The Schools and Taxes (low income, sales, apartment)

[markg91359]

I thought I would make an attempt at starting a thread about the best way to fund the schools. We currently fund schools in Utah with a state income tax, dedicated to that purpose, and with portions of revenue from both property taxes and sales tax. Could we improve on the way we fund schools? I'm not particularly fond of the property tax because it has some peculiar features. If you live in a home for a long time, the value (and your taxes) will likely go up. However, your income, if retired or in certain occupations, may not go up to match. The sales tax is not a bad tax, but it often does fall disproportionately on lower income people. Its essentially a consumption tax and the more money one has the greater proportion of one's income is usually saved as opposed to being spent. The state income tax is a good tax, but as I understand it, the top percentage is limited and so there is only so much revenue that it can collect.

Possibly other taxes and fees ought to be considered. I wonder at times if large families should pay more than what they are currently paying because of the strain they place on the system. Last year, we had an increase of 12,000 new students, yet tax revenues to pay for education are in decline because of the Recession. Should we assess more student fees?

[sp2007]

A tax system based on the number of children will NEVER pass in Utah (or most other states).

I think the system is fairly good. It has allowances and exceptions enough to be fair across the board.

We just need the economy to pick up I guess.

[hilgi]

The best way won't happen but we need some form of voucher system.

[yellowsnow]

I lived in Utah for 15 years and I loved it. My favorite tax was the food tax. It was fair. Those who used the most, paid the most.

As far as education goes, it's in everyone's best interest and everyone should pay to educate children. No exceptions. It's important. That said, I will admit it rankled me a bit that I who have no children, paid more than the neighbors who all have multiple children.

I don't think there is a fair way to do taxes. Someone always gets the short end of the stick. What I would do is create a base school tax based on the average number of people per family in Utah. Every household pays that amount. Then you pay extra if your family is larger than the average for the state. You can see that would more than adequately fund the schools. Then I would offer school tax credits to the low income folks for doing volunteer work at the schools. They could clock in and out like any other employee.

Everyone would pay. Those who use the system extensively would pay more than people who don't use the system. There would be some breaks available for people with low incomes. The tax breaks are earned, not given. I believe this would fund the schools well and be more fair than what exists now. And it encourages volunteerism and involvement in the schools.

But I'm a realist and I can already hear the screaming and gnashing of teeth. Yes, I believe this is more fair than what exists today but the folks who take the biggest benefit from the system would be asked to pay more for what they are using.

[skibarbie]

Yellowsnow-you have made some great points here. I do think a head tax is in order but realize that it more than likely will not happen. Growing up in Kansas, we had large families of the Catholic faith-but the property tax was much higher than Utah-and still is. Schools are better and have better funding too.
I often wonder-outloud usually-about renters that have kids in public schools. The Mr claims that the arguement there, is that the landlords pay property taxes. I have seen several families in a single apartment with lots of kids-and wonder , again, is this a problem that a head tax would solve?
I am not sure how schools have been in such decline since I was a public school student, graduated in 81. The school that I went to did not have a "sports complex", computer lab, air conditioning and lots of other bells and whistles that newer schools have now.
I know that computers are important, but not sure how astro turf, lighted stadiums and a list of other nice things really contribute to an overall education. Don't mean to sound old and crabby but maybe getting back to some basics would help with the overall school budgeting..?

[dcisive]

I am without a doubt the "odd man out" here. I still believe in taxation WITH representation. Of which I'm sorry to say I most definitely and not getting. I have NO children and yet my property taxes just got yanked up $230 just this year alone in addition to the previous 2 years. My thoughts on this subject are NOT going to be in alignment with just about ANY other resident unless retired or a "empty nester". If I were in charge of this government those having children would continue to have to take on the burden of not only raising them but being responsible for their education......NOT those who are NOT parents of said children.

With that said it would be apparent that those with the 4 and 6 child households would indeed have to account for their education. I personally didn't sign on for the duty, nor is it realistically fair to expect me to accept the burden. Now the liberals will come out of the woodwork and accuse me of not being a party to the "It Takes A Village" mentality which is nice and convenient for those that want EVERYONE to be responsible for that which THEY ALONE signed on for. You can argue yourselves blue in the face but fair is NOT how our government works anymore to be sure. If this keeps up they will effectively tax me right out of my home. I'm getting closer and closer to retirement age and will NOT be able to accept this burden. So it would seem the government both here and the national level are only concerned with the "majority rules" attitude and damn the elderly or people struggling to save for their older age life.

If it becomes essential I'll just pack up and leave the State, which from all indications is exactly how they would prefer it. I see NO evidence of fairness in taxation let alone placing the tax burden where it belongs. I grew up in an era when one became responsible for what one signed on for.....NOT that which they decided to take a pass on. Our government most certainly does NOT follow these lines of logic. I'm not raising my neighbor's kids for ANY reason thank you. I also don't expect them to pay for my doctor bills. I've worked for over 37 years....they most certainly have NOT. So don't go telling me they are entitled to my wallet thank you.

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

I have no children at home and I don't mind paying taxes for education. Who is going to run the country in the future if we don't educate kids? Who are going to be our doctors? Our police? Our engineers? It is very short-sighted, IMO, to not realize the benefits of an educated populace whether or not they are your biological children.

[markg91359]

I am without a doubt the "odd man out" here. I still believe in taxation WITH representation. Of which I'm sorry to say I most definitely and not getting. I have NO children and yet my property taxes just got yanked up $230 just this year alone in addition to the previous 2 years. My thoughts on this subject are NOT going to be in alignment with just about ANY other resident unless retired or a "empty nester". If I were in charge of this government those having children would continue to have to take on the burden of not only raising them but being responsible for their education......NOT those who are NOT parents of said children.

With that said it would be apparent that those with the 4 and 6 child households would indeed have to account for their education. I personally didn't sign on for the duty, nor is it realistically fair to expect me to accept the burden. Now the liberals will come out of the woodwork and accuse me of not being a party to the "It Takes A Village" mentality which is nice and convenient for those that want EVERYONE to be responsible for that which THEY ALONE signed on for. You can argue yourselves blue in the face but fair is NOT how our government works anymore to be sure. If this keeps up they will effectively tax me right out of my home. I'm getting closer and closer to retirement age and will NOT be able to accept this burden. So it would seem the government both here and the national level are only concerned with the "majority rules" attitude and damn the elderly or people struggling to save for their older age life.

If it becomes essential I'll just pack up and leave the State, which from all indications is exactly how they would prefer it. I see NO evidence of fairness in taxation let alone placing the tax burden where it belongs. I grew up in an era when one became responsible for what one signed on for.....NOT that which they decided to take a pass on. Our government most certainly does NOT follow these lines of logic. I'm not raising my neighbor's kids for ANY reason thank you. I also don't expect them to pay for my doctor bills. I've worked for over 37 years....they most certainly have NOT. So don't go telling me they are entitled to my wallet thank you.
.................................................. ............................................

I'd like to see the schools funded better than they are in Utah. Yet, at the same time, I acknowledge we have a unique situation here. Average family size is the largest in the nation and we are in the lower ranks of states when it comes to per capita income.

My sister never married or had children and it always struck me as unfair that she had to pay the same property taxes that families with 3 or 4 kids paid. Yet, the state needs the revenue. The bottomline for me is that I'd rather pay for education for kids now than prison or jobs training later on in their lives.

I think it was a mistake to reduce the sales tax on food. Its somewhat likely this may get raised again and if it does I won't complain. I think two principles ought to guide us when it comes to any taxation policy:

1. The rich or the more well-to-do ought to pay the most.

2. Everyone ought to have pay something.

[osugirl2]

How about get rid of school tax and have families pay tuition per child and base tuition payments on adjusted gross income??

[dcisive]

Oh YEAH osugirl2 NOW you are thinkin! But it is far too logical, and logic won't fly here in babyland. The parunts would all be screaming foul and it most certainly would not get the legislature's support. Oh well, thanks for trying. I like it but most won't. But it sure is fair to say the least. As I've said before I'd pass on the "village" mentality. I prefer those become responsible for their lives as they make and live them, not everyone at large. We are supposed to be a land of the free as in making our OWN decisions and living our OWN lives, not having to be connected by the hip to those that are living another lifestyle than ours and having US pay for it. That was my entire point. This whole "greater good" mentality doesn't sit with me. It's called "Socialism". I preferred to leave that to History and Russia thanks............