Insulation

No, this is not about global warming.  It's about taxes.

A letter to the editor in the Rutland Herald says

When Art Woolf writes that Vermont's school-financing system "insulates" most taxpayers from the consequences of their votes on school budgets, as he did in the Sunday Rutland Herald.... I am forced to question his competence as an economist.

Ouch.

And he continues

If my school district has voted to spend twice as much per student as yours did, I will pay twice as high a percentage of my household income in school taxes as you do.

True enough.  But...

...that's not the relevant comparison.  In Springfield, where the writer lives, the median income family earns $43,000, according to the Vermont Tax Department, well below the state average of about $52,000.  That family pays about $1,060 in taxes to support its school. 

Suppose the school board wants to raise spending by 10%.  That family's taxes will go up by about 10%, or $100.  That money, with similar amounts coming from other taxpayers in town, is not enough to fund the entire cost of the budget increase.  They remainder comes from the Montpelier magic money machine, also known as other taxpayers. 

As anyone who has sat through a town meeting where the school  budget is being voted on knows, school board members are quick to point out that most people in town, people who are income sensitized, will see only a very modest increase in their tax bill for any school spending increase.

That's what I call insulation.

The letter writer concludes

If Woolf thinks I am insulated from the consequences of my vote, I wonder what he thinks would be a more direct connection.

How about when a town decides to spend 10% more on its school budget, most of the money comes from taxpayers in the town?