Is our current public education system sustainable?
We've had a lively debate here on the In Box over teacher compensation. What about the broader question:
Is the current public education model sustainable, given declining support from Albany? Can property taxpayers contribute more?
If not, what should go? Fewer teachers? Fewer programs for special-needs kids? Willsboro is cutting its music program -- is that a good idea?
How about consolidation? The North Country's "micro" districts -- places like Newcomb, Westport and Keene Valley -- offer great, intimate education value to their kids.
But can they survive in the new New York economic climate?
Check out my conversation this morning with Richard Iannuzzi, head of the teachers' union NYSUT, then share your thoughts below.
posted by Brian Mann @ 5/19/2009 06:42:00 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Educational programs ought to be entirely funded by the state and federal governments, since they're the ones imposing the mandates for such programs. Maybe they'll think more carefully about what they impose if they have to fund it completely. There will always be this unfortunate tension between teachers and other taxpayers as long as the inherently unfair and regressive property tax system is used to fund education, especially in places like the Adirondacks where much of the land is off the tax rolls.
It is true, property tax is regressive. However, it is one of the cheapest taxes to collect. Roughly 90 cents on a dollar goes to the intended source. Compare that with sales tax or income tax where; A) cheating runs rampent and B) Administrative and collection costs chew up 50 cents on a dollar. I think property tax could be tweaked to work. Get rid on income tax and sales tax.
That was an interesting interview. I didn't keep a tally, but the phrase "ability to pay" was uttered several time.
If you're going to use income as a factor to moderate property taxes, than do away with them entirely to fund the school systems. Use income and sales taxes to replace the funding. The more you make and the more you buy, the more you contribute.
People's property is not always a direct indicator of their income. Just because someone may own a large amount of property (maybe valuable property), it is not necessarily an indication of their ability to pay.
If you take a look at river front property in the Town of Hammond, you'll find that some of the property was bought long ago, passed down through families or was part of a previously operating farm. The current level of taxation is absurd and one could make the case that it's intent is to drive the long time local owners out.
One of the common responses heard during assessment review is, "Would you sell it for that assessed figure?" Most of us have more invested in our properties than just some monetary amount. Increase my income and sales taxes. At least they are less arbitrary than some figure that an assessor pulls from the air or someplace else.
Of course, the issue of property taxes extends beyond our school systems, but it how we fund our towns as well. Consider the question, "Do you use the town services twice as much as someone who owns property that is assessed for half of what your property is?"
As Brian said (again!) it's not a question of should property taxpayers pay more or what should go? It's a question of what we value and how we fund it.
Post a Comment
<< Home