Other People's Money
The D-News reports that 60% of Utahns would rather give money to public education than have an income tax cut.
Under J2 (the dual-track system), Utahns can do exactly that. They can calculate their taxes, and pay the higher amount, if they choose. That money would go to public education (and a little to higher education).
Anyone wanna bet whether 60% of the people opt to pay the higher amount?
Under J2 (the dual-track system), Utahns can do exactly that. They can calculate their taxes, and pay the higher amount, if they choose. That money would go to public education (and a little to higher education).
Anyone wanna bet whether 60% of the people opt to pay the higher amount?
posted by steve u. at 9/17/2006
Subscribe
14 Comments:
I will bet that I will go for the higher tax cut, take the money saved so it does not go toward some other not-exactly-earmarked for education income tax destination and donate it to my local school district. I imagine other educated middle class families will do the same for their local school districts. I imagine families who live in lower socioeconomic level neighborhoods will use their money for personal immediate needs like healthcare or rent. So much for Utah's admirable level of educational equity. On the other hand an abundance of cheap labor could be a draw for out of state business too. We could advertise to emerging third world countries, "Outsource to Utah!" "Life Uneducated!"
There is no guarantee that the increased income tax revenues will go to public or higher education (despite what the constitution says). To assert otherwise glosses over reality.
If I leave $50 in the income tax fund, I can't be sure the legislature won't put $50 less of general fund money into education, and put it into transportation or an underground parking garage instead.
I have little confidence the marginal benefit of any such "contribution" will remain in education, be it public or higher.
Reality is always better than theory. Steve, your point is right on!
Anon.
Before you pull something patting yourself on the back for your superior "educated middle class" standing, you might want to check the Utah Constitution. Income tax revenues can't go to "some other not-exactly-earmarked for education" place. A Constitutional mandate that it be spent on education is as good an earmark as you can get. Maybe that's something they only teach in those "lower socioeconomic level neighborhoods."
Tom,
As you well know, every penny raised from personal income tax goes to education (and most of that, far and away, goes to public education).
We've had some recent successes in public education and funding, but the profound arrogance of the education lobby makes the work that much more difficult. To you, public education has first claim to every single penny in the state, regardless where it sits; every penny that is left in our citizens' pockets or every penny that is spent on a non-education item (e.g., health and human services, roads, etc.) is "stolen" from schools.
That is poor citizenship and adds nothing of substance to the dialogue.
From www.senatesite.com, "Curt Bramble said...The legislature has the constitutional mandate of establishing tax policy and appropriating funds. After tax policy is set, then, and only then, is the resulting revenue from income taxes required to be appropriated for education. There is no conflict with setting aside future revenues to allow the legislature to pursue tax reforms, tax cuts, or a combination of both..." It is the $70 million I am referring to that is no longer earmarked for education that will most likely be going toward a tax cut. So, as I understand it, income tax is earmarked for public ed., higher ed., and tax reform/cuts.
Steve,
I'll take my tax cut and spend it. I know I'm a greedy person, but on the other hand, the money was once mine, right? I'll bet most people take their money and run also, and I don't think they're evil for doing it. We can continue to dump more and more money into education, and I don't think it's any guarantee that we'll make it better. There are other ways to do that, like involving parents in the schools directly, private/public sponsorships, increasing efficiency at the administrative level, etc.
Jon,
I opened a bill file this week. It is titled, "Volunteerism: what it is how to enforce it."
Actually, I am opening a bill file to help the state board, districts, and schools focus a little on tapping into the volunteer resources we continually squander.
By the way, how about those Utes?
Please comment on how our so-called earmarked funds for public ed from the income tax have been used to help higher education since 1996 and yet higher ed's funding has not had a sufficient or significant increase (as evidenced by the need to increase tuition costs). Where would those higher ed funds that originally came from the general fund now be going? Shell games are fun aren't they!
Last anon,
Higher education had a bad year last year legislatively. No doubt. This was my biggest disappointment, and I aim to get a better result this coming session.
However, state funding for higher education has increased quite a bit since 1996. You can't really argue that dollars have disappeared and that state funding has decreased. Nationwide, tuition is increasing, as the cost of higher education has greatly outpaced inflation. While we should debate the appropriateness of the financial burden we place on our students and their families, there probably should be some mention that our students pay some of the lowest tuition rates in the country.
As I have written many other places on this blog, higher education has many of its solutions within reach, if it chooses to use them (e.g., use of fiscal policy and enrollment criteria to encourage students to attend lower cost institutions, require students to pay for remedial courses and re-takes, and improve transferability of credits). Also, some things are in place for Utah students and families to improve their situations, such as concurrent enrollment.
>> "To you, public education has first claim to every single penny in the state, regardless where it sits; ... every penny that is spent on a non-education item (e.g., health and human services, roads, etc.) is "stolen" from schools.
>> "That is poor citizenship and adds nothing of substance to the dialogue.
Gee, that stings a bit. I do try to think of myself as a reasonable person.
I haven't said (and won't say, as I don't believe) that the tax cut is stealing money from education. Similarly, I agree that marching around chanting "Invest in public schools" doesn't bring solutions to the table, and trivializes the discussion. Yet, I also believe we're approaching a crisis point in education, and despite the increase last session, if more money is not provided the quality of education Utah is able to provide will slowly deteriorate to a level that I cannot morally accept.
There are some legislators who honestly feel this cut will provide more for education in the long run. It's a motive I can respect.
However, I also believe that were I to "overpay" my income tax by $50 there is a good chance the legislature may choose to provide $50 less of general fund money to (public or higher) ed. Thus the *marginal benefit* of my additional $50 in tax dollars would not go to education, even though my dollars technically would. Higher ed has complained about this sort of "laundering" with their funding.
I'm not suggesting transportation isn't important. (I live in Utah County, and want a TRAX line badly.) I simply saying your contention that the entire benefit of the *additional* income tax dollars will be felt by education isn't as true as we might like. This state has competing needs (transportation has been neglected in the past decade too), and to suggest the legislature doesn't move around funds to address them isn't painting the full picture.
There are legislators (like yourself, if I may say so) who spend a good bit of time contemplating education issues and seeking solutions to improve education. We often see the same problems, but sometimes disagree on solutions. I'm okay with that.
There are others who feel that education is over-funded, and some sort of black hole pit where money goes in never to be seen again. When legislators with this attitude start talking about tax cuts, I get nervous.
Tom,
Sorry. I was rushed, trying to get things done before heading north. I didn't give you the respect you deserve.
Clearly we can disagree on how to reach the goal we share of providing the best education possible for our students. I bristle at the "shuffling" or "supplanting" argument. Maybe that's my problem. But the important number in terms of funding is the end number -- which has been good for public education the last 2 years and lousy for higher ed the last 2 years.
I hope I didn't chase you away with my grump.
Paul Mero, Did you really mean it when you said "Reality is always better than theory?"
...Because there's plenty of fossil record of humans walking around this planet say about thirty thousand, and sixty thousand, oh yeah, and 100,000 years ago vs. a popular theory...oops, that's a story.
Nevermind :)
Both the education lobby and the voucher liberals are hard to work with. What we need are REAL solutions and working together on education, not political, special-interest group ones.
Steve is right in that most people will probably choose the bigger tax breaks. However, I do think we can work towards finding NONTAX funding sources and solutions for education. Political and cutting and running approaches won't work either.
Egads Cliff! Quoting a liberal like Paul Mero!!!!!!!!!!!
<< Home