Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

jeffk · 09-07-2007, 12:36 AM

So if we DID want to address the property tax issues by changing the tax structure would it be possible to:

Define a level of adequate education (AE) that is reasonable and wouldn’t grossly expand the current educational funding levels (<15% increase??)
Are not children already getting an adequate education in the state? I'm not really sure why more would need to be spent.

Constitutionally (to keep it away from constant meddling)
1. Create a state income tax for the sole purpose of funding an AE.
2. LOCK the rate at (for example) 4%, an amount that would fund the states obligation.
3. State that this level of funding shall constitute coverage of an AE (so that cost can’t be inflated by mucking with the definition of AE in the future) (this clause also gets the courts out of the debate)
4. Require that any excess revenue beyond that required for AE must be refunded to the taxpayer.
5. Eliminate the state property tax
6. Require that local property taxes be reduced by the amount that would now be provided by the state.
7. Cap future local property tax increases to 4% unless overridden by local supermajority votes.
8. Besides providing the funding and the guidelines for an adequate education the control of education shall remain in the hands of the local educational authorities

Would this be possible?
Would this address concerns about out of control educational and general spending and local control?
Has any state ever done something like this?
Would we want a complete shift to an income tax or some type of mix? Perhaps keep the current state property tax ($2 - $3 per $1000) and fund any new spending with an income tax at say 3%? I don’t like a sales tax because it is impossible to refund excess revenue.

09-07-2007, 12:36 AM	#13
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,170 Thanks: 205 Thanked 434 Times in 251 Posts	Food for thought, for very cautious consideration So if we DID want to address the property tax issues by changing the tax structure would it be possible to: Define a level of adequate education (AE) that is reasonable and wouldn’t grossly expand the current educational funding levels (<15% increase??) Are not children already getting an adequate education in the state? I'm not really sure why more would need to be spent. Constitutionally (to keep it away from constant meddling) 1. Create a state income tax for the sole purpose of funding an AE. 2. LOCK the rate at (for example) 4%, an amount that would fund the states obligation. 3. State that this level of funding shall constitute coverage of an AE (so that cost can’t be inflated by mucking with the definition of AE in the future) (this clause also gets the courts out of the debate) 4. Require that any excess revenue beyond that required for AE must be refunded to the taxpayer. 5. Eliminate the state property tax 6. Require that local property taxes be reduced by the amount that would now be provided by the state. 7. Cap future local property tax increases to 4% unless overridden by local supermajority votes. 8. Besides providing the funding and the guidelines for an adequate education the control of education shall remain in the hands of the local educational authorities Would this be possible? Would this address concerns about out of control educational and general spending and local control? Has any state ever done something like this? Would we want a complete shift to an income tax or some type of mix? Perhaps keep the current state property tax ($2 - $3 per $1000) and fund any new spending with an income tax at say 3%? I don’t like a sales tax because it is impossible to refund excess revenue.