Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of a Prop 13, I would rather we come up with a taxation solution that does not place such a disproportionate burden on homeowners. Those who use services need to have skin in the game. I don't think elderly homeowners on fixed incomes should be assumed to pay large taxes for schools that offer them little to no return. At same time, I do not see why renters with five kids in the system bear such a small burden. We should all chip in to a certain extent. But extra usage should be born by the users of those services.
Our sewage rates are set in a reasonable way (too high, but the approach is sound). We all share a certain base amount, but above that its about the users. I'm expecting a comment on "what? equating schools to sewage?!"
In any case, it would likely be a major Supreme Court decision.
I think the Homeowner's exemption is OK, but does not cover ownership of rental homes. Another source of potential flogging. But I have fixed up homes and bore a huge burden during the latest crisis, while homeowners were dumping homes and speculators were flipping. Not all landlords are evil. The point though is picking who should be burdened and who shouldn't irks me.
Instead of a Prop 13, I would rather we come up with a taxation solution that does not place such a disproportionate burden on homeowners. Those who use services need to have skin in the game. I don't think elderly homeowners on fixed incomes should be assumed to pay large taxes for schools that offer them little to no return. At same time, I do not see why renters with five kids in the system bear such a small burden. We should all chip in to a certain extent. But extra usage should be born by the users of those services.
I think you have to assume that the landlord is passing the cost of property taxes on to the renters in the rent they pay, so I don't think it's accurate to assume renters don't bear a share of the taxes that are collected through property taxes.
As for older people paying for schools, when I was younger I used to think that those with children should bear the costs of having them. However, I've come to realize I prefer to live in a society with bright, educated people who are equipped to have productive lives and participate in our society as informed citizens. One can debate whether our current approach to education is achieving that outcome, or whether we are spending our money in the most efficient and effective way, but in principal I'd argue we all benefit from a strong education system. So, as a soon to be retired person I am willing to pay my share. I would like to see the money we spend spent differently, but that's a different question.
If nothing else we need those young people to get good jobs so they can continue to cover our social security benefits.
Interesting thing about Property Taxes for local schools in Washington.
One School District in Thurston County Washington was having no luck with measures to increase property tax for schools... reason... there is a large block in a Senior retirement community that voted down any increase.
So, what did the district do???
District carved out an exemption just for the Seniors in this retirement community so they would no be subject to new school taxes which make up the bulk of Washington Property Tax...
Measure passed and these Seniors do not have to pay...
These sort of things are so hard to speak accurately about.
While you could argue that seniors shouldn't be expected to taxes for schools, you could also make the argument that they once enjoyed the benefits of schooling for their children decades ago, and (arguably) the seniors of that generation were also footing the bill.
Whenever discussions about taxes (and/or welfare) come up, the tendency is to view it from a snapshot in time (right now) and not consider the history / lifetime of said taxation (and/or welfare).
I see a lot of older people (late 40's to 60's, and not necessarily in this thread) complain about taxes being too high (for them right now), yet they ignore that they once paid lower tax rates decades ago when they were younger and making less money. But even then it's so hard to talk generally about it.
...So, as a soon to be retired person I am willing to pay my share. I would like to see the money we spend spent differently, but that's a different question.
If nothing else we need those young people to get good jobs so they can continue to cover our social security benefits.
Another reason that as a retiree I'm more than willing continue paying taxes that go toward schools is that a lot of Idaho colleges and universities allow seniors to take classes at reduced tuition costs.
School bonds are always an investment in the future of a community, but they are also an investment in the present as well. Building and maintaining a school always means new jobs, and new schools are always an attractor for businesses that may be looking to move to Idaho.
And, as volosong mentioned, these days a school used as a night school for obtaining a GED, adult re-training programs or other adult ed can prove to be another economic and social boost to a community.
Do Idaho public schools all come under local funding?
In many States like California... Colleges and Universities are not dependant on local Property Tax Dollars... whereas K through 12 are dependant on local Property Tax revenue...
Do Idaho public schools all come under local funding?
In many States like California... Colleges and Universities are not dependant on local Property Tax Dollars... whereas K through 12 are dependant on local Property Tax revenue...
Idaho is completely different in K-12 funding than California. Here, the state provides approx. 2/3 of the funding, and a local levy (voted on about every 2 years) covers the rest. If they ask for too much, and the levy fails, they're sorta screwed.
Idaho is completely different in K-12 funding than California. Here, the state provides approx. 2/3 of the funding, and a local levy (voted on about every 2 years) covers the rest. If they ask for too much, and the levy fails, they're sorta screwed.
So state property taxes have less to do with local schools here than they would in California.
California school funding is really not too different from Idaho then. About 61% of the funding comes from various state sources, about 10% comes from the Federal government, and about 29% from local taxes. Of the 29% funded from local taxes about 69% of that is from property taxes, or 20% of the total. CA spends about $77B in total from all sources on K-12 education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
