BCT Editorial – 2/1/08

This page was last updated on February 9, 2008.

Think big; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 1, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Property taxes are not the problem in Pennsylvania.

“An antiquated tax system is.

“The state House this week has been the source of great sound and fury in its effort to reduce or eliminate local school district property taxes by increasing statewide sales and/or income taxes.

“In the course of this debate, House Minority Whip David Argall, R-Schuylkill, put his finger on the core issue in regard to using property taxes as the main local revenue source for funding public education.

“‘What I frequently hear is that maybe the school district property tax made sense when people came up with it in the 1830s. … Certainly today there has to be a way to come up with a fairer way to fund our public schools than the way we do today,’ he said.

“He didn’t think big enough.”

[RWC] “Think big” certainly is an appropriate title for an editorial advocating more big government.

“The commonwealth’s property tax system to fund public schools isn’t rooted in the 19th century; the entire tax system, from the local to the state level, is. From onerously high business taxes to much-hated property taxes, from a labyrinth of taxes to a myriad of tax collectors, the current system is not adequate in meeting the revenue needs of the 21st century global economy.”

[RWC] Let me repeat the end of that last sentence. “The current system is not adequate in meeting the revenue needs of the 21st century global economy.” Translation: Pennsylvania needs to increase tax revenue.

Regarding the “onerously high business taxes” comment, what about the editorials (“What gives?” is one example.) telling us our overall business tax climate is OK?

“It’s not just school district property taxes. Pennsylvania’s 67 counties would like to see the tax system changed so that they don’t have to rely exclusively on property taxes to fund their operations. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania has made it one of its top legislative priorities in 2008.

“Pennsylvania needs tax modernization. Instead of trying to patch a system that is failing, state lawmakers and Gov. Ed Rendell should be looking for ways to bring Pennsylvania’s tax system into the 21st century.

“If they don’t, all that is said and done in Harrisburg regarding school district property taxes will still signify nothing.”

[RWC] If you didn’t figure it out reading the above, review editorials for the past several years and you’ll find “tax modernization” is a Times euphemism for “tax shifting,” preferably from local to state. This is a recurring push for proponents of big/central government. You see, it’s even easier to tax and spend taxpayer earnings in Harrisburg (and Washington) than it is locally. Face it; local taxpayers tend not to build things like bridges to nowhere and Woodstock museums with their own money.

Along with a local to state/fed tax shift goes control over how taxpayer earnings are spent. As the saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” What should be local responsibilities become controlled by Harrisburg and/or Washington. I believe local responsibilities should stay local and the residents of each municipality and school district should be able to choose the tax mix and rates that make the most sense for their demographics. Local responsibility and choice would be true modernization. If you think this is what the Times means by “tax modernization,” I believe you have another think coming.