Property Tax Reform-article-Oct 3, 2006

====Source: ====
==Area legislative candidates discuss property tax reform==
Area candidates for the state House and Senate were asked to respond to three questions posed by the Centre Daily Times.
Today we feature the first question and their answers. Look for the other questions and answers in our Tuesday and Wednesday editions. Each candidate was allowed 250 words.
Today's question:
=Does the property tax legislation signed into law this summer qualify as real property tax reform? Why or why not? What's the next step for the General Assembly to strive for education finance equity?=
==77th House District==
===Scott Conklin, Democrat===
A: This year's tax reform package is only a small step toward real property tax reform. Owning a home should be a reward, not a punishment. We should be taxed on our ability to pay, not because we've fulfilled a dream of owning a home. We also must give the taxpayer a menu of different options so we can move away from property taxes.
===Barbara Spencer, Republican===
A: While I do believe that the state must do more to make education more fair and equitable to both taxpayers and local schools in terms of funding, I think the efforts of the state House this year on property tax reductions for seniors will help significantly.
I still believe that we must find a way to reduce these taxes overall, and the state must share more of the cost of our local schools. I believe the first step is to make education our state's top funding priority once again.
Over the past three years, we have allowed state welfare programs to take much-needed funding away from efforts to increase state support for local classrooms. In fact, we have spent nearly $3 billion to expand the state's welfare system while only increasing the basic education subsidy by a fraction of that funding. I believe that government officials should be working to offer a quality education and a chance to succeed, not a welfare check.
I believe that we must make the education of our children our state's top priority and give the state support our schools need to deliver that education.
==76th House District==
===Mike Hanna, Democrat, incumbent
A: Yes, but only as a first step. The legislation will bring meaningful school property tax relief to a significant number of senior citizens, even without any further action. Other property owners will only see significant relief if voters approve a local referendum to replace school property taxes with either a personal or earned income tax.
Otherwise, most property owners will have to wait for gaming taxes to kick in before they receive significant relief. To qualify as "real property tax relief," we need to adopt local school income taxes, and we need to take additional state legislative action to extend the option of a state or local income or sales tax to replace county and municipal property taxes. Finally, the next step for education finance equity is for the legislature to adopt changes to the funding formula to ensure poorer districts receive adequate state funding.
==171st House District==
===Kerry Benninghoff, Republican, incumbent===
A: No, primarily because House Bill 39 does little to reform education funding. A true reform bill would base education financing on the actual costs of educating a student.
Education revenue must move away from property taxes as the primary source to a more fair and predictable source, such as a combination of income and sales taxes. House Bill 39 relies too heavily on gambling money yet to be earned and a future that is unpredictable.
House Bill 39, in my opinion, was an election-time Band-Aid that only provides a handful of Pennsylvania's millions of homeowners with any acute property tax relief. The provisions slipped by the Senate that provided qualified homeowners in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Scranton with an additional 50 percent reduction at the expense of the majority of Pennsylvania's homeowners were unfair and flat-out wrong. With school property taxes increasing 5.1 percent on average every year, House Bill 39 guarantees that most homeowners will continue to be battling skyrocketing property taxes.
==34th Senate District==
===Jake Corman, Republican, incumbent
A: The General Assembly passed, without my support, and the governor takes credit for, Special Session House Bill 39.
This plan does not provide the property tax relief that our citizens have requested.
In brief, this plan will significantly raise local earned income taxes while creating a two-tiered system of property tax relief that directs millions of dollars in additional relief to seniors in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Scranton. While I am certainly supportive of helping our neediest citizens, I do not support the directing of extra relief to seniors in those locales, especially when those communities will not be raising their local earned income tax.
It is entirely inappropriate to have those city residents be eligible for more than $1,000 in relief without paying more in local earned income taxes, when residents in Centre, Mifflin, Juniata, Perry and Union counties would pay more in earned income tax and only receive an average of $265 in property tax relief.
To make matters worse, by the time gaming funds are realized, lottery funds are repaid, earned income taxes are increased and property taxes are increased in future budgets, any savings under this plan would be lost in five years. This is clearly not a permanent or equitable solution.
Property tax reform will continue to be a top priority. Our mandate is clear: A meaningful solution must be achieved to actually reduce and control property taxes in a fair and uniform manner. No longer can we rely solely on local shifting, when a statewide answer is required.
===Jon Eich, Democrat===
A: The best aspect of the property tax reform adopted this year was the tax relief provided to senior citizens with an income less than $35,000 (counting only 50 percent of Social Security). That will benefit one of every three people older than 65.
The rest of us don't fare as well. Here in Centre County, for every $100 million in slots revenue, we will get property tax breaks ranging from $19 (State College Area School District) to $33 (Bellefonte).
We get the opportunity to vote on whether we want to shift some property tax to the local income tax. That tax shift could reduce property taxes by $179 (Philipsburg-Osceola) to $582 (State College). But this is all local money, not funding from the state. It comes from Centre County taxpayers on a district-by-district basis.
Property tax reform remains unfinished business for the legislature. Pennsylvania ranks 46th in the nation in the share of funding that comes from the state (36 percent on a statewide basis). That is unacceptable.
We need to restore the 50-50 partnership between the state and school boards that once was state law:
* The state needs to increase its share of funding to 50 percent on a statewide basis;
* Property taxes need to be reduced by 50 percent; and
* There can be no more unfunded mandates from the state -- it must provide the funds to pay for new requirements placed on school boards.
===Tom Martin, Libertarian===
A: After 30 years of empty promises by career politicians, they have delivered an empty property tax reform bill. There is a temporary reduction for some homeowners, but that would evaporate in a few years at the most.
What needs to be done immediately is put a lock on property tax hikes, which can only be lifted by voter referendum any time the hike will exceed the inflation rate.
Taxpayers older than 65 have been paying long enough that they should have their primary residence eliminated from the property tax roles. Better yet, eliminate property taxes entirely, replacing them with a retail sales tax.
Taxes gathered from gambling are more moral than property taxes. Taxes collected from gambling are voluntary, where property taxes are involuntary -- paid under the threat of evicting or jailing noncompliant property "owners." Gambling licenses can be sold individually by machine. Let as many machines/licenses be sold as the market will bear. If a casino wants to buy several thousand licenses or Joe's bar wants only three slot machines, so be it.
Insufficient education finance is a myth -- unless the money is required to fund a government-protected monopoly. Then no amount of money will be enough. Vouchers. Let the money follow the student and dump the stifling regulations. Making schools "more accountable" to state politicians makes your own schools less accountable to you.
===Bob Cash, Vote for Cash party===
A: No, I do not consider Act 1 to be real property tax reform. While it gives the illusion of public participation, it does not provide realistic time-frames for the establishment and work of the local tax study commissions or adequate means for full public participation during the study phase. Additionally, the tax study commission's recommendations are non-binding on the district. Ultimately, Act 1 is simply too convoluted and confusing and provides too many loopholes for districts to avoid real tax relief. Finally, Act 1 is built around the governor's effort to force public schools to become reliant upon gambling proceeds -- an approach to government finance that I completely oppose.
The next step on public education should not be education finance equity, but meaningful public education reform, including spending control. Currently, Pennsylvania ranks near the top for average teacher salaries, while it ranks at the other end of the spectrum on student performance. Clearly, more money is not the solution.
==Links==
* Property Tax Reform