6 ms·

>this was 50 years ago when such schools were widely funded by local sources This is really the only significant part of the equation. The system is basically

>this was 50 years ago when such schools were widely funded by local sources This is really the only significant part of the equation. The system is basically designed to fail. You pass a tax levy for X mills, which brings in X amount of money for the school system, and never a dollar more. Property values go up, but property taxes do not. The budget therefore shrinks every year due to inflation, and every 10-15 years the situation gets so dire that the district has to put a ballot issue up for a tax "increase" to get funding back up to the levels of 10-15 years ago. In most areas of the Midwest, this poor voter understanding of how schools are funded has resulted in a steady decline in school expenditures, even as actual costs of education have outpaced inflation.

tokenadult 16y ago
Use Minnesota, which has a very different system of school funding, as a reality check on whatever you say about public policy and how it influences schools. http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.html http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.htm...
jbooth 16y ago
++ In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation. You know what the most common complaint I heard was when these issues went to ballot? "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage." What's the phrase about it being impossible to make people understand something that they don't want to?
- anamax 16y ago
  > In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation. Doesn't MA reassess on transfer? CA does, so property tax revenues grow faster than the cap. Note that CA also does "catchup" - the bill goes up by the cap whenever the difference between the assessed and real value is greater than the cap, no matter what's happened to the real value. That's why property tax bill is going up this by the cap year even though the value of my house took a 30% hit last year. It's the same for anyone who has owned for more than 5 years. Note that housing inflation has been more than other inflation, so trailing housing inflation doesn't imply that the local govt is losing ground. > "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage." Since that's how govts actually behave.... Look at what they do and don't threaten to cut and ask yourself if those are rational priorities. Or, do those two lists tell you that they're using the "cut" list to keep funding for the "don't cut" list. Note - you have to look at both lists, not just the "cut" list. And you have to look at the amounts for the various items.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Are you kidding me? There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services. And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!" Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? RE: the percentages, the deal is that the total local property tax take goes up by 2.5% a year. If your property increases in assessed value, you might see personal increase of more than that but someone else saw an increase of less to make up for it.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > > There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services. 0 money? Really? I'll bet that it was really just not enough to pay for what the pols wanted to do. If the latter, they could fund some services. That's why I said to look at what they protected and what they said that they'd cut if they didn't get more money. If you do that, you'll discover that they're protecting some things that should have a lower priority than things that they put on the "cut" list. > And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!" Since they're saying that they don't have enough money for police and fire protection but do for lesser things, why is it wrong to characterize that as "holding our services hostage"? What is an acceptable way to criticise that behavior? Or, are you claiming that they should always get enough money for whatever they want? > Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact. Yup, it's a fact. If you have $100 and what you want costs $200, you need to scale back your wants. The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities. > Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Huh? The fact that some govt wants to do something does not obligate me to pay for it.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        I was one of the pols. I agonized over the budgets. What we "wanted to do" was continue to pay our teachers. There wasn't enough money for that. It was simple arithmetic, a choice between letting teachers go or raising taxes. What many people did for selfish reasons, and you're doing for ideological purity reasons, is attempt to change the debate to some abstract notion of "government spending my money". Hey buddy, it's your kids in the schools, and you even get to vote on the tax increase. Just don't call me a jerk or a liar -- I'm giving it to you straight. Quote anamax : The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities. Which lower priorities was I wasting money on here, exactly? You're the expert. And I'm sure there weren't any state or federal mandates involved, legal obligations or anything like that. "jerk" behavior is refusing to educate yourself on things and hand-waving away instead so you can keep your nice simple universe. Mental shortcuts will always lead to uninformed opinions.
stonemetal 16y ago
Property tax is a percent of property value or at least it is every where I have ever lived. Last I checked housing was ahead of inflation pretty uniformly until recently.

tokenadult 16y ago

Use Minnesota, which has a very different system of school funding, as a reality check on whatever you say about public policy and how it influences schools. http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.html http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.htm...

jbooth 16y ago

++ In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation. You know what the most common complaint I heard was when these issues went to ballot? "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage." What's the phrase about it being impossible to make people understand something that they don't want to?

anamax 16y ago
> In Massachusetts, there's a cap of 2.5% for property tax increases without a ballot measure. This means that almost every year, local budgets are shrinking relative to inflation. Doesn't MA reassess on transfer? CA does, so property tax revenues grow faster than the cap. Note that CA also does "catchup" - the bill goes up by the cap whenever the difference between the assessed and real value is greater than the cap, no matter what's happened to the real value. That's why property tax bill is going up this by the cap year even though the value of my house took a 30% hit last year. It's the same for anyone who has owned for more than 5 years. Note that housing inflation has been more than other inflation, so trailing housing inflation doesn't imply that the local govt is losing ground. > "Screw those councilmen, they want to raise our taxes so they're holding these services hostage." Since that's how govts actually behave.... Look at what they do and don't threaten to cut and ask yourself if those are rational priorities. Or, do those two lists tell you that they're using the "cut" list to keep funding for the "don't cut" list. Note - you have to look at both lists, not just the "cut" list. And you have to look at the amounts for the various items.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Are you kidding me? There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services. And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!" Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? RE: the percentages, the deal is that the total local property tax take goes up by 2.5% a year. If your property increases in assessed value, you might see personal increase of more than that but someone else saw an increase of less to make up for it.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > > There was no money. It was a choice between raising taxes or cutting services. 0 money? Really? I'll bet that it was really just not enough to pay for what the pols wanted to do. If the latter, they could fund some services. That's why I said to look at what they protected and what they said that they'd cut if they didn't get more money. If you do that, you'll discover that they're protecting some things that should have a lower priority than things that they put on the "cut" list. > And people like you respond to that with "You're such jerks for holding our services hostage!" Since they're saying that they don't have enough money for police and fire protection but do for lesser things, why is it wrong to characterize that as "holding our services hostage"? What is an acceptable way to criticise that behavior? Or, are you claiming that they should always get enough money for whatever they want? > Arithmetic is not a jerk. It's just a fact. Yup, it's a fact. If you have $100 and what you want costs $200, you need to scale back your wants. The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities. > Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Huh? The fact that some govt wants to do something does not obligate me to pay for it.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      I was one of the pols. I agonized over the budgets. What we "wanted to do" was continue to pay our teachers. There wasn't enough money for that. It was simple arithmetic, a choice between letting teachers go or raising taxes. What many people did for selfish reasons, and you're doing for ideological purity reasons, is attempt to change the debate to some abstract notion of "government spending my money". Hey buddy, it's your kids in the schools, and you even get to vote on the tax increase. Just don't call me a jerk or a liar -- I'm giving it to you straight. Quote anamax : The "jerk" behavior is to spend the $100 on lower priorities and whine that you don't have enough money to pay for higher priorities. Which lower priorities was I wasting money on here, exactly? You're the expert. And I'm sure there weren't any state or federal mandates involved, legal obligations or anything like that. "jerk" behavior is refusing to educate yourself on things and hand-waving away instead so you can keep your nice simple universe. Mental shortcuts will always lead to uninformed opinions.

stonemetal 16y ago

Property tax is a percent of property value or at least it is every where I have ever lived. Last I checked housing was ahead of inflation pretty uniformly until recently.