Articles

It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric. A whopping $1 billion in property tax relief! When (if) the state legislature and Governor Rendell allow slot machines in Pennsylvania, tax relief will be ours! Eyes are focused on gambling's potential size, location, ownership - and revenue. But how the money actually would be apportioned among school districts and taxpayers is getting lost in the shuffle. It shouldn't be.

While nothing is certain, it appears the major concepts for distributing gambling revenue for local property tax relief have been accepted by most parties involved in the negotiations. The distribution formula includes five primary factors: two measures of wealth (one driven by personal income, the other primarily by market value of property); two measures of tax effort (one based on personal income, the other on market value); and the size of a district's student population.

Each district would be subject to minimum and maximum limits on gambling revenue it can receive as a percent of property tax relief, tax increase referenda, and state constitutional limits on the amount of assessed property value exempt from taxation. To qualify for state gambling revenue for property tax relief, each district would be required to enact a small income tax increase. And in Philadelphia (a special case, as usual), gambling proceeds would be used to reduce the wage tax, not the property tax.

Sound complicated? It is, and that's just the thumbnail version. (Visit www.IssuesPA.net to delve deeper into the complexities.)

Any major change to Pennsylvania's tax system is inherently complicated. But the biggest reasons for concern are the built-in assumptions and consequences - intended and otherwise. Those should get your attention.

If you want to increase the state's share and reduce the local share of education funding, the proposals do that. If you want every homeowner and farmstead owner to get a property tax break, the proposals give you that, too. But if you want your school district to be able to depend on its major funding sources, and if you personally want to be able to depend on property tax relief into the foreseeable future, you may have a problem.

For all its faults, the property tax is relatively stable and predictable. The income tax is less predictable but related to the ability to pay. Very few make any of those claims for gambling receipts. Here's what's not known - the effects of increased gambling competition in other states, the stability of gambling behavior, and the impact of possible slot machine revenue ups and downs on school district and personal financial planning. It's also not known whether the state would kick in additional revenue from the General Revenue Fund to make up any future shortfalls in gambling receipts.

If you think schools need more money, you'll be unhappy. These proposals simply trade sources - not amounts - of money for education. The total remains the same.

If you believe funding for education is inequitable in Pennsylvania - that is, if you perceive that there's too much of a gap between what Pennsylvania's individual school districts spend on education - you need to know the proposed distribution formula won't solve the problem. In fact, the spending gap may actually get worse.

If you want the public to have a more direct say in future local tax increases for education, you'll be happy, sad, or both. There are several provisions for public referenda for tax increases above and beyond the average increase in wages, but there also are exceptions to the rules. The net result is a strange mixture of loss of financial accountability and control for school directors, as well as uncertainty about whether a school district would be financially prepared to handle unforeseen circumstances.

If you're a retired homeowner, congratulations. You're a winner. If you're a working renter, condolences. You'll likely face higher earned income taxes with no offsetting property tax relief. (Both of these assume you don't live in Philadelphia - there's that wage tax thing again).

If you live in a high income school district with high taxes, you'll do the best - relatively - in the currently proposed property tax relief sweepstakes. If you live in a low wealth school district with high tax effort, you'll do second best. And if you're in the great middle, you - proportionately - will do less well. Why? Because of the minimum distribution requirement.

It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric: Property tax relief for everyone! However, it's just as easy to get stuck with "tax reform" that really isn't. There's still time to deal with issues of risk, benefits, and fairness before state policymakers place this big bet for Pennsylvanians. Later may be too late, because it's a bet we - and our children - can't afford to lose.