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.
Alright, I was just responding your post which touted local funding as superior to state funding.
I find local funding to be superior in that its costs are contained to the locale itself. This allows someone to consider a given locations pro's and con's of cost/benefit when deciding where to live versus a state wide system that leeches off everyone. For instance, if you don't want property taxes, you can actually find some areas that don't have it. It is a nice feature that keeps the locales responsible for themselves.
Sure there is. Then there is gasp...... Mass transit.
Infrastructure..... Cost money..... Gasp again.
LOL..you already have the train to nowhere that runs twice a day.
Austin is not NYC. There's too much sprawl and people love their cars.
Many Austin workers don't live in Austin but your mass transit doesn't extend to those areas.
When I moved to the area outside of Austin (Travis county) it took me 20 minutes to drive into Austin.
That was back in 1996. In 2010 it took me over 1 hour to make that same drive.
The "built it and they shall come" mentality doesn't take infrastructure into account when city counsels approve all these developments.
The cost to the taxpayer is the same at the end of the day. The states with no income tax, and high reliance on property/sales taxes all have the same trend: low state debt and very high local debt, because the cities have to pick up the slack to fund infrastructure.
The state debt/GDP is not a very meaningful figure without context. South Carolina's (8.65%) is higher than Californias (6.83%), even with its 'small government' philosophy.
For that matter Massachusetts and New York are at the very top, yet their economies are strong and they're paying a lot of the federal taxes that prop up the impoverished red states in the south--without which some of those places would collapse into 3rd world hellholes. The debt in those states isn't enough to be a major drag on their economies.
Just as an example, what are some states with a higher GDP/capita than Texas? Pretty much every large blue state. Texas is 24th in the country. This doesn't matter that much either though. Every state has regressive tax systems; even Delaware and Oregon, and especially California. There isn't a significant enough difference in economic policy between the states to make meaningful comparisons.
In terms of total dollars state+local may be similar in many states. But I disagree that it doesn't matter where the debt is. First of all much of that debt is in bonds. Any finance person knows bonds have varying quality based primarily on the strength of the repayer. There are good bonds and bad bonds.
Another factor is why does this debt exist? Was it issued to make up for shortfalls in revenue? Or is it used to build infrastructure required because of growth? That local debt in Texas held by school districts, cities and counties. Texas continues to grow, driving demand for schools, roads, utilities, etc. 2/3 of the property tax I pay is related to schools - where enrollment has been growing at 5+% compounded for decades.
FWIW. I have lived here nearly all my life and have no intention of leaving. And I can recognize that it's best to not tell the momma that her baby is ugly. But, here goes, anyway.
Local independent school districts in Texas sell their own construction bonds, but they are guaranteed by the state. The state is tapped out and needs to up the fund. The state sets the top rate for districts. We almost have a state school system. The rich districts give all kinds of abatements to companies in order to avoid sending money to the state. The abated business then gifts stuff back to the district. Most school district have foundations to disperse these 'gifts'.
Kids in low revenue districts cross district lines all over the state. The state money follows the kid. There are two towns in central part of Texas one rich, one poor. The rich district sent busses into the poor town to pick up kids til they got sued to stop it. There are kids in districts all over the Houston area giving their district a relatives address in order to go to a better school. Everybody knows it and ignores it. The folks getting hosed are those who have houses in districts whose property values are going down due to the influx of low income people.
The state has been balancing the budget by confiscating designated funds. Like the taxes we all pay to help fund utilities for indigent seniors, highways and many more. Some of the state reps are trying to stop that but don't get much support.
IMO, all governments are going to get what they want whether citizens like it or not.
In terms of total dollars state+local may be similar in many states. But I disagree that it doesn't matter where the debt is. First of all much of that debt is in bonds. Any finance person knows bonds have varying quality based primarily on the strength of the repayer. There are good bonds and bad bonds.
Another factor is why does this debt exist? Was it issued to make up for shortfalls in revenue? Or is it used to build infrastructure required because of growth? That local debt in Texas held by school districts, cities and counties. Texas continues to grow, driving demand for schools, roads, utilities, etc. 2/3 of the property tax I pay is related to schools - where enrollment has been growing at 5+% compounded for decades.
California and Texas both gained nearly a million new residents from 2010 to 2013.
Both have also had similar budget shortfalls in recent years.
California has a higher influx of immigrants that have to learn english. Their education system needs the extra resources to deal with it, for instance. Texas, at 49th in the country in terms of per-pupil funding, doesn't care quite so much. They certainly have the SAT scores to show for it. 47th--and I'll note that Texas and California have similar participation rates for the test (generally the higher the participation rate is, the worse the state does).
LOL..you already have the train to nowhere that runs twice a day.
Austin is not NYC. There's too much sprawl and people love their cars.
Many Austin workers don't live in Austin but your mass transit doesn't extend to those areas.
When I moved to the area outside of Austin (Travis county) it took me 20 minutes to drive into Austin.
That was back in 1996. In 2010 it took me over 1 hour to make that same drive.
The "built it and they shall come" mentality doesn't take infrastructure into account when city counsels approve all these developments.
I actually just moved to Austin from Houston several weeks ago. And mass transit is more than trains, Houston had a fantastic commuter bus system called park and ride.
California has a higher influx of immigrants that have to learn english. Their education system needs the extra resources to deal with it, for instance. Texas, at 49th in the country in terms of per-pupil funding, doesn't care quite so much. They certainly have the SAT scores to show for it. 47th--and I'll note that Texas and California have similar participation rates for the test (generally the higher the participation rate is, the worse the state does).
California has a higher influx of immigrants that have to learn english. Their education system needs the extra resources to deal with it, for instance. Texas, at 49th in the country in terms of per-pupil funding, doesn't care quite so much. They certainly have the SAT scores to show for it. 47th--and I'll note that Texas and California have similar participation rates for the test (generally the higher the participation rate is, the worse the state does).
Per pupil spending is meaningless for assessing the quality of public schools. You just repeat the same story lots of people use. Those spending figures of course are never adjusted for cost of living or cost of operating a school.
Texas kids are very close to Massachusetts when compared by demographic group. But since MA is over 70% White, its averaged scores look much better.
I don't believe CA has a higher influx of immigrants. A larger portion of its inward migration is immigrants compared to Texas. But that's because California's "net domestic migration" has been negative for 20+ years. California's population is growing, but only through births and immigration.
The article you referenced is from 2011. But the most important point in that many people don't catch is that Texas' budget is a two year figure. CA has an annual budget. Texas' budget shortfall was less than half the size of CAs. Texas didn't have to use any accounting tricks like CA did (delaying payroll by one day to push some payroll into the next fiscal period) to meet its obligations. Texas tightened its belt as CA did. But I think most would agree Texas' cuts were less draconian than CA. And Texas isn't sitting on pension time bombs like CA.
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.
