Starrfall on 27/1/2011 at 22:49
So in our city an emergency parcel tax is going to the voters with the intent of raising about $3 million to almost eliminate the school district's budget deficit, saving about 47 jobs, 42 of which are teachers.
Quote:
The proposed tax would run for two years, charging $200 per year for owners of single-family homes, with apartment dwellers charged $20 per year. A senior citizen exemption would be available for homeowners over 65 who apply.
Now, maybe that's waaay too easy, so also note that we already have ongoing voter-approved school-funding parcel taxes that total $320 per single-family home. So we're looking at $520 total. This supplements money recieved from the state, and the state has been sending fewer education dollars to the school districts lately.
Consideration 1: The public schools here are good. Much better than average for California. Much better than where I spent most of my k-12 years. I'm pretty comfortable with them, which is worth quite a lot.
Consideration 2: We're planning to stay long term, and our 2.2 children will, barring unexpected events, be born here and live here until they're at least 18. We want the schools to STAY good. It's one of the reasons WHY we live here instead of Sacramento.
I still think this is easy. But then, our household income is also higher than average (we're in the top quintile but not the top 5%, according to wikipedia), and I don't know if I would still find it easy if it wasn't.
But either way, I'd still think it was a good idea. It's a good, local investment. It's fine to bitch about taxes, but there's a difference between federal income tax going to fund who knows what and a local tax going to fund local schools. I'd vote (and will, apparently) for the latter over the former any day.
But as we all know, the economy is shit, and in California a tax measure like this requires a 2/3 vote to pass, not a simple majority. This is a may be a liberal bastion (Exhibit A being the $320/parcel that already applies) but it's probably going to be less certain this time. I have no doubts that this measure would fail elsewhere. And I'm interested in what you all think, given the circumstances. Would anyone vote no for a reason other than "I don't have kids and never plan to"? (which is an understandable reason, to be sure).
CCCToad on 28/1/2011 at 00:03
Can't really answer honestly, since I'm not familiar with your local government.
Its a good idea, and I'd vote for it as long as I had faith that the locals would actually use the money for the stated purpose.
Kolya on 28/1/2011 at 00:26
I plan to have kids, no fractions though. I'd say it's a perfect cause, if you can afford it.
Nicker on 28/1/2011 at 00:49
Whether you have children or not, an educated populace is a good thing for all members of a society.
One day these kids will be designing and engineering the buildings we live and work in, the bridges and roads we drive on, the devices we rely on. They will staff crucial infrastructure, manage critical services - they will perform surgeries on our bodies, operate ever more complex transportation and information networks.
They will care for us in our old age. For none other than selfish reasons, investing in the education of our children is money well spent.
Apart from that, it is and always has been, simply the right thing to do. It's just too bad that such decisions come down to local preference. Education needs to be a national priority.
Queue on 28/1/2011 at 02:29
It depends on whether or not the tax increase would go toward paying higher wages for teachers and staff (in which case, no), if it'd be used to fund the school system with a salary/benefits cap in place (in which case, yes).
Personally, I'd be all for a tax increase if the end justifies the means--by which, it would mean that schools stay open and continue to operate, thus preserving someone's job. But only if it is meant to preserve jobs and the school, not adding to a salary or a benefits package--which can be addressed later when the economy and funding stabilizes.
june gloom on 28/1/2011 at 09:18
Here in the armpit of America, one of the few good school districts, Little Miami, is slowly collapsing because taxpayers kept starving it of the money it needed. I found this frankly fucked up; I live in a district that doesn't produce much of any use (except political controversy, see Bernard Pastor) where I generally vote 'no' on school levies because it just costs me tax money and the kids stay dumb. But Little Miami was going places, and now it's going in the shitter. I think we need to reward the good schools, especially if you plan to send your kids there. So I say yes.
Koki on 28/1/2011 at 10:30
That's like playing an MMO with monthly fee AND microtransactions. But I woulsn't vote no
henke on 28/1/2011 at 11:39
Thank you Koki for putting this issue in a way most of us can relate to.
Dia on 28/1/2011 at 12:05
As much as I think this is a good idea (and I really do), if I was living in your city right now, as a homeowner I'd have to say no. That's on the basis that the economy is crap and I'm willing to bet a lot of people (including myself) can't afford another tax hike, even if it's only going to be for two years. Would that it were otherwise, though.
SD on 28/1/2011 at 13:57
I take it this is a $200 tax on homes, irrespective of household income or property value? On that basis I would have to say no to what is a deeply unprogressive tax.
I do, however, think it completely ridiculous that decisions on funding for essential services come down to a plebiscite in the first instance. It's fair to say that without direct democracy, California wouldn't be in this fucking mess in the first place.
