Terry Madonna endorses 1776 (Pittsburgh, Elim: school, property tax, bill)

[squarian]

Taking CD income and property value data for Fox Chapel and plugging them into the PTCC calculator, produces a net savings of nearly $10K if the plan had been in effect as of 2011.

Running the calculator for Point Breeze produces a net savings of just over $3.2K.

Ditto for Duquesne, $678.

Finally just for fun, the breaking point for Fox Chapel, using all other assumptions as above, appears to be an income of $1,211,000, at which point this hypothetical family would pay $1.40 more.

(Assumptions were: FC median household income $183K, property value $566K, married-joint w/2 kids, earned income only, standard deduction. PB median household income $107K, property value $328K, all other parameters ditto. Duq median household income $25K, property value $41K, all other ditto.)

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by squarian

Taking CD income and property value data for Fox Chapel and plugging them into the PTCC calculator, produces a net savings of nearly $10K if the plan had been in effect as of 2011.

Running the calculator for Point Breeze produces a net savings of just over $3.2K.

Ditto for Duquesne, $678.

Finally just for fun, the breaking point for Fox Chapel, using all other assumptions as above, appears to be an income of $1,211,000, at which point this hypothetical family would pay $1.40 more.

(Assumptions were: FC median household income $183K, property value $566K, married-joint w/2 kids, earned income only, standard deduction. PB median household income $107K, property value $328K, all other parameters ditto. Duq median household income $25K, property value $41K, all other ditto.)

This is where I don't follow anymore. How can you possibly reduce a tax burden that much per capita and still keep the doors of schools open. This won't ever work without some serious modifications, especially given this doesn't even account for lost revenue from businesses that pay property tax.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by squarian

Taking CD income and property value data for Fox Chapel and plugging them into the PTCC calculator, produces a net savings of nearly $10K if the plan had been in effect as of 2011.

Running the calculator for Point Breeze produces a net savings of just over $3.2K.

Ditto for Duquesne, $678.

Finally just for fun, the breaking point for Fox Chapel, using all other assumptions as above, appears to be an income of $1,211,000, at which point this hypothetical family would pay $1.40 more.

(Assumptions were: FC median household income $183K, property value $566K, married-joint w/2 kids, earned income only, standard deduction. PB median household income $107K, property value $328K, all other parameters ditto. Duq median household income $25K, property value $41K, all other ditto.)

To be absolutely fair, FCASD would surely want to raise additional money on top of the base. Even then, there could still be a net savings (or at the very worst, a modest overall increase).

I guess the question is, how much additional money would the elite districts need to raise in order to reach the old status quo?

[squarian]

There are a bunch of caveats to these examples. First and foremost, I'm using the PTCC calculator as-is, no warranty implied or given, no endorsement for its accuracy or otherwise.

Secondly, I'm taking median property value numbers as-is, without allowing for a discrepancy between actual value and assessed value (of course, Allegheny Co should have no discrepancy any longer, but we all know that's not true).

Third, for simplicity I'm assuming in each example that the family is taking the standard deductions, which clearly will not be the case particularly for the guy making $1.2mil.

Fourth, these are all examples from Allegheny Co; anyone who wants to gather the necessary data and run an example from a county which hasn't reassessed since the Grant administration, be my guest, but no doubt the picture will be different.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

This is where I don't follow anymore. How can you possibly reduce a tax burden that much per capita and still keep the doors of schools open. This won't ever work without some serious modifications, especially given this doesn't even account for lost revenue from businesses that pay property tax.

Right - no doubt we'll hear more about this aspect (assuming the Gen Ass doesn't simply roundfile the bill).

For my part, I can only repeat what I said above: Jim Cox and other sponsors (such as those notorious tea-bagger Norquislings Jim Ferlo and Paul Costa), pundits such as Madonna, journalistic bastions such as the PG and various papers mid- and east-state, and of course the PTCC, so far all seem happy with the numbers. The PTCC website says the numbers "absolutely work as written".

I don't know if they work. I do know that the property tax conundrum has proven insoluble in Allegheny Co and perhaps the only way is to slash the Gordian knot. I do know that equitable school finance is a worthy goal. I believe that combining both objectives in the same reform might just give it the political lift to pass. If the critics begin to pick apart the numbers, I'll be paying close attention - but for now, given the potential good this bill might do, I'm for it.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

To be absolutely fair, FCASD would surely want to raise additional money on top of the base. Even then, there could still be a net savings (or at the very worst, a modest overall increase).

I guess the question is, how much additional money would the elite districts need to raise in order to reach the old status quo?

Yes, I agree - though it's hard to include any PIT/EIT increment in these estimates in advance of an actual referendum with an actual rate. But the one thing that seems clear is that if Curtis wasn't so certain they'll screw him somehow, he really should be on board.

[squarian]

WIS, here you go:

Dept of Revenue: HB 1776 Comes Up $3.2 Billion Short - Keystone Politics

new figures from the state Department of Revenue show a $3.5 billion gap between the estimated $12.5 billion earned by property taxes, and what the new tax structure would raise. In response, Cox said he and bill co-sponsors would consider increasing the personal income tax even further to meet the mark.

P.S. the source story linked by Keystone is here:
http://paindependent.com/2012/06/pa-...-taxes-killed/

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by squarian

WIS, here you go:

Dept of Revenue: HB 1776 Comes Up $3.2 Billion Short - Keystone Politics




P.S. the source story linked by Keystone is here:
PA politicos eye even higher income taxes if property taxes killed | PA Independent

That just sounds like another ever increasing tax - what happens as more & more baby boomers retire or if the economy slides again reducing tax receipts? I dislike property tax as much as anyone else but don't want to see workers pegged with an ever increasing burden either.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

I'm pretty sure it means all the sales tax-derived funding will be pooled/redistributed on an equitable basis. If wealthier Districts like Fox Chapel still want to raise funds on top of that (which they almost certainly will) they will be free to do so. Yes Curt, that will probably lead to a somewhat higher tax burden for the wealthy, but given how horrifyingly regressive PA's state and local taxes are, it really is about time something like this happened.

That's not my reading of the bill. The new State funding would preserve Current funding levels of dollars per pupil. Fox Chapel would get whatever the currently spend on students from the State as would Pittsburgh. Funding would adjust based on changes in the census. There's no equitable redistribution in this bill.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Lobick

That's not my reading of the bill. The new State funding would preserve Current funding levels of dollars per pupil. Fox Chapel would get whatever the currently spend on students from the State as would Pittsburgh. Funding would adjust based on changes in the census. There's no equitable redistribution in this bill.

See section 1303 a & b:

a) says in effect (see the definition of "base revenue") current funding levels for 2012-13.

b) "For fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2013, the department shall make disbursements to each school district as required by statute".

Cox has said in various places (including the PG editorial interview) that, as a matter of legislative strategy, he and his co-sponsors want to get the structure into law, then get the details worked out. He and other co-sponsors are on record saying they intend part II (the "as required by statute" bit referred to above) to fund districts per capita.

PS Various background links in the thread here