But the lack of understanding plays into the hands of officials at all levels who want to duck responsibility. Local officials regularly tell voters and taxpayers that property taxes are up because the state didn't send enough money. Legislators, governors and other state officials accuse local governments of spending too much and then criticizing the state for not sending more. Critics complain that traditional goals of equalizing tax burdens and giving school pupils in rich and poor communities similar educational opportunities have vanished with time, politics and failure to meet changing needs. Cities, villages and counties use shared revenues to supplement and to ease pressure on property taxes.
Counties get funds earmarked for specific purposes, but almost always at less than their costs.
The monumental boost in state aid to local schools a few years ago, from less than 50 percent to 66 percent of the costs of operations, is constantly mentioned as a reason why the state can't afford such things as higher pay for university professors without big increases in tuition, more funds for taking care of the elderly in their homes - and modest increases in municipal and county shared revenues. This is the county version of municipal protests against frozen shared revenues. Meanwhile about 100 school districts are suing the state in the Supreme Court to force a new state aid distribution pattern, arguing that the present hybrid favors kids in districts that are rich in property value and discriminates against kids in poor districts. The list could go on but the examples suffice to illustrate the problem. Nobody likes the system yet everybody likes part of it.