BCT Editorial – 4/18/07

This page was last updated on April 18, 2007.

Generation gap; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 18, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“When it comes to population growth, Pennsylvania is usually bringing up the rear.

“That’s especially true when it comes to attracting immigrants and keeping the young people who were born here or come here to go to college.

So what did the Legislature and Gov. Ed Rendell do to make Pennsylvania a more attractive place for immigrants, young people and families with children? They decided to give Pennsylvania voters tax-shift option that, if adopted, would make the commonwealth an even more onerous place to live and work for young people and working families.

“In this year’s primary elections, voters will be asked, depending on the school district in which they live, whether they would be willing to pay a higher earned income tax or a personal income tax in return for a reduction in their school district property taxes.

“The earned income tax is levied on salaries, wages and other compensation such as commissions, bonuses and tips, while the personal income tax is levied on everything -the earned income tax plus forms of unearned income, such as interest, dividends, gambling and lottery winnings.

“Significantly, neither levy would tax Social Security or retirement pensions.

“Renters, by the way, would not receive any breaks on the portion of their rent that goes to pay their landlords’ property taxes.

“If the property tax cuts were significant, the tax swap might be worthwhile. However, in many districts the property tax cut doesn’t amount to much.

“For instance, Freedom Area voters are being asked if they want to impose a 1 percent earned income tax. If they do, the average property tax reduction would be $233 a year. That’s less than $20 a month. Hopewell Area voters will vote on the personal income tax. Their average property tax savings would be $413 a year, or around $35 a month.

“Let’s be honest. The main reason that property taxes are an issue is because they often are the only major state taxes that senior citizens pay. Pennsylvania does not tax pensions or Social Security, and the sales tax is a minor consideration because the state does not tax food and clothing. The current local earned income tax exempts Social Security, pensions and investment income.

“Who will benefit most by approving this tax swap? Senior citizens. Who will benefit least? Young people, working families and immigrants, especially if they are renters who are just getting started in life (and Pennsylvania, but not for long.)

“We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. Pennsylvania is never going to get anywhere until its politicians stop worshipping at the shrine of senior citizens living on a fixed income. The May 15 ballot questions are but the latest evidence of that pandering and the harm it is doing.”

[RWC] If you thought this editorial was about complaining about special treatment for so-called “senior citizens,” congratulations, you fell for the subterfuge. If you’ve been keeping track, this is merely another editorial lobbying against tax cuts.

I do have to give the editorial author credit for being clever. If the Times didn’t have a record for opposing tax cuts – except for a business tax here and there, this editorial would be believable because most of what it says is correct. The trouble for the Times is, it has a track record.