconceptions through a critical analysis of nine myths regarding school funding litigation, property tax characteristics, and the state role in funding education.

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the report recommends addressing property taxes and school funding separately.

Property tax relief. Arguing that the use of property tax revenue for schools is fundamentally sound, the report points out that increasing state aid for education does not necessarily result in lower property taxes, and it cautions against switching to greater reliance on a sales tax, for example, to fund schools. Instead, a more targeted effort can achieve fairness and relief, with the greater use of circuit breakers that adjust property tax bills based on ability to pay. Many states do not take full advantage of this policy instrument, or limit its application to the elderly.

School funding. Addressing the complex issue of statewide funding for schools, the report also recommends a targeted approach—distributing state aid for public education to the neediest school districts, schools, and students. State policy makers should not aim to provide any specific percentage for the state’s share of funding K-12 education, the report concludes.

According to Darcy Saas, the Deputy Director of the New England Public Policy Center, a research group established by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank, this report's "most important contribution is its exposure and discussion of the common misconceptions regarding school funding and property taxes. Public policies are too often developed based on incomplete analysis and unchallenged assertions. There is a real need for objective research like Dr. Kenyon’s that can shine a brighter light on assumptions and support the development of sound policies."

Friday, April 1, 2011

Obama tax cuts

The House approved President Obama's sweeping tax-cut compromise at midnight Thursday, preventing tax rates from rising Jan. 1 and sending the president a bipartisan agreement that few could have imagined in deeply polarized Washington.

The vote to accept the $858-billion Senate-passed measure was 277 to 148. Now it goes to the president for his signature, which is expected to be swift. Obama campaigned incessantly for passage despite his opposition to extending the George W. Bush-era lower tax rates across the board, including on family income above $250,000.


http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/17/nation/la-na-tax-cuts-20101217

Commentary: This is amazing how the tax cuts have changed over time.