Posted on 11/12/2002 10:07:07 AM PST by hsmomx3
It is a safe bet that you do not know how much you pay in school taxes. And if you do not know, you do not have an objective way of determining if you are getting your money's worth. This article attempts to provide an answer.
If you are a homeowner and not a renter, the starting point is your property tax bill, which lists how much of your property taxes goes towards education. Of course, the bill will not tell you how much you pay in other taxes to public schools, a number that is virtually impossible to determine.
Incidentally, the hidden nature of the other school taxes is one of the reasons that teacher unions and the education establishment want schools funded out of general revenue instead of property taxes.
Although it is an incomplete picture, let's focus on property taxes for a moment, using my property taxes as a starting point.
Sixty-four percent of my property taxes, or $1,853, goes to schools, excluding the additional $358 that goes to community colleges. That is a 35 percent increase over the last five years, or three times the inflation rate for the period.
When I lived in New Jersey for 10 years, the property taxes were over twice as much as the taxes on my current home in Scottsdale Arizona, due to the Garden State spending $10,000 per student, versus Arizona's $7,000.
Let's assume that an Arizona homeowner with a house worth half as much as mine pays half the school property taxes, or $926. And for ease of calculation, let's also assume that the amount stays constant in inflation-adjusted dollars over the homeowner's adult lifetime, which we will say for discussion purposes is 60 years.
With those assumptions, the homeowner will pay approximately $55,560 in education-related property taxes over his adult life (60 years times $926). I will pay twice as much, or $111,120, excluding the much higher amount that I paid while living in New Jersey.
Now let's assume that Arizona's per-pupil spending of about $7,000 also stays constant in inflation-adjusted dollars. That means that the 12-year cost of a public k-12 education is $84,000.
Thus, the person paying $926 a year in education-related taxes is getting a good deal, putting aside the issue of educational quality. If he sends one kid to public school for 12 years, he gets $84,000 worth of education at a cost in lifetime property-related taxes of $55,560. The deal is even better if he has three kids. In that case, he gets $252,000 worth of education at a cost of $55,560.
Of course, it is not a good deal if he has no kids or if he sends his kids to private school, in which case he gets $0 worth of education at a cost of $55,560. Since my kid attends parochial school, I get an even worse deal. I will pay $111,120 to public schools and another $50,000 or so in private tuition, for a total of $161,120 to provide my son with a k-12 education.
Another way to look at my cost and the cost of all parents who send their kids to religious schools is that we are paying twice for the same education in order to exercise our religious freedom. That angle is never covered in the mainstream media on the voucher debate and the related issue of the separation of church and state.
Are you getting your money's worth from public education? The answer is "yes" if you send at least one kid to public school, especially if you live in a lower-priced house. The answer is "definitely yes" if you send more than one kid to public school. The answer is "no" if you do not have children. And the answer is "definitely no" if your kid attends private school.
According to Genesis 1:28, the Lord told Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply." He should said, "To get a good deal at your neighbor's expense, be fruitful, multiply and send your kids to public schools."
_____________
Mr. Cantoni is an author, public speaker and consultant. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
I figured that high school teachers taught 4 periods per day (max allowed) out of 7, I know they took most of their alloted 10 days sick leave, and had extra help provided to grade homework and tests. I came up with $115/hour more or less.
The worst part was the more money they made the less work they did.
For example, in the state we used to live in they are fast marching toward "certificates of mastery" for anyone to graduate from HS. It's the first step to requiring one to have one before going to college or getting a job.
That little camel's nose under the tent leads to keeping private/home schooled kids out of the marketplace. Socialists must be defeated at every turn because part of their plan is to relegate conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) into a socio-economic ghetto.
Thanks NEA.
The average salary in Delco -- which includes some fairly poor districts is getting very close to $70,000 for 190 days.
I figured that high school teachers taught 4 periods per day (max allowed) out of 7, I know they took most of their alloted 10 days sick leave, and had extra help provided to grade homework and tests. I came up with $115/hour more or less.
I belive that estimate. I like to emphasize that rate applies to everybody in the bargaining unit -- not just computer science teachers or those with hard science backgrounds who could be getting close to six figures in the private sector as engineers or research scientist. And even more damningly the rate applies regardless of competence.
The worst part was the more money they made the less work they did.
Absolutely true! One of the crusades I've been on is trying to over turn Act 195 of 1970 which gave teachers in this state the right to strike. It's been modified but the salary still goes up 4-plus percent apart from the automatic step increases. And you can't fire those who don't feel like working.
A blanket school choice policy would also work.
I also don't remember 190 days, I thought it was 182.
The teachers were mostly older (in HS) and the social studies dept. was hired in the 50's. My uncle told me they used to hang out in a local bar and play cards on Fri nite. They sipped their nickel beers waiting for a real worker to buy a round for the house.
The bar owner couldn't throw them out like he was urged because it was against the law. I'm surprised their cars started when they left.
They were mostly persona non grata everywhere they went and you better believe they knew it. A good friend of mine was the son of one of the SS teachers, and when his father went to a party the men didn't really talk to him, he ended up talking with the women, who didn't like it, but what are you gonna do? He was a lousy teacher, taught out of Time and Newsweek.
I was very fortunate, I had some excellent teachers, and our area was 3-1 Republican. One woman was a former wildcatter from Oklahoma.
It was probably Act 195 and of course the teachers that killed the plan to send seniors to the local college to combine senior year and freshman year into one. Baltimore Polytechnic used to graduate kids in the A program that went to college as sophomores.
One friend of mine got pis**d off at his math teacher in college and just tested out of the course. We need more of this.
Is Haverford any better than it was in the '70's? I dated an Italian-Irish girl from there in college. Her family moved from South Philly to get away from the crime. I spent the nite in her brother's room one nite. It was available because he was in custody.
Wow, that is so cynical, and yet... so true. I'm reeling. That's a good point!
That's the law that prevents school board's from firing striking teachers. It was reformed by Act 88 in 1991 (?) but it's still the source of the problem.
I also don't remember 190 days, I thought it was 182.
One of the few concessions the board's had been able to squeeze from the teachers is a slight increase in the work year. The length varies district by district. Students in Pa. are required to have 180 days of school.
Is Haverford any better than it was in the '70's?
No. It's probably much wose.
I sure could use the money that I have paid in, however.
You make a good point. However, unless you are Superman and fly to your Fortress of Solitude every day, you have to live somewhere. And if you rent that very same house instead of "owning" it, the owner is going to roll all of the mortgage + tax + maintenance + 10% into your rental payment. And he/she will then take the mortgage interest deduction on top of that.
I've rented and "owned". "Owning" has been better for me.
Because it is titled, you don't really own all of it. With a title the state is part owner; so they can tax it and put leins on it if they so desire.
Check out how the process of titling property got started. Ostensbibly for preventing fraud etc. More likely the real motive was to erect a system to tax property, with the the protection of the property owners only a byproduct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.