I was at a family gathering this summer and the usual topic of complaining about the ineptitude of local government officials and school boards came up. That then led to older participants questioning what their tax dollars were being used for and why they’re even paying school taxes to begin with. It led to an interesting topic of whether people should really just be taxed on what services and benefits they enjoy as opposed to their zip code and home size. There are a few ways to look at it.
A Question of Fairness
For instance, should a couple with no kids pay the same taxes as a couple with 4 kids in the public school system? Or what about parents that send their kids to private school? From the perspective of the people deriving no direct benefit from the local school system, they don’t see the point. It’s viewed as a school system that’s continually sucking more and more money out of the pockets of taxpayers for seemingly useless expenditures like iPads for students and exorbitant benefits.
Selective Memory
What was especially ironic about the cries to eradicate school taxes for people who don’t have kids in the school system was the fact that the guy’s last kid had just graduated highschool – public highschool. How convenient! I mean, of course, financially, wouldn’t it be great if we all got to pay public school taxes up until the day your kid graduates and then you just stop paying?! Timing is everything; it’s all or nothing. It’s kind of like, well, Obamacare where you can forgo having real health insurance and pay a nominal fee until you get real sick or develop a chronic issue, then just sign up. It doesn’t work right that way, human nature is too opportunistic.
It Just HAS To Be This Way
In a society where we want kids to have a future (which, in turn ultimately pay for the same seniors often slamming school taxes), where we expect people to have certain services and society to function the way we expect, we will always need to pay for some things we don’t need. I had to pay PMI on my first home even though I’ve never defaulted. I pay Social Security taxes, disability, Medicare and more even though I will probably see a negative return on my payments for the duration of my employment. I’ve always paid auto insurance even though I’ve never been responsible for an accident. There are always going to be those who give and those who take. But if none of these things existed, we’d live in a much different world – fraught with risk and human suffering where there’s no safety net. Sometimes, we need to pay for things that benefit us, our children, society, or even things that don’t seem to benefit us even tangentially – because someday down the road, you might actually need it.
You might think I’ve turned bleeding heart or something. No, I’m just pragmatic. Just like you can’t “opt out” of insurance, Social Security or other systems we’ve had in place for generations, you can’t opt out of the way we fund public education. There’s an aggregate amount required to fund schools each year and parents alone can’t bear the burden. And non-parents benefit in ways they don’t even contemplate. A vibrant local economy, jobs stemming from the school locale, and a new generation of kids that will pay for their care in old age.
What Are Your Thoughts On School Tax Opt-Out?
Related posts:
You're Not Following Darwin's RSS? Check out Why You Have to Subscribe to Darwin's Finance!If you enjoyed this post, you can get free updates through RSS Feed or via Email whenever a new post is published. Rest assured that you can unsubscribe at any time via the automated system and your information will not be sold, archived or utilized for any other "nefarious" purposes.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Agree 110% here. IMHO education is the great equalizer. No matter what someone’s background is (poor vs rich), a quality education is by far the best way you can give someone the opportunity to excel if they are capable and/or want to. I want people who have talents to have the opportunities to succeed regardless of whether or not they happened to be born into the right family. Personally, I am a product of the public school system. My family definitely couldn’t have afforded private school. However, because I got a decent education through the public k12 and college systems, I now have the privilege to pay back several fold in taxes what my education cost. And I’m glad to do it. My taxes are going to pay for the retirement of those people AND the education of the smart kid who is going to fund my retirement.
[Reply]
Darwin,
I don’t think your heart started bleeding – the points you make are completely legitimate. Historically there has been public funding for schools in America. I know history and tradition are generally bad justifications for continuing to do something so I came up with two other reasons (I’m sure there are other legitimate arguments for and against).
The military. There are many people in the United States who disagree with the wars and peacekeeping missions that the United States participates in worldwide. It’s a slippery slope – should people who disagree with our foreign policy be able to get a discount on their taxes? I mean, their kids aren’t in the military, generally… It’s a dumb argument, but you can see how you get There from Here.
A more legitimate reason comes from my house shopping experience in the Bay Area. I’ve argued recently that rising home prices are bad for many people in the Real Estate market, but not for people who are staying in the houses they have. People who stay in the houses they own (this analysis does not apply to renters) are generally older empty-nesters quite similar to the demographic you describe who are complaining about public school funding. People who intend to stay in their homes or downsize are helped by real estate price increases… or at least the effect is neutral. In the Bay Area, one of the primary drivers of real estate prices is the quality of the local schools… witness the wild price swings even in a single city like San Jose over slight differences in standardized testing scores(API, in this case). So even though they aren’t directly benefiting from school funding, quality schools indirectly raise their property values.
So, you can see where I stand. I think it’s naive for some of this demographic to complain – since they will be the first to complain about the local real estate market if values start skidding. And I would love to quantify the value of high scores on standardized tests for you – maybe I’ll figure out a good way to do that study and toss something together eventually. You’ve got me thinking…
-Paul
[Reply]
How do rising home prices help homeowners who stay in their homes? By “helping” them go into debt more easily?
I own property in Asia – an apartment worth about $150K – taxes are about $100 a year! When I buy in the US in a few years, I hope my property value stays put. I will pay cash and never plan to sell. The only effect a rising home value will have on me will be an excuse for local politicians to pick my pocket even more for their stupid and wasteful spending.
[Reply]
Moreover, I have an aunt who has owned her home outright since the 1960s and let me tell you how her rising property value has “helped” her. More than 50% of her pension and SS go simply to pay the property taxes! The county values her house as through she has the money to keep it up, yet they confiscate that money in taxes and so the house naturally isn’t maintained (she’s alone). In this case, taxes are thievery. She pays more in tax to the county then her paid off home could bring in in rent.
[Reply]
I’ll clarify: in California we have, for better or worse, a law which limits the increase in annual property taxes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29 of course, the question is how much does Prop 13 itself increase property values?)
And your aunt very much does benefit from increased property values. Property values are correlated with increased desirability, decreased crime, and all sorts of other side benefits. There are also various ways for her to tap her equity if the tax payments are too much. Regardless, property tax is unavoidable anyway – whether you rent (it is passed on to you from the landlord), own outright, or pay a mortgage. Think about it from another perspective: what would it cost for her to rent the equivalent house?
[Reply]
DonM Reply:
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
@PKamp3, Prop 13 in CA has transferred the property tax burden from businesses to residential property. It has increased the value of undertaxed commercial real estate which is normally sold by purchase of the corporation owning the property. By contrast, residential property is taxed when it is sold, and since people move, and don’t live forever like a corporation, that occurs frequently, and tax rates for residential property is adjusted up. Knowing that the tax adjustment will come after purchase decreases the value of owner occupied residential property.
[Reply]
I don’t use all the parks and other services that I pay taxes for, but I am not exempt from those taxes. If the only people to pay taxes on a service (schools, parks, police, etc.) were the people who use the service, the costs would be horrendous.
[Reply]
Agatha Kulesza Reply:
October 11th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
@Brandon, I agree with you Brandon on all points. Plus the funding to our schools gets cut so much every single year. Can you imagine how much they’d have to cut if only parents paid taxes towards schools?!? I think we all need to share in supporting the youth of this country to have an education.
[Reply]
Sarah Newman Reply:
November 22nd, 2011 at 10:11 am
@Agatha Kulesza, The youth of this country are progressively growing stupider as each year passes. Why on Earth is it now “socially acceptable” for high school graduates to have little or no grasp on proper spelling and grammar?? And don’t even get me started on the declining cognitive abilities of the younger children.
If our taxes are going to support a system that isn’t even teaching children the utmost basics (how to spell simple words, such as “good”) then I consider that a blatant waste of taxpayer money. I do not have any issue with taxes in general, and would even embrace higher taxes in some areas if that is accompanied by an increase in services for the public good. But if our money is being funneled into a system that isn’t producing results, then I do not see any reason to continue funding it.
So people, either stop having stupid kids, or start teaching them something so that we do not end up in a society entirely reminiscent of “Idiocracy”.
[Reply]
Well, even if I concede to your “pragmatism” (which I’m not sure I would
), it still doesn’t explain why [typically] only *property owners* pay these taxes. If we, as a society, value free education then we, as a society, should *all* share in that financial burden.
It also fails to take into account the private school issue. My brother pays a fortune for his kids to go to private school *and* he has to pay taxes for public education. If we’ve all agreed that education is something we are *all* going to pay for (whether or not we have kids) and then “children” (in general) get the benefit of that, then children in private schools should get that benefit as well, and my brother should receive government assistance for his children’s tuition.
Basically, “public education” and “public *schools*” are two separate issues that people rarely separate. Personally, I am a believer in public education (cost of which paid by *all* taxpayers) but not our dismal public schools. I think that parents should receive government subsidies (you can call them vouchers if it makes you feel better) to pay for their child’s education in *any* appropriately accredited facility.
[Reply]
Steve Reply:
October 3rd, 2011 at 4:31 pm
@Keith B., The argument here is that we all (not just children) benefit for public education. Your brother is benefiting from public educations in ways other than his children getting educated. And we do all pay for that benefit, (including renters as another commenter stated above), even though some pay more than others (which is also true of income and sales taxes – many, but not all taxes in the US and other first-world countries are progressive).
[Reply]
Keith B. Reply:
October 3rd, 2011 at 4:40 pm
@Steve, Yes, but why should his children be discriminated against and not get the benefit just because of the school he’s chosen to put them in?
As to the notion that renters are paying because they pay rent to landlords, that’s a failed argument. If that was true, we’d set up a tax on no one but corporations under the notion that we all pay for that via higher prices for the corporations’ profits.
Finally, having property owners pay taxes and renters not pay taxes is *not* an example of “progressive” taxation. It’s an example of *selective* taxation. The property owner may be far poorer than some renter, yet must pay more. The renter might also be under rent control for the last 20 years while the property owner’s property continues to get reassessed, upping their property taxes. If we all want public education, we should all pay for it.
[Reply]
Super Saver Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
@Keith B.,
It’s not a question of whether renter’s pay tax. School taxes are generally property taxes, whether the owner lives in the school district or not. Residents of the school district are able to attend school whether they pay taxes or not.
A solution is to make school taxes an income tax. That way older people on retirement income would not need to pay school taxes.
KJ Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 9:23 am
@Keith B., I think you miss several important points:
1. Your brother isn’t being discriminated against. Discrimination would be if his children were denied entrance into the public school system. He CHOOSES to place his children in private school. If he wanted to, he could place them in public school free of charge. In the same way, he can CHOOSE to go to the public library, or he can buy all his books in a bookstore. The fact that he prefers Barnes and Noble doesn’t mean the taxpayer should pay for his preference.
2. Which brings me to the role of public schools. Children aren’t guaranteed any education of their choosing. If that were the case, then students who wanted to be pro snow-boarders would be allowed to skip out on a public education and have the taxpayers fund years of training camp. We guarantee children a public education because a) we ideally want as many children as possible to be prepared for self-sufficiency and b) we want our society to have as deep a talent pool as possible to run our businesses, teach in our schools, do research, and lead (among other things). This is why I, who have no children, pay school taxes: because I want my community to have young people who can contribute fully and meaningfully to our society. Like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett or John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods), all of whom went through the public school system. Like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. But again, we offer an option that is available to all. Those who opt out (to attend snowboard training camp with a tutor, to attend prep school, or to attend religiously affiliated schools) are choosing not to take advantage of that option, just as one can choose not to go to a public park, not to ride on public transportation, etc. They can always opt back in.
3. It’s not a warm fuzzy to say that we all benefit, including your brother. It is completely possible that your brother’s doctor, his employer or employees, and his children’s teachers all went through public schools at some point. Could your brother afford to put all these people through school if there was no public education system? Or does he rely on the public education system to educate the people he works for and with and those who work for him?
4. There is also the issue of public control. As a taxpayer, if I don’t like the way public schools are run, I can vote for the school board members and politicians I think will bring needed change. I can argue against or for certain kinds of curricula (as Texas so successfully does). I may not get what I want, but I can exert influence regardless of whether I am a parent or not. Yet I have no say in how your brother’s school teaches or what it teaches. If I feel the money is being wasted and the students are not prepared, what exactly can I do about it? Nothing. And that’s a problem for me, as a taxpayer. There are no levers I can pull to exert influence over private institutions, so that the education provided also benefits society, so why should they get my tax dollars? The only answer–and I suspect your brother would object–would be for all schools accepting taxpayer money to allow the taxpayer greater control over the functioning of the school.
5. Finally, I want to return to the idea that non-parents or parents of children in private school should be exempt. If I, as a taxpayer, choose to bike to work, my tax dollars still go to repair the roads. If I take public transportation, same thing. That’s okay, because my food comes in trucks that use those roads. My family visits me by driving on those roads. And if I get hit by a bus, the ambulance will need those roads to carry me to the emergency room. Not all benefits in society are direct, but that doesn’t mean they are nonexistent.
Sorry so wordy.
DonM Reply:
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:37 am
@Keith B., No, renters do not pay property taxes. If the rental property is vacant, the owner doesn’t get his taxes reduced. The tax must be paid whether or not the renter is present.
No tax comes with a guarantee the payee will receive a specific benefit. That includes Social Security taxes. That is the definition of a tax.
The question is whether the service should be funded by the government or not. If yes, then it is funded by a tax. If no, then there shouldn’t be a tax. Unfortunately, people want too many things to be funded by the governement
[Reply]
Several years ago just after getting married, I was trying to buy maternity insurance from my agent only to find that they didn’t have it. He was a tall, round fellow with a good sense of humor. When I asked him, “why isn’t there maternity insurance in the normal policy?” He said, “Well us old guys don’t want to pay for your babies.” and followed with a loud chuckle, that abruptly stopped when I quickly responded, “well you know us young guys don’t want to pay for your social security!” He didn’t laugh. So I’m ok to pay for my kids education just as long as I don’t have to pay for their retirement!
[Reply]
bob Reply:
December 21st, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Carl,
You need to check your facts in the state you live in. Teachers in my state do not pay into the S.S. fund they have a Gov’t funded retirement program provided to them via a public sector job. I however working in the private sector without children in school get to pay their union salaries for seven (7) months of work that are at the same levels of pay for someone working like me (11) of the (12) months of the year…
[Reply]
Only if their opt out of social security. Social security is pay as you go. In order to provide pension for the greedy ones later we need educated people.
If they do not want to pay taxes – fine, let them have no pension later either.
[Reply]
As an adult who has endured a couple years of government schools as well as a superior private school, I see realize there is no moving the masses to agree I should not have to contunally pay taxes for those government schools. What I would like to see is a choice! The freedom for me to choose where my taxes are allocated. In other words, my school of choice. I firmly believe is the school voucher system and would like to see the same for those of us without children. I would like to see my taxes to go charter schools for the underpriviliged. Those people are crying for a better opportunity for their children other than government schools. We are all aware a hugh dollar amount of our “school taxes” are going to the NEA unions. This I believe is a waste of MY money. PLEASE give those of us without children the choice of where our school-allocated money will go!
[Reply]
The argument does not take into consideration the increasing number of American adults who are choosing, as a matter of principle, not to have children . There is merit to the argument that responsible Americans with no children place far less burden on society. Irresponsible parents with multiple children are far too common. It’s understandable how intelligent, responsible adults with no children could come to resent paying more than their fair share of taxes. There is, in fact, great bias set up against unmarried people with no children in American taxation law.
[Reply]
I think we all have a duty to raise kids regardless of parents or not. Historically better schools are located in Higher Income cities or municipalities. I would be in favor of a opt selection where adults with no dependents can select specific local schools as beneficiary of taxation.
[Reply]
DonM Reply:
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:33 am
@John @ Van Winkle Insurance Group, A town next to me is Vernon, CA. Everyone who lives in that town is either a city employee, or a relative of a city employee. The city is ‘exclusively industrial’ with hundreds of businesses, and thousands of employees, thus having a wealthy tax base, low tax rates. Surprise surprise, they have NO SCHOOLS AT ALL.
[Reply]
I’ll take this a step farther, and say that Americans with kids that go to private schools should be allowed to opt out of school taxes. The education we get in public schools is terrible.
[Reply]
dittoheadla Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Additionally……….we chose not to have children. We do agree we should invest in the future of our country and the children are part of that future. We all seem to agree there should be an opt-out whether it is for all taxes going to the government schools (we like this) or give ALL people paying taxes into the system a CHOICE. Both are doable!
Remember BHO’s first order of business upon taking office was to do away with the VOUCHER SYSTEM in DC. The underpriviledged in DC appreciated the opportunity to choose freely where their children when to school. Now they are stuck with the poorly run government schools. Let’s hope the CHANGE they got can be reversed!
[Reply]
Wow… really great tips! i like this post very much… Thanks for sharing this information with us…
[Reply]
I disagree with you when teachers unions and (7) months of “work” equal the privet sectors pay scale of (11) months of work. I do not have a union so why do Gov’t employees have one??? The private sector jobs pay for these Gov’t jobs and now they still need unions to go along with the public sector retirement and health care benefits of which I do not qualify for??? 2/3 plus of my property taxes go to support a school system that I have and never will use and why do renters and section 8′s with all the kids get out Scott free??? Renters will argue it is in the monthly rent unless they are section 8 (aka freeby renters)..Vouchers and the private sector Gov’t plans are also stealing from most states mandated constitutions that isn’t solving the public school funding problems…
[Reply]
I homeschool my kids in California, because I care about their future, and the schools in CA are often enablers of perversion, or ‘religious values’ like global warming with which I disagree.
Yet, I still pay school taxes, and get no voucher. The schools do provide a service: They restrict the young hooligans during the day, so my kids are not normally exposed to them and they export millions of poorly educated children against whom my children will have advantages.
[Reply]
an investment in education is investment in the future..
even the childless have to live in that future.
[Reply]
We would not mind the investment if it didn’t go to the NEA! That is a waste of my money! We have been dumping money into education of “the children” for many years without “the children” reaping the benefits! It is time we change the way we spend the money!
[Reply]