Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: entitlements, etc.

[Ruddick, T.R. (RUDDICK]

Molly raised some interesting points about human responses to public
services...to which I have a general response.

-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:32:37 -0400
From: Molly Williams <mmw [at] waveinter.com>
(edit)
We are non-parents, most of whose property taxes goes to pay for the
local public school system. While I believe that having an educated
populace is a benefit to the whole society, parents or not, it still
irks me to have to pay ever-increasing taxes for other people's kids
to go to school. People who have 4 or 6 or 8 kids expect everyone
else, including non-parents and parents of smaller families, to pay
for their kids' education for 13 years. In fact, I pay a
disproportionate share of school taxes, since I have no kids and can
afford a large house on a lot of land. Most of the people with kids
in the town have smaller houses/acreage and pay less than we do in
property taxes. Even though we derive an indirect benefit from
having educated kids, it still seems unfair that we foot more of the
bill than the people who derive the direct benefit (the parents).
Yet, we are happy to make charitable contributions far in excess of
our property taxes to educational bodies, when it's our choice to do
so. And when we think the money is well spent, which is another
issue!
(edit)
--------------------------

To take this point-by-point:

1.  Most states went to a system of flat total property taxes back in the
'50s.  What this means, essentially, is that your property taxes for schools
never increase, not even to match inflation or increase in value, unless the
public votes in favor of the increase.  When you say "ever increasing"
taxes, that impression is created by school systems that are forced to go
begging for additional tax levies every five years or less.  No other system
of taxation, to my knowledge, suffers from being chronically out of pace
with inflation.

2.  The concept of progressive taxation itself is unattractive to you?  That
is, would you not agree that prosperous people might pay a bit more than the
impoverished?  I think it's fair to have progressive taxes--in part because
wealthy people cost society much more than poor people do (consider the
difference in expense for prosecuting OJ Simpson vs. some similar felon with
a public defender).  My guess (trying to clarify) is that you wouldn't mind
paying progressive consumption (sales) or income taxes, but that a property
tax is particularly onerous, especially for those on fixed incomes?

3.  Making charitable contributions is a privilege, but it inherently
involves a degree of favoritism and arbitrary selection.  I'd prefer for
public services to be provided consistently to all, and adequate public
funding is the only way to achieve that goal.


One state--Michigan--has recently determined that property taxes are unfair,
and responded by eliminating them as a means of school funding.  Educators
in 49 other states and the district of Columbia are hoping that their
legislatures can experience brief moments of similar clarity.
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l