Property Tax Reform (Republic: renters, schools, exemption)

[squarian]

The editors of the Pottstown Mercury pick up on the school equity theme:

The property tax, which produces more revenue for schools in wealthy districts, continues the inequity in Pennsylvania of education quality by zip code instead of as a right for all

Meanwhile HB 2300, the dark horse in the race, passes the House and is now in the Senate's lap.

[squarian]

Interesting choice of phrase in a letter to the PG editors today, signed by Paul Costa and seventeen other members of the Allegheny Co delegation in the House:

If we are going to continue funding schools with real estate taxes, then a uniform, statewide system of regular property reassessment must be the goal.

Obviously one wouldn't want to place to much emphasis on it, but perhaps this reflects some background thinking or discussion among the signatories?

[ElijahAstin]

Question for you, squarian (and pardon me for asking something I would probably be able to figure out on my own if it were not for my writing competition-fried mind ): would the bill prevent school districts from levying funds via property taxes entirely, or would it simply make the primary funding mechanism more egalitarian through centralization? I'd imagine it would be the latter, but I just wanted to make sure I understand the proposal correctly.

[squarian]

HB 1776, right? (There's another, roughly similar bill before the Gen Ass - HB 2030).

The bill would entirely eliminate the authority of school districts to levy property taxes, with one exception. The actual wording in Sect 1101(a)(1) is:

The authority of any school district to levy, assess and collect any real property tax under the Public School Code of 1949, or any other act shall expire, subject to the provisions of section 1102, at midnight December 31, 2012.

The exception is that districts will be able to continue to levy property taxes only sufficient to retire existing debt, and once those debts are retired, that remaining property tax levy must also end.

Districts will also have the authority to levy a Personal Income or Earned Income tax, if the board approves a resolution for a referendum and the referendum passes. (As far as I can determine, school districts which already impose PIT/EIT would be required to hold a referendum to continue, but I may have missed something).

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by squarian

HB 1776, right? (There's another, roughly similar bill before the Gen Ass - HB 2030).

The bill would entirely eliminate the authority of school districts to levy property taxes, with one exception. The actual wording in Sect 1101(a)(1) is:



The exception is that districts will be able to continue to levy property taxes only sufficient to retire existing debt, and once those debts are retired, that remaining property tax levy must also end.

Districts will also have the authority to levy a Personal Income or Earned Income tax, if the board approves a resolution for a referendum and the referendum passes. (As far as I can determine, school districts which already impose PIT/EIT would be required to hold a referendum to continue, but I may have missed something).

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

In that case, I'm not a big fan of the bill as worded. I absolutely favor the idea of mandating equitable baseline funding from a pooled, centralized source. But I do think wealthier districts should retain the feasible right to improve upon this base if they do so choose. Since this improvement would not come at the direct expense of the poorer districts, I don't see the harm. Like I said before, property tax-based funding is only a zip code lottery because the funds aren't gathered together and spread out on a fair basis.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

wealthier districts should retain the feasible right to improve upon this base if they do so choose.

I think that's the idea behind the provisions for PIT/EIT by referendum.

[WestLibertyAve]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I was recently looking at Allegheny County millage rates.... what the hell is up with McDonald?

I'm not very well versed on this topic, but could it have something to do with Fort Cherry School District being in Washington County? The actual borough of McDonald is in Washington County, and those kids go to FC...but there are many outlying areas that also have a McDonald address despite being in other districts (West A, Canon-Mac, S. Fayette)

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by squarian

I think that's the idea behind the provisions for PIT/EIT by referendum.

Right. I'm just not quite sold on the idea that we really need to shift the financing to sales taxes in the first place.

[Geeo]

Isn't the fact that property taxes remain a consistent form of revenue, even during a recession, that they are counted on for school funding? In a recession, sales tax collections go down, which would mean less funding for schools and a real yo-yo stream of funding.

[gg]

Lets face it, no matter how you slice it the word "reform" should be replaced with "increase". Whatever would happen, it WILL no doubt be an increase. No way around it. Also, for people in the better districts, it will mean we carry even more burden, to offset the food stamp/tax burden folks. Just the way it is. If you work two jobs and work hard, you really just end up paying for those that don't. The middle and upper middle always get crushed. We all know if there is "reform", it will just mean we are going to pay more.