The proposed budget compromise between Pennsylvania ’s liberal Democratic Governor
Tom Wolfe and the majority Republican General Assembly would increase taxes
significantly. Although the proposal
avoids the Governor’s income tax increase and an extra tax on natural gas
extraction, it includes an increase in the sales tax that will not entirely
offset school district real estate taxes.
The sales
tax paid by every resident and business, as well as visitor, who purchases
anything in Pennsylvania would increase from 6% to 7.25%, and even more in
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, under the proposed budget, to offset school real
estate taxes, but the gambling money that currently provides relatively modest
real estate tax relief for Pennsylvania landowners would be diverted to the
general fund for Wolfe’s spending spree, resulting in an overall increase of
over $600 million in taxes, which means a net average increase of nearly $200
per homeowner. Businesses would lose
revenue to neighboring states, as Pennsylvania ’s
sales tax would be higher than theirs. In fact, the Keystone State ’s
sales tax would be the second highest in the American Union. And there would still be no required
referenda to allow school district boards of directors to raise real estate
taxes above inflation and enrollment growth levels.
I know from experience as a School
Director that there is much room for improvement in how Districts spend
taxpayer money and collect revenue. I
also know that although Wolfe proposes to increase spending for schools
dramatically, even though they are already at their highest levels, that there
is no correspondence between spending and results in terms of learning, as
measured by standard tests and other measures.
In fact, test scores have decreased, despite a dramatic increase of
state spending on education over the last four decades.
The fiscal
year ended June 30 without a budget because Wolfe vetoed a balanced budget
approved by the state legislature that did not raise taxes. He even vetoed a stop-gap measure.
The
proposed budget includes some significant pension reform for the first time, as
new state employees would be required to contribute a small portion of their
income into 401(K) type plans, in addition to defined benefit plans. Even this modest change would save billions
of dollars over decades. The Governor
also proposes to lease to a private entity the management of the state wine and
spirit stores, but the Commonwealth would retain its wholesale and retail
monopoly and will still suffer from a conflict of interest by promoting the
sale of alcohol while regulating its use.
Pennsylvania ’s
complex Prohibition-era restrictions on the sale of alcohol would continue, as
many ordinary Pennsylvanians would continue to cross state lines to purchase
alcohol and risk prosecution for bootlegging for bringing it home. The proposed budget lacks other significant
cost-savings such as eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars of wasteful
spending, such as corporate welfare, or special-interest tax breaks that could
have been used to avoid a tax increase.
Although
there are some positives in the proposed budget, the tax increase is fiscally
irresponsible, as it will have potentially harmful economic affects, especially
during this time of only weak economic growth.
County, municipal and especially school district real estate taxes
penalize property improvements while incentivizing blight, lower real estate
values, reach a point of diminishing return in terms of collections and are
anti-business. They turn every homeowner
into a tenant of the state with the constant threat of having to sell one’s
home in order to pay the taxes. At a
time when Pennsylvanians of both political parties have been demanding
meaningful real estate tax relief, if not the total elimination of school real
estate taxes, through a revenue-neutral tax shift to higher sales or income
taxes, it is shocking that a significant net tax increase would even be
considered seriously.
Pennsylvanians must oppose the
unnecessary proposed net tax increase and insist on better fiscal
responsibility and more controls on how local School
Districts manage taxpayer money.
No comments:
Post a Comment