They Still Don't Get It

Don't miss this comment on Art  Woolf's recent post.  Many -- if not most -- Vermonters still don't entirely understand how the tax machinery works.  Which is precisely the idea.

Comments

[Art Woolf]

I plead guilty, and I think that I know something about how Act 60/68 works. But for my example of the median income family in Springfield, Oliver Olsen's comments are spot on. That family would pay $0 more in taxes if the school budget went up by 10% since it earns less than $47,000. I had forgotten to account for the "super circuit breaker" provision.

[George Cross]

However, what you all seem to be missing is that the "big spenders" in Vermont are the big spenders. Towns with the lowest percentage of "income sensitized" families spend considerable more than those with the higher percentages. Does this not blow the argument of the disconnect out of the water?

[Curtis Hier]

Well, George, the wealthy towns began spending more than the poor towns well before Act 60. They had quite a head start.

Also, I would point out that over 19,000 people are employed by public school systems. Most of them vote, and they all have relatives that vote. One justification of Governor Douglas's "supermajority" idea was that it would counteract this advantage that budgets have.

[George Cross]

You seemed to have missed the point, Curt. The argument put forth by a number of folks is that school spending increases have been fueled by "income sensitized" voters. The facts suggest otherwise as the rich towns, the ones with the lowest percentage of income sensitized families, are still spending considerable more than the poorer towns. One could make the argument that this is the one basic failure of Act60/68. Plus maybe the solution is simple - stop talking about capping the percentage of increase in school budgets and start talking about a cap on per student spending. In order to offer at least a bit of a "soft-landing" to the rich towns make the cap the average of the top quintile, plus some minimal escalator. Rich towns will stop spending - fast!

[Greg Decker]

Wealthy towns bear the burden of collecting every dollar they spend on education plus some. As long as every student is getting an education as defined by the minimum standards set by the state why should it matter that some of these rich towns chose to spend even more?

[George Cross]

So Greg, your argument is that escalating school costs really don't matter if driven by wealthy school districts; however, if the costs were, which they are not, driven by "income sensitized" voters it is a major problem. Stated otherwise, it is okay if the haves keep as long as the have nots don't get! Interesting argument!!

[Curtis Hier]

George, you're operating on the premise that rich towns are spending more. They are. They were before Act 60. And they've mostly decided not to cut the programs they were already offering before Act 60. But who is seeing the largest percentage increases lately? If it's rich towns, then clearly Act 60 is not working to equalize educational opportunities.

[Greg Decker]

George: Your response does little to address the question I raised. From an economic justice perspective could you please tell us why its unjust for the 'haves' to spend their own money.

[Curtis Hier]

No response on who's seeing the largest percentage increases. That's because the poor towns are growing their budgets at a faster pace than the rich towns, and they have been since Act 60 came along. Slowly the gap is narrowing. One of the objections to the spending cap proposal was that it would retard this narrowing of the gap. So a compromise was reached whereby two votes would be taken in higher-than-average spending towns with large increases.

My concern is that towns trying to narrow the gap are spending unwisely. Whether there's income sensitivity or not, voters are not good at juding the QUALITY of the spending. That's why I have wanted to benchmark spending categories.