What Do You Think

[SEC=UGA]

There are many studies out there on the effects that property tax caps have had on states over the years. Here a snippet of what has occurred in California and Massachusetts:

 

 

California

 

California's Proposition 13, a property tax cap passed in 1978, has devastated the state's public schools. The tax cap has been a major factor in a 30-plus year decline from California's status as first in the nation in student achievement to almost dead last.

 

According to researchers from Rand, K-12 spending per pupil in California fell significantly under Proposition 13, dropping from more than $600 above the national average in 1978 (when Proposition 13 was passed) to more than $600 below the national average in 2000.1 This has forced many school districts in the state to cut programs such as music, physical education, and art; reduce class offerings; and cut positions, such as librarians and counselors.2

 

California now has the second-highest student-teacher ratio of any state. And by 1999–2000, about 15% of the teacher workforce consisted of newly employed teachers, the majority of whom were not yet formally trained and certified. These relatively underqualified teachers have been concentrated in urban schools, in low performing schools, and in schools with high percentages of low-income and minority students.3

 

Test scores in California public schools are now close to the bottom. Rand researchers analyzed scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress on reading and mathematics for 4th and 8th graders in all 50 states from 1990 through 2003. California fared worse than every state except Louisiana and Mississippi.4

 

Massachusetts

 

In 1980, Massachusetts adopted Proposition 2 ½, a law limiting property tax grow to 2.5% a year. A 2008 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), Hidden Consequences: Lessons from Massachusetts for States Considering a Property Tax Cap, shows that by limiting Massachusetts localities' only major source of revenue, the law has:

 

arbitrarily constrained local governments' ability to raise revenues without any consideration of the actual cost of providing services;

made local governments heavily dependent on state aid, which tends to fluctuate with economic cycles and state policies (This is a particular problem in an economic downturn when state aid usually declines but the need for local services, such as education and fire and police protection, does not decline.);

exacerbated disparities between wealthier communities and poorer ones in terms of access to quality local services, as many of the former have voted to override Proposition 2 ½'s revenue cap while the latter have generally had to adhere to it;

triggered cuts to valued services rather than simply calling forth greater efficiency from local governments; and

forced lay-offs of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees; closed fire stations; shut libraries, senior centers, and recreation centers or sharply reduced their hours; and scaled back public school programs.

 

There's more info here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=301 , like I said there are a lot of really in-depth economic studies on the web that attempt to prove both sides of the argument.

 

In the excerpt above I found the bolded part at the end pretty interesting because it goes to what gbpfan was stating regarding waste. Too bad it seems like governments, and many companies for that matter, always seem to reach for the axe first when looking for ways to reduce their budgets.

 

In other news.... Demographics are a better barometer for scholastic achievement than is per-pupil funding. I've posted numerous studies and raw data before, not looking it up again.

 

Take a look at the demographic shift in Cali from 1990 - 2003. Take a look at per pupil funding over the same period. Then go back and reread your article and see if they are cherry picking their info. They choose to say that decrease in property tax mil rate escalation/tax funding to schools is the reason, but at the same time per pupil funding has increased exponentially. Then go back and look at the demographic shift that has occurred over this same period while test scores have been decreasing. Then think to yourself, per-pupil funding has increased and test scores are going down, but at the same time there has been a shift in the demographics of the state toward a populace that historically performs more poorly in scholastics. Then ask yourself again, is it the funding or the demographics...

[SayItAintSoJoe]

In other news.... Demographics are a better barometer for scholastic achievement than is per-pupil funding. I've posted numerous studies and raw data before, not looking it up again.

 

Take a look at the demographic shift in Cali from 1990 - 2003. Take a look at per pupil funding over the same period. Then go back and reread your article and see if they are cherry picking their info. They choose to say that decrease in property tax mil rate escalation/tax funding to schools is the reason, but at the same time per pupil funding has increased exponentially. Then go back and look at the demographic shift that has occurred over this same period while test scores have been decreasing. Then think to yourself, per-pupil funding has increased and test scores are going down, but at the same time there has been a shift in the demographics of the state toward a populace that historically performs more poorly in scholastics. Then ask yourself again, is it the funding or the demographics...

 

Damn...that's a lot of homework you're assigning to me.

 

Though I'm not sure it's going to change my mind that the state government shouldn't put caps on propery taxes and that it should instead be handled at the local level.

[Piles]

Andrew- keep up the good fight and get those property taxes capped in NYS. I live in the highest taxed county relative to home value in the country. The mass exodus out of upstate NY due to taxes has had some fairly devastating impacts on the economy. I don't think a tax cap is enough. Cuts need to occur and then a cap needs to be put in place. Taxes at 2.89% of home value is insane.

 

Agree with everything Cap'n Grunge said regarding the unions. I look forward to seeing the ramifications if any from what has happened in WI.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Piles

[Clubfoothead]

The right believes the people are too educated and too many have access to education. Destroying the unions is the first step to worthless vouchers.

[Yukon Cornelius]

The right believes the people are too educated and too many have access to education. Destroying the unions is the first step to worthless vouchers.

+1 tax the serf's

[bpwallace49]

From what I have read Walker has alienated quite a bit of his supporters with the collective bargaining issue.

 

While the tax cut and union negotiations were part of his platform when he ran for office, he never ever said anything about eliminating collective bargaining. And for good reason . . . he probably would not have gotten elected.

 

Now Wisconsin has an unprecedented amount of recall petitions (many of which are doomed before the begin due to the demographic makeup of the districts) but some just might succeed. These arent about corruption, or felony charges, . . this is now all about ideology and party against party. This will be ugly as it plays out over time.

 

[moneymakers] It wont be long now [\moneymakers]

[tosberg34]

The right believes the people are too educated and too many have access to education. Destroying the unions is the first step to worthless vouchers.

 

Yeah, that's it. I don't know why this wasn't brought up in the first place. Shout out to Clubfoothead for another insightful and thoroughly researched post.

 

It's a breath of fresh air compared to some of the posts from people who are just lashing out in anger.

 

Edited March 12, 2011 by tosberg34

[gbpfan1231]

The right believes the people are too educated and too many have access to education. Destroying the unions is the first step to worthless vouchers.

You are fine with all the things I mentioned above that came about because of collective bargaining?

 

There are two very distinct type of unions - public and private. Walker is not touching private unions.

[Clubfoothead]

You are fine with all the things I mentioned above that came about because of collective bargaining?

 

There are two very distinct type of unions - public and private. Walker is not touching private unions.

 

Here's what I think. Teachers are not my enemy. Teachers are not the reason our states and the federal governments are broke. The fact that these teachers have collective bargaining rights is not either. Same for the janitors at the schools. I see the Helmet prancing around like a peacock on a daily basis in suits that cost more than my daughter's 1st grade teacher makes in a month.

 

Explain to me how removing the collective bargaining rights of teachers will improve the quality of education my kids receive. I haven't heard any argument as to how that will happen. That is primarily because this isn't an argument about the best way to efficiently improve the quality of education all of our kids receive, it is a justification for giving them a $hittier one. It's lowering our standards.

 

I look at the thread in the football forum about the NFL labor stuff and the majority feels that the owners were offering everything the players wanted with the exception to unfettered access to the books. Most people think that's fair. Well hasn't the teacher's union agree to virtually every concession asked for with the exception of giving up collective bargaining rights? Why isn't that fair?

 

I'm supposed to believe times are tough and we all need to buckle down and get the country out of deficit. Well, you don't pay off your house by taking a job that pays less and you don't improve your income potential by getting stupider. Get back to me with a better solution because balancing the budget to save the future of a bunch of kids who aren't going to be smart enough to color inside the lines seems pointless.

[gbpfan1231]

Here's what I think. Teachers are not my enemy. Teachers are not the reason our states and the federal governments are broke. The fact that these teachers have collective bargaining rights is not either. Same for the janitors at the schools. I see the Helmet prancing around like a peacock on a daily basis in suits that cost more than my daughter's 1st grade teacher makes in a month.

 

Explain to me how removing the collective bargaining rights of teachers will improve the quality of education my kids receive. I haven't heard any argument as to how that will happen. That is primarily because this isn't an argument about the best way to efficiently improve the quality of education all of our kids receive, it is a justification for giving them a $hittier one. It's lowering our standards.

 

I look at the thread in the football forum about the NFL labor stuff and the majority feels that the owners were offering everything the players wanted with the exception to unfettered access to the books. Most people think that's fair. Well hasn't the teacher's union agree to virtually every concession asked for with the exception of giving up collective bargaining rights? Why isn't that fair?

 

I'm supposed to believe times are tough and we all need to buckle down and get the country out of deficit. Well, you don't pay off your house by taking a job that pays less and you don't improve your income potential by getting stupider. Get back to me with a better solution because balancing the budget to save the future of a bunch of kids who aren't going to be smart enough to color inside the lines seems pointless.

You know what - teachers are not my enemy either and you are right that the teachers are not the sole reason Wisconsin is broke. I have asked a few times for someone to explain to me how these bargaining rights have helped. I have given examples of what these rights have done - and asked if you are OK with them - you did not answer. If these bargaining rights would not lead to stupid things written in these contracts I am guessing nobody would have issues with them. So do me a favor and answer a simple yes or no to the following if you think these help in any way...

 

Across the board raises not based on employee performance

The ability to call in sick for 1st shift and then get paid time and a half for working 2nd shift the same day

Layoff or promotion decisions based on seniority not on performance

Inability to structure hours of a department to minimize overtime

 

Maybe those things "bargained" for has caused some people to say changes need to take place.

 

Also - what are your ideas to solve Wisconsin's problems? More taxes for everyone? More taxes for the rich - it does seem that you have a dislike for anyone who is "rich".

 

My sister is a teacher and she is not happy at all about having to pay the 5.8% but she is also new to teaching and she was very worried that she would be the one cut if cuts were based on seniority as opposed to performance - she is very confident if it comes down to still having cuts she will make it through based on performance and that would be a good thing for the students.

 

I think this sucks for the people effected but I don't hear of a lot of other ideas.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Across the board raises not based on employee performance

 

If you work at a job where your pay raise is never more than the rate of inflation do you ever really get a pay raise? I'd hate to think that I could work at a job for 30 years and never be able to raise my standard of living. Talk about a dead end job.

[gbpfan1231]

If you work at a job where your pay raise is never more than the rate of inflation do you ever really get a pay raise? I'd hate to think that I could work at a job for 30 years and never be able to raise my standard of living. Talk about a dead end job.

I think you are implying the new bill where it states that it is based on the rate of inflation? Well I do believe that there is wording that it can be higher if voted on (not 100% sure). Notice that that was one of the things that was negotiated away and the Dems did not take those negotiations. I am guessing that was one of the things that they always thought would be negotiated back. If the Dems would have stayed and negotiated I don't think that would have been an issue but now it is.

[Clubfoothead]

Across the board raises not based on employee performance

The ability to call in sick for 1st shift and then get paid time and a half for working 2nd shift the same day

Layoff or promotion decisions based on seniority not on performance

Inability to structure hours of a department to minimize overtime

 

I'm not sure we would even be able to agree on how to define performance. So we will have to table 1 and 3. I'm not sure minimizing overtime is a proper perspective, although I understand you don't want to maximize it, either. I could take or leave 4 in a bargain so I'll let you have it. And maybe learn how to bargain better. It's not my fault Wisconsin agreed to #2 and that doesn't mean collective bargaining is bad, it might mean whoever did it the last time might not have been very good. I'd be willing to bet in some specific instances the teachers got screwed in the last agreement as well.

 

Let's say I give you all 4, what does Wisconsin's budget look like now? I don't think you are claiming that eliminating collective bargaining will balance Wisconsin's budget and pay off it's liabilities.

 

And again, you are excuse making. You are justifying a $hittier education in exchange for a balanced budget.

 

Why is a balanced budget more important than a quality education?

Why education budget cuts to the exclusion of tax increases, why not a combination? and,

How is cutting the budget of my daughter's public education not a de facto tax on me anyways?

[Square]

In other news.... Demographics are a better barometer for scholastic achievement than is per-pupil funding. I've posted numerous studies and raw data before, not looking it up again.

So minorities don't do as well because of socioeconomic racism? that must be why you support affirmative action right?

[tosberg34]

You know what - teachers are not my enemy either and you are right that the teachers are not the sole reason Wisconsin is broke. I have asked a few times for someone to explain to me how these bargaining rights have helped. I have given examples of what these rights have done - and asked if you are OK with them - you did not answer. If these bargaining rights would not lead to stupid things written in these contracts I am guessing nobody would have issues with them. So do me a favor and answer a simple yes or no to the following if you think these help in any way...

 

Across the board raises not based on employee performance

The ability to call in sick for 1st shift and then get paid time and a half for working 2nd shift the same day

Layoff or promotion decisions based on seniority not on performance

Inability to structure hours of a department to minimize overtime

 

Maybe those things "bargained" for has caused some people to say changes need to take place.

 

Also - what are your ideas to solve Wisconsin's problems? More taxes for everyone? More taxes for the rich - it does seem that you have a dislike for anyone who is "rich".

 

My sister is a teacher and she is not happy at all about having to pay the 5.8% but she is also new to teaching and she was very worried that she would be the one cut if cuts were based on seniority as opposed to performance - she is very confident if it comes down to still having cuts she will make it through based on performance and that would be a good thing for the students.

 

I think this sucks for the people effected but I don't hear of a lot of other ideas.

 

- Let's not forget the "Teach Emeritus" status in both Madison and Green Bay school districts where you work 30 days (over a 3 year span after you retire) and get a years salary.

 

- Milwaukee teach Megan Sampson got the pink slip one year after receiving Teach of the Year award. Why? she had no seniority. Made worse by the fact the Union REFUSED TO ACCEPT a lower cost health plan forcing the layoffs.

 

- Bus drivers earning 159,000 a year in Madison, WI. Don't blame the bus driver - blame the union.

 

and More tidbits to further enrage you.

[tosberg34]

I'm not sure we would even be able to agree on how to define performance. So we will have to table 1 and 3. I'm not sure minimizing overtime is a proper perspective, although I understand you don't want to maximize it, either. I could take or leave 4 in a bargain so I'll let you have it. And maybe learn how to bargain better. It's not my fault Wisconsin agreed to #2 and that doesn't mean collective bargaining is bad, it might mean whoever did it the last time might not have been very good. I'd be willing to bet in some specific instances the teachers got screwed in the last agreement as well.

 

Let's say I give you all 4, what does Wisconsin's budget look like now? I don't think you are claiming that eliminating collective bargaining will balance Wisconsin's budget and pay off it's liabilities.

 

And again, you are excuse making. You are justifying a $hittier education in exchange for a balanced budget.

 

Why is a balanced budget more important than a quality education?

Why education budget cuts to the exclusion of tax increases, why not a combination? and,

How is cutting the budget of my daughter's public education not a de facto tax on me anyways?

 

Couple things (just venting so don't take it personally):

 

It's not my fault Wisconsin agreed to #2

Agreed to it because a Democrat was on one side of the table and the union on the other. Don't you see the conflict of interest? Who represents the taxpayers? Certainly not the Democrat. Of course they "agreed" to it.

 

it might mean whoever did it the last time might not have been very good

Or most likely was a Democrat doing the negotiation. Again, not representing the tax payers but the union who put him in office that he's negotiating TAXPAYER money with. Isn't it ironic: Taxpayers vote the Dems in office, who campaigned using Union funds and negotiating with the same union for taxpayer money who, in turn, gets their taxes raised to fund the union demands. What the f#ck? No conflict of interest? Really?

 

You are justifying a $hittier education in exchange for a balanced budget.

time and time again it's been shown that throwing more money at the education problem hasn't solved $hit so let's throw the money at balancing the budget. MPS is crappier than ever yet every year they suck more and more money from the budget. Where is all that money going? Teacher Emeritus programs apparently.

 

Why education budget cuts to the exclusion of tax increases, why not a combination

Why do we have to f'n raise taxes again? Why is that ALWAYS the answer from the left? How about spending within your means? I'm tired of paying high taxes - aren't you?

 

I don't think you are claiming that eliminating collective bargaining will balance Wisconsin's budget and pay off it's liabilities.

Not by itself - but it certainly will assist in that matter. At this point ANY savings is a step in the right direction. Read this on how getting rid of CB can help save money.

Edited March 12, 2011 by tosberg34

[Piles]

Buffalo Teachers Spend 9 million on cosmetic surgery

 

The school asked them to give up the rider for 1 year so they could reduce the number of layoffs and the union refused. Does the union care about education as much as they do cosmetic peels, laser hair removal and skin rejuvenation?

 

How kind of the union to offer to give it up next year now that 9 million which should have been used toward education went to make some fugly chicks less fugly.

[gbpfan1231]

Couple things (just venting so don't take it personally):

 

It's not my fault Wisconsin agreed to #2

Agreed to it because a Democrat was on one side of the table and the union on the other. Don't you see the conflict of interest? Who represents the taxpayers? Certainly not the Democrat. Of course they "agreed" to it.

 

it might mean whoever did it the last time might not have been very good

Or most likely was a Democrat doing the negotiation. Again, not representing the tax payers but the union who put him in office that he's negotiating TAXPAYER money with. Isn't it ironic: Taxpayers vote the Dems in office, who campaigned using Union funds and negotiating with the same union for taxpayer money who, in turn, gets their taxes raised to fund the union demands. What the f#ck? No conflict of interest? Really?

 

You are justifying a $hittier education in exchange for a balanced budget.

time and time again it's been shown that throwing more money at the education problem hasn't solved $hit so let's throw the money at balancing the budget. MPS is crappier than ever yet every year they suck more and more money from the budget. Where is all that money going? Teacher Emeritus programs apparently.

 

Why education budget cuts to the exclusion of tax increases, why not a combination

Why do we have to f'n raise taxes again? Why is that ALWAYS the answer from the left? How about spending within your means? I'm tired of paying high taxes - aren't you?

 

I don't think you are claiming that eliminating collective bargaining will balance Wisconsin's budget and pay off it's liabilities.

Not by itself - but it certainly will assist in that matter. At this point ANY savings is a step in the right direction. Read this on how getting rid of CB can help save money.

Amen!!!!! People just don't get it. Club - I am sure you a nice guy and a great parent but how can you just turn a blind eye on this. Why are people get outraged at Walker and the republicans when you should be outraged at the idiots that did the above mentioned things. Over time they messed and messed with collective bargaining and when it even got time to negotiate they cried and left the state and now they end up with nothing. Screw em. The outrage should be at the idiots that got everyone into this mess.

 

I only mentioned 4 things above but there are many. The insurance for some public employees HAS to be bought from a company owned by the unions. That can't be good (except for the public employees).

 

Maybe right now it is tough to define performance but I for one would sure like the ability to have a choice in who gets laid off if it come to that. look what Tosberg wrote - teacher of the year gets laid off and you think that your daughter is currently getting the best quality of education possible - what a joke.

 

The system is broke and because of it so is WI.

[gbpfan1231]

Here is a thought.

 

Let's take all the money (and it is going to be a lot) that the union leadership across the nation is going to funnel into the recall efforts for the Dems and put it towards education. Wisconsin would have the smartest kids evah!!!!!

[Yukon Cornelius]

If you work at a job where your pay raise is never more than the rate of inflation do you ever really get a pay raise? I'd hate to think that I could work at a job for 30 years and never be able to raise my standard of living. Talk about a dead end job.

Wisconsin teachers have had that already for 10+ years.

[gbpfan1231]

Wisconsin teachers have had that already for 10+ years.

They have also basically had a guaranteed job - you can't say the same for everyone else.

 

If it was really a dead end job then why do they stay? The end is not dead - the end has a nice little pot of gold.

[bpwallace49]

Also - what are your ideas to solve Wisconsin's problems? More taxes for everyone? More taxes for the rich - it does seem that you have a dislike for anyone who is "rich".

 

I sure dont think a tax cut is good idea . . . but that is exactly what Walker has done.

[gbpfan1231]

I sure dont think a tax cut is good idea . . . but that is exactly what Walker has done.

What tax cut? Are you referring ti tax cuts to business with his whole "We are open for business" thing? Seems like he is trying to play the volume game. You can lower taxes and if you bring businesses and or people to the state the revenue will hopefully go over and above what the tax cuts "lost".

 

It will be interesting - if he balances the budget and follows through with his promise of 250,000 jobs then he deserves another term. If he does not follow though then he will last one term if that.

 

Hey I am hoping he makes it another term because that means WI is out of this hole.

[Ursa Majoris]

They have also basically had a guaranteed job - you can't say the same for everyone else.

 

If it was really a dead end job then why do they stay? The end is not dead - the end has a nice little pot of gold.

And that pot of gold is why they accept lower wages. Pensions are a classic example of taxpayers kicking the can down the road. No-one wants to pay the taxes necessary for proper wages - much better to promise a raft of moolah later when someone else has to pay.

 

You are that someone else.

[Savage Beatings]

And that pot of gold is why they accept lower wages. Pensions are a classic example of taxpayers kicking the can down the road. No-one wants to pay the taxes necessary for proper wages - much better to promise a raft of moolah later when someone else has to pay.

 

You are that someone else.

 

So instead of continuing to make that same SHAM WOW!ty deals that will screw over our children in the future, we may as well stop the madness now.