Explain to me why US public schools are paid for by property taxes.

[Bonobo]

I may be dumb, but I don't get, even in principle, why the education of our young people should be related in any way to the amount of money local govts. can bring in with property taxes.

Shouldn't all US students get the same amount of money for education irrespective of the value of the homes in their school district?

Is there ANY reason this makes sense?

Someone please help me try to understand because to me, it seems like one of the most F&*^#ed up things I ever heard.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

1. Where else are you going to get the money?

Not from the Fed's :shrug:

[Bonobo]

6. Why not? Isn't the future of the entire country obviously dependent on the education

of our next generation?

[LongIslandGuy]

2. Doesn't make much sense to me, either

[Cleita]

3. I always thought they should be funded from

corporate taxes because it's the corporations who benefit from an educated work force.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Probably so each community can support their own schools

[Bonobo]

8. And yet, oddly....

When the school district has no money, local areas have to vote for a tax override for everyone and can't just accept donations to the school budget from the richer people of the local area.

But anyway, my point is that it is starting all kids off on a very uneven footing. How is that reasonable?

[adigal]

90. Yes, wealthy communities spend more per student

than poor communities. Teachers get paid twice what they get paid in poor districts, so they get the better teachers. Poor schools get beginning teachers, not seasoned yet.

[Historic NY]

5. Good question because I don't have kids & pay dearly....

school taxes should not be based on the property you own but whether you have children in the system.

[theophilus]

19. Pardon me, but Hogwash. You benefit from educated children. n/t

[Historic NY]

31. Really come to NY for taxes.....its driving folks down south ...

my school taxes are 2 times my local & county taxes. We also have a fucking lottery system that doesn't seem to do much. School districts are always slopping at the trough for more money beyond what they already get from us in the school tax bill. That money comes from............where state taxes. I guarantee I pay more then you do.

[customerserviceguy]

42. You're right about the tax system driving people down south

I work in NJ, and quite a few of the people I talk to who are closing their accounts because of a move are giving me final bill addresses in Florida or the Carolinas.

This "refunding" system seems to be somewhat inefficient, as well. You can't give an extra $1,000 to a taxing district, and then get a full thousand back, something has to get eaten up in the costs of processing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. "slopping at the trough"

Nice.

[Historic NY]

63. yes for pork barrel money.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. Some of us find it sad

that school districts are forced to beg for resources and are accused of slopping at the trough for pork barrel money while Wall Street is bailed out and there is no accountability.

But I guess that's just some of us.

[walldude]

81. Pork Barrel money? Education is now pork?

Have you been paying attention? 1/3 of Americans are so fucking STUPID that they believe everything Fox News tells them.

The biggest problem in America is not the Economy or jobs, it's EDUCATION. We are not progressing in education we are regressing. And if you think your property taxes cover all school expenses you are sadly mistaken.

I have 3 kids and spend thousands every year for supplies, field trips, extra activities.. like gym, art and music classes.

It will be a great day when schools don't need to beg for funding and the Military has to stop building weapons that will never be used.

[adigal]

92. AND, you have a much better school system in NY

By 4th grade, northeast students are a grade ahead of southern students in reading. It only gets worse for southern students as time goes on. In this case, you get what you pay for.

We really don't pay a lot of taxes in NY for what we get, I don't get all the whining. We have health clinics in poor areas in upstate NY, I have friends in the south who have been sick with bronchitis, they cannot get into a clinic for 4 months, so they go to the ER, costing the taxpayers a LOT more. Of course, they have no insurance.

[TygrBright]

21. Thanks, but I'd rather be sure that the kids running the world when I'm old and helpless...

...have an education.

I am happy to pay for it. I just wish I could pay more, and get better quality results.

wistfully,
Bright

[grilled onions]

30. Worse Yet For Seniors

They still pay for the kiddies yet wonder how long they can stay in their homes. There should be at least a sliding scale.

[liberalhistorian]

40. Yes, and those "kiddies" will be paying their social security

and medicare and medicaid and staffing their nursing homes and preparing their food and providing their services. Others also paid for THEIR "kiddies" when their own children were in school. The hate against "kiddies" on this site never fails to amaze me.

[Crystal Clarity]

50. I noticed that too. It seems very short-sighted.

I haven't had any children in our local public school system for over 7 years now, but I don't mind paying for other people's kids.

{{{Our property taxes have tripled in the 13 years we've lived here but that is another issue entirely. One that we need to take up w/our town's new tax assessor. He's WAY over-assessed our property value imho}}}

Other people paid when I had a child in the school system and their's were long grown and gone. Now it's my turn. I think it's only fair.

And good point btw about how these kids that we are educating now, will be the very same ones who will one day pay for our SS. I WANT them to be well-educated.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Those kids will also be working in the hospitals measuring out meds

and taking my vitals.

I would prefer they be well educated. :)

[Posteritatis]

85. Don't forget simply voting; at least some of them will be casting ballots. (nt)

[lumpy]

76. In some States seniors do get a property tax break depending

on lower income.

[adigal]

93. There is - the STAR program

Cuts the property taxes for those over 60 or 65, I don't remember which. Maybe even younger. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will come along.

[TBF]

39. And this is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with personal property ownership. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

53. Who paid for your education?

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Good schools raise your property value

For that reason alone, you should be glad to pay property taxes to support your local schools.

[toastbutter]

72. That would be selfish... even for a republican

Seriously? We all benefit from educating OUR youth, the future of OUR country.

[Posteritatis]

78. Why have an education system at all then, if you just want the parents to pay tuition? (nt)

[Exilednight]

95. Why should it be based on if you have children in the system? You benefit

just like anyone everyone else. Primary schools pave the foundation for your clean water, paved roads, electricity in your house, books you read, the computer you are using; the design, materials and construction of the very house you live in. Without basic math, English and writing skills, none of these things would ever exist.

I live on Long Island and pay through the nose, yet I have no kids but I can still see the benefits.

FYI: Once you hit age 65, you qualify for STAR and receive a greatly reduced rate on your school taxes.

[Sancho]

7. That's easy...

educated people return many times the cost of education in taxes they pay on income - and there are lots of intangible values added to the others in the community. There is no better investment that a town or state can make in their people, so property taxes are an inconsequential drop in the bucket compared to what good it does for everyone by having an educated population.

[Bonobo]

11. Yes, they return the value to the entire nation.

But not necessarily to the area they came from?

I am not arguing AGAINST education being paid for. I am arguing FOR the amount of money going to kids' education being equal and the burden being carried by the entire country equally for all kids.

Am I just a commie pinko socialist?

[theophilus]

24. You are correct. We have a daughter in high school and her school is

quite a bit underfunded, imo, compared to other schools in the area that are in more affluent neighborhoods. Those kids have an advantage. All public schools should get the same funding, imo.

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. All schools should get what they need

And some need more than others.

Fair isn't giving everyone the same thing, it's giving everyone what they need.

[Sancho]

9. Of course...in all fairness...

everyone who can read this or who makes a buck should pay a percent every year to every teacher who taught them. If they did, then teachers would be the highest paid folks in our society!

[xchrom]

10. Property taxes funding schools insures education ineaquality.

That's the reason.

[Bonobo]

12. Oh.

That's what I thought.

But how/why was this folly allowed?

[quaker bill]

15. It was how they were created centuries ago

and it has never been changed.

[xchrom]

16. Because the poor as it developed were vastly more likely to rent.

Then and now that's a group that was/is hard to organize to vote for
Their own self interests.

If they could nail down what their self interests were/are.

When you get into THOSE waters it gets deep.

[Laelth]

13. In principle, it's because real property doesn't move.

People can hide their incomes. Some people have no incomes. People can move their bank accounts. People can live in one county but shop in another (thus paying sales taxes to the wrong school district). Property can not move. That's why it's a good source of funding for schools.

Or, so the theory goes.

-Laelth

[Bonobo]

14. Thanks for that. I did not know that and am happy to hear the theory behind it. nt

[TygrBright]

17. Because local control of schools is a cherished icon of American politics.

The idea being, whoever pays the bills has control.

Local property taxes symbolically keep control of the schools in local hands, even though state governments and the feds have been nibbling away at the reality of control for more than a century.

The knife cuts both ways: State and Federal inroads on control mostly result from creepy reactionary woolhats attempting to practice thought control on their precious yoots, but not always. OTOH, when you get crap like No Child Treated Like An Individual, and Arne Duncan's dark fantasy vision, local control looks pretty good even if it doesn't actually exist.

Anyway, long story short, laws requiring kids to have an education are a fairly recent phenomenon in the US. Dumping the burden on local property owners was a way of getting some kind of financing for an idea that has never been really popular: educate ALL kids, not just the children of the wealthy and professionals.

In many cases, advocates for universal education in the latter half of the nineteenth century knew that if they left it up to a big political fight at the state house about whether state taxes should pay, or up to (bitter laughter) Congress, it would never, ever, ever happen.

So convincing local communities to issue bonds to build school houses, and allocate property taxes to hire teachers, was actually a cool, revolutionary end-run around a system stacked against universal education.

But that was a long time ago.

And now it stinks.

informatively,
Bright

[Bonobo]

25. Thanks for the informative post!! nt

[doc03]

18. Don't know why but it is screwed up. Here in the Ohio rust belt

a steel mill shuts down and a school district may lose 1/2 its revenue. They have no choice but try and pass an additional tax levy and that is nearly impossible. You figure we have an
aged population that doesn't have children and live on a fixed income along with a unemployment rate well above 10% how do you raise money. One of our local districts went bankrupt this year and we have another where their main source of income is from a power plant that is shutting down next year. Here in rural Ohio all the school districts are hurting then you have schools in Columbus that are palaces by our standards.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Under the quaint 18th century theory that land is linked to income.

It is utterly stupid that education is funded through property taxes, or that property taxes continue to exist in a society in which almost nobody makes a living off their land.

Funding inequality - a direct fallout of property taxes - has resulted in state courts all across the country intervening and demanding that their respective states do something to address the inequity.

[Bonobo]

28. Ah, that makes sense!

Yes, if you have land, you have income! Back when you could keep cows, pigs and make honey and mead from your bee colony!

Thanks for the info. That sounds quite right. Very old thinking that became institutionalized and codified.

[2Design]

22. some states instituted lottery to pay and then drain those funds to elsewhere or

only used lottery funds and drained away the education funds to other places

Education is all local - this is why people move into rich districts or towns - especially with special needs kids so they can get the money from the town to pay for education

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. Give a Tennesee teacher a Westchester country teachers salary

and you would have a pretty happy teacher. Although being able to find a 1 room apartment for less then $2500 a month might have something to do with that.

The real answer comes from the history of how we came to have the education system we have today. The earliest public school IIRC was started by the City of Boston. Over time other Cities, towns, communities followed suit. Which in effect made all public schools locally operated and financed. Later State Legislatures enacted laws governing how Public Schools should be operated. And only recently have we seen the Federal government become involved with schools beyond the DoD and District of Columbia.

Depending upon location some municipalities are reimbursed in whole or part by the state for the cost of providing public education. And in turn some of that funding comes from DC. Far from a perfect system. But bringing together 5000+ school systems, each created and administered by local elected officials is not an easy task.

[WinkyDink]

26. Because we are a stupid-ass nation that thinks "local control" supercedes any larger entity.

[kickysnana]

33. Wait a minute...

the great liberal state that holds education as important enough to be written into its Constitution told everyone: "Hey funding schools through property taxes is the wrong way to go. Uneven funding gives uneven education. So we will lower your property taxes and directly fund the schools."

Except they never did fully fund them and then when first they cut tax rates and then the economy tanked they started cutting and last year when they ran out of money they delayed payments to schools so schools had to borrow money with interest costs to get through this school year.

I don't know what to do about it. We finally have a Dayton after years of idiots ruining the state but they elected a majority of GOP to both the House and Senate. I was going to buy a house but put that on hold after the last election. God knows what horrible things will happen before we vote again.

How so many people can be so intractably stupid is beyond my comprehension.

[WinkyDink]

46. You lost me.

[kickysnana]

82. It is too easy to take money from "those people there"

Our states experiment in funding education at the state level was a disaster and it would be worse at the federal level given the GOP and people who support them who have no idea how things work or listen only to the memes and do not find out what is going on themselves. It used to be people did not flaunt their ignorance now they do. Used to be an opinion was based on facts not wishful thinking.

[MichiganVote]

27. US public schools are not solely supported by property taxes in any locale.

The theory behind the funding of schools has been that they represent a national necessity. As such, they are supported with local, state and federal funds, not in equal measure.

The notion that people who do not have children should not have to pay a tax of any kind toward the support of the nation's schools or education dept. ignores the fact that there is an inherent benefit to all citizens when the population is educated. In addition, once people only pay for what they personally use, as opposed to personally benefit from, there is a huge variety of interests that would conceivably be underfunded. Example: Party A doesn't drive over a given bridge, therefore Party B alone should pay a tax toward its support. Hardly a functional or sustainable tax structure.

[WinkyDink]

29. Your second paragraph is not relevant (worthy, but not relevant).

[MichiganVote]

43. Yes Master. Anything you say.

Get a grip. We're not exactly writing the new Bible here on DU.

[WinkyDink]

47. I try to stay with coherence.

[harun]

32. 30k in Manhattan is not equal to 30k in Central Iowa. So local contributions going

to local institutions helps that.

The tax system across the board is screwed up, property taxes is far from what I am most upset about. Everyone is afraid if anything changes they will pay more so the screwed up system stays frozen. Fear sells, which I am sure you know.

[zbdent]

34. maybe because the value of the piece of land you're on goes up

when the local school district is doing well, which makes the location desirable to people who want to have families?

Of course (and this was related to me by my mother-in-law, who actually heard the sentiment from her friend), once the kids in the school system graduate, the parents choose to fight the taxes for the schools ...

I say, if you wish to not pay taxes to fund your school district, then please ... repay your educational costs that you benefitted from (you know, like hiring a private tutor for your kids for all those years they were instructed) ... with interest ...

(my sentiment actually goes into more detail, just not handy as of this typing)

[toastbutter]

74. I took little to no educational costs from the state

as I went to private schools, but I wouldn't for a second say that only those that have kids (or kids in public schools) should pay in. Our children are OUR (writ large) future. The nation as a whole. There are few things more easily justifiable than the idea that we are all in it together when it comes to the education of our youth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. In CA, the state level funds the schools.

Its not quite level funding, but is formula and needs based. This was done so that what you are concerned about does not happen

[MindPilot]

36. The problem is we don't base education funding on what it costs.

Instead of figuring out that an education cost x amount, multiplying that by the number of students needing to be educated and funding that, we say to a school district, "you get x% of this revenue stream."

I can't imagine that it really costs that much more to educate a kid in Grosse Pointe than it does in Compton.

To me, it seems like a very effective way to keep poor people poor; whether that was by design or not, I don't know enough to even speculate.

On edit, as the previous poster mentioned some states have moved to correct the problem.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. so the people with the nice houses get the nice schools and

the people with the not so nice houses get not so nice schools

[MikeW]

48. old tax idea

Personally I think it should have a base tax revenue from some source (property or income)

+

Parents should pay an adjustment fee based on the number of children they have / put in the school system.

Really not fair for someone to pay the same rate if they have 2 children vs a home that has 4.

[Motown_Johnny]

61. I don't have any kids, should I get a refund?

Your idea is crazy



Public education is there for the good of the country as a whole.

[MikeW]

84. read what I said

You would pay a base rate

If you toss more kids into the system you SHOULD PAY MORE than someone who has fewer.

"good for the country as a whole" isnt relevant to the issue of paying a pro rated tax rate if you

put more of a burden on the system (ie more kids).

Sorry but my idea isnt crazy, ITS CALLED TAX FAIRNESS!!!!!

[customerserviceguy]

38. There really are only three things you can tax

1) Consumption, and that's done with sales and value-added taxes. Those taxes are levied equally on all people, and are thus regressive for the poorest folks in a society, while they're a pittance for the wealthy.

2) Income, or more properly, the increment of income within a fixed time period, such as a tax year. Inevitably, all kinds of loopholes develop, and there is often an opportunity for cheating that especially can occur with the self-employed. Tax filings are secret, and there's no way to really ascertain that two people of apparently equal income levels are paying the same in taxes.

3) Wealth, the value of things. We have annual excise taxes on all kinds of personal property, from automobiles to things used in businesses. With a tax on real property, all assessment and tax records are public, and it is readily apparent if two similar properties are being taxed at different rates, perhaps reflecting some sort of favoritism from tax assessment authorities. The only exceptions are generally to advance some public purpose, such as exemptions for seniors and the disabled, or for socially beneficial uses such as timberland, farmland, or other open space.

Besides, taxes number 1 and 2 have one big weakness, they are very sensitive to economic downturns. If a recession hits, both consumption and income will be impacted. With real property taxes, a budget is drawn up, and apportioned according to the relative value of the assessed properties. Yes, some property owners may not pay promptly, but all jurisdictions add interest to unpaid taxes, and often penalties, as well. Since real property taxes are a lien on property that just won't get transported out of the taxing district, they'll always eventually be paid, even in cases of foreclosure.

It's the reliability of real property taxes that makes them desirable for anything that needs to be funded and budgeted for a few years in advance.

[TBF]

41. Well if we nationalize it they will just cut it like everything else that is not Pentagon-related,

so we're probably better off with it the way it is now.

[JoePhilly]

49. Could turn the public schools into military schools ...

We know that would get funded.

:sarcasm:

[SheilaT]

44. It's the way we've always done it.

There may be a better way, but this is the way we do it now.

EVERYONE benefits from good schools. Even those who have children, only have kids in the local schools for only a fraction of the time they are paying taxes. So those with no kids currently in the public schools need to think long and hard before they think they shouldn't be paying school taxes. We all benefit from good schools. Maybe I said that already.

When I moved my two sons from a very good public school system to an even better independent (read private) school I finally understood why we need to fund our schools far above what we currently fund. I was very unpopular in the private school because I often said that I should not be exempt from penny one of school taxes, just because I'd opted to send my kids elsewhere. It was the equivalent of not having kids. Public schools matter. Public school are obligated to educate all comers. Private schools can pick and choose who they let in, and they certainly don't admit very many with special needs.

Our public schools are one of the very best things about this wonderful country of ours. We don't pay anywhere near enough what we should to keep them strong and good.

[DailyGrind51]

45. To maintain inequality in education!

Wealthy school districts have great schools, poor school districts have poor schools, "K-12 class warfare".

[tabbycat31]

62. Just because a school district is wealthy does not make it great

I went to a small (~100 kids per grade) wealthy school district and my experience there was far from great (I was scared to go to school from 4th-12th grade)

[DailyGrind51]

64. Why, because the teachers made you do homework? How do you define "great"?

Wealthy school districts can afford updated text materials, educational technology, support for staff development programs, facilities that aren't falling apart, etc. Bullying aside, your individual experience as a student, hardly qualifies as an authoritative opinion.

[tabbycat31]

83. the school ran on a very one size fits all mode

If you were the type of student that worked for that school it was great, but if you were not you were SOL. A smaller school also meant fewer choices for extracirriculars, electives, etc that a larger school would have had to offer.

The facilities were not falling apart (when the property taxes here are among the highest in the nation).

[Capitalocracy]

69. +1. These things don't happen by accident. nt

[B Calm]

51. I agree, it doesn't make any sense. Schools should be paid for by all

tax payers.

[rucky]

You just trotted the elephant into the room.

we're not supposed to talk about that. Now be quiet and keep blaming teachers.

[rucky]

52. You just trotted the elephant into the room.

we're not supposed to talk about that. Now be quiet and keep blaming teachers.

[JackRiddler]

54. Whatever the origins, nowadays it's an essential part of maintaining the class system.

Suburb dwellers don't want to pay for "those people" in the cities.

[sammytko]

55. that's the way its been since time began. Each village was responsible

for its own schools if they wanted to have a school.

In Texas we have the "robin hood" act. Money from richer districts helps fund poorer ones.

But I agree it should be changed.

[dsc]

56. I think it dates to the bill that carved out the states of

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In each township one plot out of 36 was dedicated to schools.

[AngryAmish]

57. Do you really want it tied to income taxes?

One, we are a republic. Traditionally schools are a local concern. Some states equalize it over the state, most do not.

Two, in bad times income taxes drop through the floor. Property taxes stay the same. It is a consistent source of revenue.

[DailyGrind51]

66. If it was tied to state income taxes, all school districts would receive the same per student

funding, regardless of the SES of the district population or the market value of homes in the district.

[AngryAmish]

80. And if income tax receipts decline by 15%, does every employee get a 15% pay cut?

Income tax receipts are highly volatile depending on the economy.

[DailyGrind51]

86. Income taxes are imposed by each state so the burden becomes uniform, along

with the distribution of funding to school districts. Residents of wealthy districts would not be able to restrict their income tax to their neighborhood schools while denying it to less fortunate districts.

[AngryAmish]

87. I'll slow this down for you a bit.

2010 state X takes in 100 million in income taxes.

2011 state x takes in 85 million in income taxers due to a poor economy.

2011 is 15% lower than 2010 for income taxes.

Assume you spend 50 million in 2010 on education, allocated equally amongst wealthy and poor areas. Proportionally, you only have 42.5 to spend in 2011 due to income tax decline.

Then, how do you make up for the shortfall? Give all employees a 15% cut in wages? That still does not make up the deficit.

My point: income tax is volatile. Property taxes not so much. That is the traditional reason why property taxes are used.

[DailyGrind51]

96. Property taxes impose an unfair hardship on the residents of less fortunate communities.

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and raising property taxes on people who may be unemployed or under-employed is cruel and unfair. If they have little money coming in, how are they supposed to pay the increased property taxes? Income taxes, on the other hand, can't tax what they no longer have!
Because of the growing disparity of wealth, more prosperous communities have shown little decline in living standards. A progressive state income tax would balance the present inequality.

The market values of homes and apartment buildings has also declined, meaning that increased property taxes must be inflated beyond what the owners could reasonably expect on the sale of their property, given the current market. Residential property adds nothing to the owner's income, it is just that, a residence.

The Republicans in my state favor leaning on property taxes for funding education, rather than an increase in state income taxes, because the status quo is advantageous to them and their well-funded schools, which have not been suffering, even in this economy. Less fortunate districts, however, have endured massive budget cuts and teacher lay-offs.

Your argument is overly simplistic.

[AmandaMae]

65. Good point. I don't understand it either.

[DefenseLawyer]

70. Property taxes are a pretty fair source of revenue

but you are right to think the money should be distributed statewide or at least county wide for better overall results.

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. We live in Florida. Education is paid with lottery money.

Mostly. So the state encourages us to gamble to pay for our children's education. Sort of.

[Obamanaut]

77. The plan was for the lottery to supplement the education budget, but, that

went away:

<snip>Twenty four years ago Florida ran a vigorous campaign to persuade its citizenry to vote “yes” to a constitutional amendment that would mandate a statewide lottery. All of the proceeds from the lottery, the state’s snake oil salesmen assured us, would go towards education. The funds, they chortled, would not be used for any other purpose.
Naturally, Floridians, being the great lovers of children they are, overwhelmingly voted for the lottery amendment.
----
Here’s what equityeducation.com says happened next (emphasis added):
In 1988, Florida lawmakers (in the 1989 State Budget) voted to reduce the education budget proportionally to what the Lottery would bring in.
Some believe this has resulted in many of the problems suffered by Florida schools today. Most believe this is a violation of a promise, and has made Floridians wary of all tax increases as a result.
------
So the Lottery – the sacred savior of education - effectively did not increase education funding by a single cent. All it did was enable public officials to use an equivalent amount of funds for other purposes – purposes not voted on by the people.<more at link>
http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/01/22/florida-sales-tax-internet-sales-remember-the-lottery/

I think we can safely say we got screwn.

[The Backlash Cometh]

79. Thanks for the dates on the changes.

I have a Repub relative who now understands how fractured our family has become over politics. Over Thanksgiving they came to visit. I mentioned how Georgia has surpassed us as a State, insuring that their lottery supplements education, not pays for it entirely. And he innocently says, I had no idea that they rely mostly on the lotto to pay for education. I wouldn't approve of that.

So, the big question is, how many other Florida Republicans out there wouldn't approve of it either if they understand why there is a financial shortfall in this state?

[ZombieHorde]

73. I believe we do this to keep the classes separate. nt

[hunter]

75. It's a holdover from feudal society.

The very wealthy are holding onto it until feudal society returns.

[Ichingcarpenter]

88. Not that far from the truth.. Education is handled differently depending

What State, what County, and what Nation.

I've taught in many places and its amazing how the funds are collected and distributed.

Many Western European nations don't do the property thing for localized education
it goes to a general fund and then allocated out to the people equally.

[adigal]

89. I agree...should be a sales tax, maybe???

I always wonder about this,since all NY state students have to pass the same Regents exams to graduate from high school, yet because schools are paid for with property taxes, the students in Westchester get about 22K per kid and kids in a poor area may get 8K. Makes no sense to me,

[WinkyDink]

94. No; sales-taxes always hit the poor the hardest. The solution is to put property taxes into a

general fund and re-distribute.

Oh, I know: HORRORS! But too bad for the rich; they should then be glad to be allowed to remain in their gilded enclaves, even if poor kids get the same Taj Mahal schools.

[SoCalDem]

91. Taxes are the likely way to pay for public schools

There are basic taxes:

income taxes
property taxes
sales taxes
special fees (like building permits, car licenses, etc)

In most communities the kids have parents who live somewhere, so it's pretty logical to use property taxes (even renters pay because someone owns that home they rent and they pay taxes which are built into the rental amount they pay)...and there are more houses than businesses in most communities..