Following is an e-mail I received from Rep. Sam Rohrer. If you want real property tax reform, follow Rep. Rohrer’s advice at the bottom of his message:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your continued interest in school property tax reform and the Commonwealth Caucus’ Plan for Pennsylvania’s Future. House Bill 39 was a feeble attempt by the Senate and Governor to provide “tax relief” and, had it passed, would have really been a tax increase for every working person in the state. For example, because projected gambling revenue is so small, the expected reduction from these funds would have provided less than $100 per household in some school districts and that not for four to five years. By that time, the school property tax would have increased many times beyond this since there was no capping of local property taxes in this legislation. In addition, under this legislation, any switch from property tax to Earned Income Tax (EIT), or Personal Income Tax (PIT) would have raised the total tax obligation for nearly every household. In some districts, any household earning only $30,500 would be subject to increased taxes. In many cases, this legislation would have amounted to hundreds of more dollars per year in school tax payments for most families.
However, as you may know by now, we were successful in convincing our Republican Leadership not to run the bill because it failed so miserably in addressing the core issues. There was no genuine spending control, no assistance for any school district, no equity adjustment and a reliance on funds borrowed from the lottery fund, to be paid back from the elusive, unpredictable gambling revenues (when they surface, no sooner than five to six years from now). Even then, the relief only would have gone to senior citizens while ignoring the rest of Pennsylvania’s taxpayers. In addition, contrary to what the governor and Senate spokespeople have declared, there was not only a lack of spending controls for local districts, there was actually a formalized structure to encourage greater spending. For example, spending control was promoted by the inclusion of a mandated voter referendum for future tax increases. However, voter approval via referendum would not be mandated unless proposed school spending increases exceeded a Department of Education index. This index for 2006-2007 for most districts would be between 4.5% and 6.5% a year with the absolute lowest at 3.9%. Conveniently, school spending could be increased above these percentages in nine different categories. These exemptions included such things as school new construction costs and pension payments for teachers. These two items alone are basically the primary reasons for local tax increases making it apparent that this entire provision for “controlling” school spending was a sham. We can and must do much better.
Finally, I want to thank you for your help and support of the Commonwealth Caucus’ Plan for Pennsylvania’s Future. By framing the property tax reform issue and debate as we have done, the plan has successfully let our taxpayers know that restoring homeownership through the elimination of school property taxes can happen. I and many fellow legislators continue in our commitment to fight for this goal. I ask that you contact your representatives as well as Speaker John Perzel, Majority Leader Sam Smith, Rep. Brett Feese, Minority Leader Bill DeWeese and Governor Rendell. Make them aware of your demands for full elimination of the property tax via the Commonwealth Caucus Plan. With your help we can and must succeed.
Sincerely,
Rep. Sam Rohrer
