The Man wrote:

Goose wrote:

Looks like all school districts will be funded by income tax. The same amount per student whether it's Suburban or Philly?
It's a pretty liberal idea.
Are al of you cool with "wealth redistribution" to poorer school districts?

I see property values in York Suburban and Red Lion falling while income tax increases.
Everybody cool with that?

 
Yes, I want schools funded entirely by income taxes and/or sales taxes. Everyone pays in, and people who own or rent property aren't left with a grossly unfair burden. I don't care what kind of idea that is, liberal, conservative, whatever, who cares. It's a good idea, a fair plan.

Why would you think property values would fall with that plan?

Property values in some neighborhoods are higher because they are in a "better" school district.
76 Would end that, and effect property values. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just saying that it may be an unintended consequence.

I applaud your commitment to evening funding among all school districts in the state. But, not everyone is going to feel that way.
 

Goose wrote:

The Man wrote:

Goose wrote:

Looks like all school districts will be funded by income tax. The same amount per student whether it's Suburban or Philly?
It's a pretty liberal idea.
Are al of you cool with "wealth redistribution" to poorer school districts?

I see property values in York Suburban and Red Lion falling while income tax increases.
Everybody cool with that?

 
Yes, I want schools funded entirely by income taxes and/or sales taxes. Everyone pays in, and people who own or rent property aren't left with a grossly unfair burden. I don't care what kind of idea that is, liberal, conservative, whatever, who cares. It's a good idea, a fair plan.

Why would you think property values would fall with that plan?

Property values in some neighborhoods are higher because they are in a "better" school district.
76 Would end that, and effect property values. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just saying that it may be an unintended consequence.

I applaud your commitment to evening funding among all school districts in the state. But, not everyone is going to feel that way.
 

I agree that some districts will see falling home values IF there is just a standard funding for all schools. People move into and pay more in certain districts today for a home because of the money that is raised and spent. Today in addition to the state support for basic education, each district has a different total tax base and for some districts it is much easier to afford certain amenities, etc for their students. The SB76 is a little fuzzy on this whole thing as the initial intent is to keep current funding intact, just change where the dollars are generated from. It ALSO allows each district from what I read to enact an EIT or other tax to supplement for individual district projects but NOT one based upone real estate value. But back to the initlal reaction of Goose, certainly it IS a true that people are willing to pay more for a similar home in a district where they think there is a better school system BECAUSE of the additional monies available to them. This will all change. It is good or bad ? You can decide. Some will like it and some not. 

BTW, what we are discussing is more the fairness of the taxing system, BUT just as much a big concern is the education that the kids in the system will receive. That in itself is not just determined by equitable funding. It is just one part. There are a whole set of things that have to be addressed there which are bigger issues than the money. 

One other BTW, businesses should love this as the big ones will get a big gift of not having any longer to pay property taxes. I am sure they will use that to pay their employees more or reduce their product cost. 







 

Last edited by tennyson (3/29/2015 10:18 pm)

Hey, that's what politics is,,,, a Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

Tarnation wrote:

tennyson wrote:

. But back to the initlal reaction of Goose, certainly it IS a true that people are willing to pay more for a similar home in a district where they think there is a better school system BECAUSE of the additional monies available to them. This will all change. It is good or bad ? You can decide. Some will like it and some not.

Shopping for real estate (homes) based on school district is pretty much a Pennsylvania peculiarity.

South of the border you have the Baltimore County schools, Carroll County schools, etc. If you don't like the schools you either choose another county or send your children to private school.

Seems to me that there are a lot of vested interests, including Realtors and newspapers (for the advertising) for maintaining the status quo.

I am not sure it is as peculiar as you might think. Although some states do not have certainly as many districts as PA has, most popular home search sites (ie- such as ZILLOW) do rate the local schools when doing a property search. Particularly people with kids care and to a great extent even if buying a home for possible resale later, it has to enter into the equation. 



 

tennyson wrote:

A little bit off the exact topic, but do people think that leveling the taxing system for schools with whatever method will  have any real bearing on some of the huge disparities in school performance ?  To a great extent this is the same question facing York City schools. 


 

It sure would be nice to try and find out! If we keep the same old system, we'll ensure that we continue to get the same old results.