ShareThis Page
Tax ‘relief’ |

Tax ‘relief’

| Monday, February 5, 2007 12:00 a.m

Act 1 of 2006 is a lie.

Pennsylvanians are expected to receive slots revenues applied against property taxes. What they will not receive, however, is effective control over school spending. That’s the key to true property tax reform.

The governor, Legislature and the public education kleptocracy want you to believe the public’s getting a break. It isn’t.

Much of any drop in school property taxes would be from shifting the burden from property to the earned income tax. But the districts could go further, adding to the tax base interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and even gambling winnings.

There will be voter referendums in May on tax shifting, except for Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Scranton. But whatever the voters do, expect that, in the long term, the tax bite will increase in excess of population and economic growth.

Grant Gulibon, author of a report posted on the Commonwealth Foundation’s Web site, exposes the sham:

Act 1 provides for voter referendums on school district property tax increases — but only if they exceed an index that ranges from 3.4 percent to 5.5 percent. In addition, there are 10 spending exemptions that are not included under the tax increase index.

Mr. Gulibon summarizes:

“… (T)he legislation is riddled with exemptions for school districts to circumvent taxpayer approval and continue raising taxes.”

In the long term, Act 1 will be no relief at all.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.