As chair of the Granby Select Board, I deliver a state of the town address at annual town meeting. Last night, I my speech focused on the historical connections between our town’s and the Commonwealth’s fiscal problems.
We assemble here tonight to make decisions about next year’s budget. We all know that the revenue we once counted on from hosting a landfill has stopped coming in. We all know that there isn’t enough revenue to pay for what we need. What we don’t have is a complete understanding of the factors beyond the borders of Granby the account for most of our fiscal problems. Granby, you see, like every city or town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not self-sufficient. Thus the complete story of how we got to this point is not well-understood. Tonight, I’ll tell try to tell this story because the state of our town is inseparable from the state of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Our story begins with Proposition 2½, a ballot initiative that limited the amount of property taxes that could be collected and the pace of tax increases. Before then, Massachusetts taxes were very high, in fact, the second highest in the country.
Prior to Proposition 2.5, local taxes funded most of our services. The school budget was set, and then taxes were raised to pay for it. Cities and towns had “fiscal autonomy,” local control over much of our spending. The school committee set the budget, and town meeting usually paid the bill.
When the Proposition 2.5 went into effect in 1982, taxes dropped and revenue dropped. Annual tax increases were severely restricted, and overrides were difficult, if not impossible, to pass. Major budget shortfalls ensued. Teachers were cut. As many of you know, I teach high school in East Longmeadow. At 52, I am one of the oldest, longest, serving employees in my building. Where are the people in their late 50s and early 60s? Many were cut during the years following Proposition 2.5, found other jobs or left education altogether.
School finances were constantly tight throughout the 1980s. There is no telling what would have happened if the State Supreme Court had not found that the Commonwealth was not living up to its obligation to provide an adequate public education to all children in the state. MCDUFFY vs. SECRETARY OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF EDUCATION, a lawsuit filed on behalf of students living in communities with low property values, forced our state government to address educational funding. By 1993, the Chapter 70 formula for school funding was created. After years of underfunding, education funding finally increased.
Chapter 70 resulted in more equitable and increased education funding. It was supposed to be reviewed regularly, but it took more than 20 years for that to happen. The first state report on the formula was issued last year; however, our state government chose not to act on it. As a result, we will make an agonizing decision tonight about our school budget. A large part of Granby’s fiscal problems is due to the Commonwealth’s failure to keep its legislative promise.
It’s important to note that their hands as well as ours have been tied by anti-revenue ballot initiatives in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Proposition 2.5 lowered our property taxes and shifted the burden of educational funding toward the state, but these ballot initiatives, reduced the personal income tax rate and increased the personal tax exemption. Since the inception of these tax cuts, the Commonwealth has foregone a total of approximately $51 billion dollars, about $3 billion a year in revenue. In a tight budget of $40 billion, this money would make a huge difference. In the 1990s, the folks on Beacon Hill had worked to improve educational financing, but these ballot initiatives took away much of the money the needed to continue those improvements. Granby has a fiscal problem tonight because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a fiscal problem, caused in large part by decisions made by voters 15 years ago.
After that bit of history, I’d like to offer some ballpark figures on the town budget to show you the effect of state aid on Granby’s budget. Our school budget is roughly $12 million. Granby contributes about two-thirds or $8 million of that sum. The state, about one-third through Chapter 70. Chapter 70 funds have increased modestly, but nowhere near enough to keep up with increasing educational costs To make matters worse, the Commonwealth has cut other forms of state aid. Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) has dropped almost 40% since 2008. Prior to 2008, we received $1,200,149 in UGGA; for fiscal year 2017, we’ll receive a little less than $850,000. That $350,000 difference would more than cover the money the schools would like to add to their budget.
As a town, we certainly don’t have a lot of direct control over our situation, but we have more effect on it than we do on the weather. Our votes at the state level have put us in a difficult position at the local level. We have difficult decisions to make tonight, balancing our individual interests and preferences with our shared, common interest. Our state representatives and senator are aware of our situation. They know we are suffering, and they know we are not alone. Other towns are having revenue problems too. Beacon Hill will have to address revenue problems in the near future. Many communities are approaching their levy ceiling, meaning they will not be able to increase taxes by 2.5% or by override. Granby is 8 or 9 years away from reaching this ceiling.
In the interests of transparency, I need to mention the town audit of Fiscal Year 2015. (Last year was Fiscal Year 2016). For the first time, our auditor, an independent contractor who works for us and with the state, uncovered a handful of problems. Three accounts were overspent, two apparently by accident, and one with our knowledge. The Special Education Circuit Breaker was overspent by $118,836.21. The School Choice Account overspent by $112,293.71. The school lunch program has been running an annual deficit for years. The total now is $129,592.82. Our auditor tells us that the state now wants us to address this deficit. In 2014-2015, we did not have effective management on the school side of things, and no decision was made about how to address the annual deficit in the lunch program. I’m reassured by the depth of knowledge our current school committee has concerning their budget. Our interim superintendent was instrumental in their education. We are currently talking with the Department of Revenue and hope to address these shortfalls over the course of the next three years, rather than paying the costs in a lump sum.
Tonight, we are faced with some tough decisions at the local level. I anticipate that we will also have some difficult decisions to make at the state-level. Any long-term solution to our fiscal problems must come from the Commonwealth. Our school budget alone is $2 million more than we collect in taxes ever year. We can’t do it as a town. It takes a Commonwealth.
Obviously you see many of the things we talk about here first hand.
A few additions:
1. MA schools are challenged by unfunded SPED requirements by the state. It’s one of the reasons that towns don’t want additional SPED students. One kid moving to a town in the middle of the year can mess up a budget. There’s one student in Andover that is costing town $350K, and the average of SPED students taught out of town is something like $80K. The responsibility to these children should be a state one, not a town one. The legislature won’t touch this with a ten foot pole. Andover spends millions fighting SPED parents to avoid spending even more. Note that the Andover special ed budget is in the neighborhood of $23 million, which I think is larger than Granby’s total (town & school) budget.
2. Chapter 70 is not fair. There are dozens of towns not getting their fair share, and it’s not related to town wealth. The legislature has avoided addressing it for years.
3. Health care costs for employees is the real town budget buster.
Not sure what your solution is. No 2 1/2? Does Granby have the base to significantly increase taxes on its citizens? Are you looking for the state to tax others and send more money? Not trying to be snarky, just wondering where this all comes out in the end.
the citizens of my town, so I’m not preaching tax policy to them. If I were a state rep or senator, that would be different. I want Granby citizens to understand the problem. That’s what people need to think about for a while. I don’t want to complicate understanding with pushing an agenda. I also want to put this problem on the map.
As a selectman, I want voters to make the best choice that they would make, not necessarily vote the way I want. I provide information and reasoning necessary for them to make good decisions, but they can only do what they think is best. I don’t know if my way of thinking is practical at other levels of government, but that’s my basic ethic.
I think Proposition 2.5 was beneficial because it shifted costs to the state. I don’t think we want to go back to the days of “fiscal autonomy.” The problem, in my opinion, were the tax cuts and personal exemption increase (1998-2000). Personally, I support the millionaire’s tax initiative, which would increase revenue. There might be other options, but that’s the one most likely to be on the table for a while. A longer term strategy would be to examine our entire tax structure, not just for fairness and increased revenue, but for stability. The cuts I mention were sustainable for a while, but post-2008.
I think the only real solution is to reduce benefits for employees. They’re not sustainable. I also think SPED needs to be looked with an eye towards reducing costs and financing it all at the state level. These are where the big numbers are.
No one is going to want to touch either of those ideas at any level though.
I think Baker is on the right track with prioritizing getting more money back to towns so they can solve their fiscal problems.
If all the money raised by the millionaire’s tax was distributed proportionally to cities and towns you’d get about $1.3M. I don’t think that’s how they plan to spend it though.
a factor of 1000, I think. The money is supposed to be $1.3 billion. $1.3 million is peanuts.
According to Boston.com, the proposal could “generate upwards of $1.5 billion per year” if approved, while others believe that the number could be as high as $2 billion.
[FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a teacher and MTA member]. I’m protective of benefits. I’d note that they aren’t all equal. Granby’s teachers pay about 50% of their health insurance. Same with East Longmeadow’s. In other communities, they contribute even less. This is better than the private sector in most cases, but I think we should be working people up to the level of public employees, not downward. Nonetheless, OPEB’s are a serious cost for municipalities.
Pensions are different. Teachers are on the way to full-funding, and the state contributes less than it would if we were part of social security.
I took $1.5 Billion for MA, divided by residents in the state, multiplied by the number of people in Granby. That’s if the millionaire tax went 100% back to communities. Your town would get $1.3 M.
I get the pension argument but the towns are unable to adjust annually to keep health costs somewhat level. In general companies (even ones that treat employees well) tinker with the health plans- increasing deductibles and/or co-pays to reduce premiums. It’s the great plans that public sector employees have that are the most expensive. It’s unlikely that private plans will reverse course and become like teachers. Single payer will occur first.
Teacher pensions (as I understand it) are not as much as a problem at OPEB. OPEB for part time employees is the real crime. For all pension costs though the amounts contributed by towns will be accelerating in the coming years, leaving even less money for anything.
received $1.3 million that would be a 10% increase in the budget. About a 14% increase in state funding. Seeing as we just cut $500,000 out of the budget, this would be a huge boost.
In Granby, people have to retire from the town to get OPEB, and I think their benefits are pro-rated. What is a crime, though not a huge cost, is the number of elected officials that don’t work 20 hours a week or more and receive the same health care deal.
unfortunately I’m sure others have plans for that money.
OPEB for part timers varies by town, but I believe it’s state law that makes it exist.
Merrimack, the script has already been written…doesn’t mean you need to read it. The script holds that since the state is breaking it’s word, the only logical choice is to cut spending, particularly on oersonnel. That will cause anybody with options to leave. Without qualified staff we can declare public schools a failure and privatize them. This is the raison d’etre of Baker’s candidacy (beside increasing health care profit margins).
Or…one could demand everyone pays their fair share, even the millionaires in high finance. One could the state to their promises. One is easier than the other.
and there’s no political willpower to fix some issues that might reduce costs.
Note the recent changes to the way municipal employee health care was negotiated have saved money.
http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/essex-tech-insurance-switch-could-save-k/article_35a063a3-bd6d-5c49-8bca-afd1b4caf13b.html
I don’t know anything about privatization. That just seems speculation.
on the cutting edge of this. Our retirees were put into the GIC at least 20 years ago. Our non-retiree insurance is provided by the Hampshire Group Insurance Trust, which is equivalent to or less expensive than the GIC. In East Longmeadow, where I teach, we’re part of the the Scantic Valley Trust, which does the same thing. I’m not positive, but I think Western Mass has been ahead of the curve on this.
The millionaire tax, as written, would benefit only the MBTA and the existing Ed formula, still awaiting its 2003 statutory review.
I could see such a tax going to something like the Rainy Day fund, to be apportioned as needed; that way, regional transport, contribution to SPED and pension systems, etc., even catastrophic snow plowing, could be funded on a as-needed or emergency basis. But the tax as written will only further bloat the existing usual suspects, and if you are hoping for a trickle down – well, that is not well regarded here, is it?
but my senator said that it would deliver a worthwhile amount. I’m also friends with my senator, so I know he’s not blowing smoke. We’ve lost so much in Granby, bloat isn’t possible. I don’t know about your neck of the woods or the rest of the East, but a lot of schools are in trouble out here. That’s without more communities hitting their levy ceilings.
Cost-savings like regionalization would be great, if we weren’t surrounded by towns two and a half times our size. They don’t need us, and the incentives are screwy. Regionalizing dispatch is a win-lose proposition: the town that gets the dispatch makes money, the town’s the give it up lose a grant. I’ve had a hard time convincing the school committee to start looking into regionalizing our high school, but I don’t run them. And the state keeps trying to cut regional school transportation.
Back when it was fashionable, all the small towns were pushed in regionalizing, and now the state lowballs or even un-funds the commitments they promised. Nauset region (Brewser to Eastham) does OK, Dennis-Yarmouth are at each others’ throats due to changes in population where one town now has twice as many kids as another and resents per capita expenses, and Monomoy (Harwich and Chatham) is barely 2 years old so who knows how that will work out. Boston sees us all as ants, and doesn’t understand that individual towns have great differences that may or may not make for a good mix. I think about this when progressives want consolidated zoning changes, or other regional initiatives which are usually population-based so the biggest town becomes king.
And as I think you realize, the two parties in this state are not Republican and Democrat – they are Urban and Rural.
than just the MBTA and the existing chapter 70 ed formula. The tax could be used to provide
These tax revenues, like all tax revenues, would still need to be appropriated by the Legislature, so there’s no guarantee that Granby would get exactly $1.3 million annually. But if $1.5 billion in new money for education and transportation were to be available, Granby and the other 350 cities and towns in Massachusetts would probably be in a stronger financial position.
(In other financial news, the Baker administration is announcing today that
expected tax revenues for fiscal 2017 are likely to run $450 million to $750 million below the amounts budget writers have been assuming.)
I have nothing good to say about Prop 2.5 and have always supported debt exclusions and overrides. As a child of the 80s and 90s I felt the law’s damage constantly. I think communities should be able raise whatever they are willing and able to support the best possible services for their residents, but I also think there is a baseline below which the state should make sure no community falls.
the inequity that comes from rich communities being able to supplement their children’s education.
Sometime I wonder if we would do better with something like a county school board running all the schools. Probably not.
The state should pay each community a certain equal amount per pupil, with maybe more per pupil with certain special needs, but there should be no problem with a community going above and beyond if they are willing and able. In fact, I would strongly oppose any effort to prohibit or prevent a community from doing so. To be clear, the baseline from the state needs to be high enough that if such is all that is being spent and the community can’t afford more, their students would still get a good education.
But because cities are TRULY needy,the money goes to them and small towns get screwed
This is a great post and a great message.
But I take issue with some of your history, though the upshot is the same.
After the passage of Prop 2-1/2, the Commonwealth came though in a big way for cities and towns with substantial aid to cities and towns that increased each year. For every community, even though the equalizing formula favored the needier cities.
There was the usual wrangling about the state budget, but the core commitment was real. It’s kind of ironic, the very people who opposed 2-1/2 made it work.
That ended in 1990 with the first Weld administration. Whatever was going on, the legislature certainly went along with it. It was just easier, i guess, to pretend that the cities and towns were some foreign charity to which the state could just unsubscribe.
Go balance your own budgets, thankyouverymuch, when state law meant those budgets would be forever unbalanced whatever local governments did.
It’s important to remember, because (a) it worked and (b) we all prospered and (c) it’s a model for what we need to do going forward.
This stuff is literally not written down anywhere. I’ve been working off Mass Budget and Policy Center. I’ll keep researching, but I can testify to the pink slips and layoffs prior to 1990. My mom was a teacher in Granby, and a lot of people lost jobs or had layoffs and were rehired. I’ve been teaching since 1993, and I can tell you that there have been a few pink slips in my building, but pretty much everyone was rehired.
I appreciate in the information. I was actually hoping someone would correct me on things I had wrong.
Revenues were declining as several industries here were in decline and real estate was imploding. Cuts were inevitable.
Note that Deval Patrick was the one that really chopped local aid in 08 & 09.
It is certainly true that Deval Patrick was governor in 2008, and that he was forced to make draconian cuts in state spending.
Do I need to remind you that we were in the midst of the worst collapse since the Great Depression? I strongly suspect that EVERY governor, regardless of party, made draconian cuts in state spending in 2008 and 2009.
The more significant point is that our legislature did not raise taxes in any significant way during the recovery. Deval Patrick attempted to change that and was cut off at the knees by Bob DeLeo for doing so.
Trickle-up above implies that everything was fine until Weld.
I’m only saying that giving (and in many cases, returning) tax money to towns is one budget choice among many.
Baker makes it a higher priority than Patrick ever did.
a graph that backs up the trajectory that Trickle Up mentions. I’ll try to embed it in my post. I have no idea how to upload a picture here.
I uprated your comment, I just feel that you gratuitously and incorrectly attacked Deval Patrick. Any governor of either party would have done the same thing Mr. Patrick did in 2008/2009. Massachusetts is required to have a balanced budget. The collapse of 2008 destroyed tax receipts, and the federal response was slow and anemic.
Weld was faced with a budget crisis as well, and I agree of course that all governors must balance the budget. I would suggest that other actions during Patrick’s administration added costs to municipal government.
Where we disagree is that I think that taking from the towns and redistributing via Boston should be limited.
I’m okay with the millionaires tax, but you’re in essence removing funds from wealthy communities and directing them to where? Will there be a local impact (less charity, failed overrides?). TBD
Broader tax increases might have a larger impact locally, and additional state funds might never make it to Granby.
Tax cuts redistributed money up to the rich, now it gets redistributed back. Why should a kid in Andover have a better education than a kid in Granby? That’s what happens. Richer communities manage, poorer communities struggle. I don’t think we necessarily need parity, but these are all Massachusetts kids. They didn’t choose to live where they do.
Taxes need to address the following factors:fairness, stability, simplicity, adequacy, and efficiency. We might actually be able to design a better tax system in Massachusetts. It’s hopeless at the federal level. The millionaire’s tax is efficient to collect, decreases regressiveness (so it’s more fair), it improves adequacy. I don’t know how stable it is, but it may be more stable in that people who have $1,000,000 in personal income usually continue to have money. Of course, there will be attempts to limit tax exposure, but at 4%, it is expected to be fairly low.
There’s no guarantee that kids in Andover are getting a better education.
Andover is a wealthy town but the per student expenditure is only average. The MCAS scores are maybe 50ish in rank.
Teacher salaries are very high. Average salary is upper $80’s, so it’s not like the student to teacher ratios are great.
SPED costs are super high. Andover is a magnet for families looking for a good education if their kids have needs.
Andover is not homogeneous. There are a lot of kids who are not from wealthy families or even maybe middle class.
So taking money out of Andover hurts lots of kids. Wealthy kids? They might be going to private schools, or their parents can supplement.
So you’re not really re-distributing from wealthy people, you’re redistributing from wealthy towns, and hurting people as a result.
doesn’t redistribute student aid. It re-distributes personal income tax. It doesn’t mean Andover schools get less, it means that your millionaires (don’t know if you have any) pay more. In fact, Andover might get more money as well.
LEARNED A LOT ABOUT ANDOVER
Just looking at the high school, your MCAS scores are fine. They are, in fact, so high that there is little room for improvement. Your science scores are a little low, but that probably has to do with curricular choices. In DART, which claims to measure similar communities, your scores with the exception of science, are at the top or basically equal to.
Per pupil expenditures are tricky. Cost of living must me higher in Andover. I haven’t been there in at least 15 years. My friend grew up on Haggett’s Pond Road, near St. Something Church. The property behind his old house is now conservation land. I was amazed at the number of McMansions that had sprung up. Andover’s per pupil spending is $15,185. Longmeadow, the most affluent WMass town, spends $14,008. Granby spends $12,891. Andover is not in Weston’s league with $21,652. But some of the highest spending is not correlated with family wealth. Check out the places at the Cape. What I’m trying to say is, it’s an imperfect measure. Andover is light years about Granby. Out of curiosity, how many kids does Phillips Andover attract?
Compare Andover to Granby on socio-economics and taxes:
PER CAPITA INCOME Andover: $73,316 Granby: $28,071
AVG ASSESSED VALUE Andover $603,550 Granby: $227,799
AVG 1 FAMILY TAX BILL Andover $8,945 Granby: $4,299
I’m not saying we should get everything Andover people get. But kids deserve an education based on something other than the wealth of their parents and whatever taxes richer folks feel like paying. We are highly dependent on state aid. There’s a certain amount of choice that goes in living where we live. I get that. I didn’t have to become a teacher or live in Granby. And I’m not saying Andover kids should give up what they have for Granby kids. I’m saying Granby kids deserve more than they get, and the reason is we had tax cuts and personal exemption increases that gave rich people more money. Millionaires benefited from those tax changes, and they can certainly share some of those gains.
… Saint Something… the patron Saint of the vague remembrance. Also, Apostle to the daft and the barmy, and the Abbot of the Priory of Watchamacallit.
I may have gone to that Church. Don’t really remember it, though…
… “hurt”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
To a very great extent any efforts at re-distributing against a wildly unfair structure of distribution suffers from myopia: you’re as much as arguing the unfairness of the structure is good and right and therefore any attempt to lay fairness upon the levy fey and accursed.
Or, put another way, the “hurt” put upon Andover, that of taking a chunk out of a gigantic pie, is not comparable to the actual pain Granby may be feeling, which — as near as makes no never-mind — is an empty pie tin, scraped clean and devoid of any pie left whatsoever. Andover has MORE THAN enough. Granby has LESS THAN enough. The question, it seems, is if in that more than there exists amounts greater than Granby’s less than and, if so, why can’t Granby have some of it?
The underlying, underwhelming, premise of your argument is that taking any money away is pain. But is this true? At what level would we need to tax a rich community before they even felt it? At what level of taxation would the average expenditure per student in Andover drop? And if we tax well below that level, where’s the hurt?
It is not, actually, painful (to anything other than pride and/or greed) to tax some of that MORE THAN enough and give it to those who have LESS THAN enough
In the words of an ancient Celtic prophet whose name escapes me:
…who was canonized and became the St. Something whose church is referred to above.:)
Actually, given the Haggett’s Pond Road address there’s a good chance it’s St. Robert Bellarmine where it just so happens I was at for an event the other night.
Besides per capita income and assessed value.
A vacant lost costs about $300K.
A 1200-1400 sf home is about $450K and will pay over $5000 in property taxes.
If you wanted to buy that “average home” of $600K, it’s a 70’s 2200 sf ranch that needs work. A 30 yr mortgage will be close to $3000/mo and taxes close to $8000/yr.
Just think what mortgage payments are in Andover.
Just think how much Andover residents are paying in taxes vs Granby.
If you take more taxes from people in Andover to give to others, there’s going to be less desire to spend more schools and services in Andover. People will have less money to spend on additional programs for their children.
How much more should they pay? I don’t know.
How much of additional state taxes make it to Granby? I bet very little.
That’s not a given (and it’s nowhere near “hurt”, which was your previous argument) It assumes a streamlined and efficient taxation that clearly maps levy to needs with no slop, overlap or surplus. If, for instance, we taxed Warren Buffets net worth of 64 Billion at 50% he would still be left with 32 Billion dollars. Perhaps his pride would be hurt… but he’d not actually suffer in any meaningful way. As it is, we’re talking about taxing his margins at a slightly greater rate than at present, such that anything extra he gives in taxation is likely epsilon compared to the rounding errors on his interest statements. He probably makes more in his sleep than he would give to taxation. Giving even more than that is not going to hurt him in any meaningful wat.
It’s very interesting that ‘waste fraud and abuse’ is an oft used rallying cry against funding, but which disappears from the conversation, when the topic becomes taking from those who have to give to those who have not. I’m not saying you’re making that argument, but you’re skirting it… And the notion that wealth entitles one to a subtle profligacy is in there also. Those who might make the argument that wealthy cities, across the board, have perfected funding formulas and levying, and that any lessening endangers civic integrity… well they’ve yet to come up with compelling evidence for it. I daresay more anxiety and care — and probably skill — attend the work of fiscal decision making in Granby (ref speech above. Bail, Mark) than in Andover… however much they might pride themselves, in Andover, for their wealth.
Nor do these sorts of arguments take into account municipalities ability to borrow against their wealth. A very cursory google suggests Andovers rating is better than Granby’s: thus Andover is better able to borrow larger sums at smaller charge. The distance between taking more out of Andover and Andover falling over, is very much greater than you assume. How great that distance is the conversation and how much we can take out of it without greatly upsetting the Andover apple cart is the point. I believe that we can take some from Andover and they’d most likely never feel it. I certainly do not advocate punishing Andover… and I don’t believe that re-distributing wealth is punishment.
Perhaps so. But that’s an argument against administration of the scheme, or the efficiency therein. It is not an argument against the implementation of a scheme of re-distribution (or, perhaps more precisely, re-re-distribution)
just taxing income.
To use your Buffett example, you would prefer to take his money and have the government redistribute it, rather than have him leave it to the Gates Foundation, as he plans to do? Maybe that’s the right path, but I bet he has a lot more confidence that the money would be spent more wisely by Bill & Melinda.
Note: if you don’t want to skirt issues, that’s confiscation.
As far as Andover is concerned there are more problems in its budget than you might imagine. If future liabilities were being funded at an adequate amount (there’s a big debate currently about this), Andover would be experience severe cuts right now. There are much needed infrastructure proposals that would add hundreds to the average tax bill. As I noted above, Andover spends more on SPED than Granby’s entire budget. As we know a lot of that funding is coming directly from the town as the state does not pay it’s fair share. Is that not doing something for the less fortunate? Andover’s wealth also allows it to spend a lot of money on it’s public sector workforce.
My net/net here is that by thinking that Andover is some well that needs additional water drawn from it, at some point (I would say sooner vs later) there’s going to be repercussions that will effect plenty of moderate and low income residents in the town, not just the well-off.
(Period).
Towns are arbitrary geographical entities. So are states. I’m not asking for a revolution. But poorer kids shouldn’t suffer because of where they live. They do. We can’t eliminate that, but we can ameliorate it. Just that the rich-more specifically–pay a little more. Instead of the poorer paying more and still getting less.
I think we fundamentally disagree on this and won’t get anywhere.
I know Andover isn’t comfortable. We could compare out communities forever, and for everything you mention, I could offer something else. Many of our problems are the same. Many caused by the fact that we disinvested from the commonwealth with tax cuts. My citizens have increased their 11% in the last three years, for trash and a new building. A 1% tax increase brings in $100,000. We can’t keep doing that.
The state needs to fix SPED funding and SPED rules. These kids are not solely a town’s responsibility, they’re also the state’s.
The state needs to fix Chap 70 funding. A number of towns get less than they should under the formula. There’s more than you ever want to know here:
http://willbrownsberger.com/whats-wrong-with-chapter-70/
The state needs to make it easier for towns to save money. The biggest number in the budget is salaries. I’m open to all ideas.
Increased revenues raised at the state level and redistributed could be on the table, but only a comprehensive solution will get the support necessary.
I’m talking about in my post. What the house decided not to address this year because it takes money.
You and I would probably disagree on taxes and towns “saving” money eventually, but Brownsberger knows what he’s talking about. The MTA and public school organizations (superintendents, school committees, principals) all pushed for this. It took 20 years to get it done.
I’m not talking about property taxes on middle-class homes in Andover.
I’m talking about the top 1%, by weatlh, in Massachusetts. Exhibit A is Abigail Johnson. This site lists her current new worth at $14.1 BILLION. Your discussion of property taxes and housing prices is irrelevant to the population I’m talking about.
As mark_bail has observed, taxes are about taking from those who have more in order to provide goods and services for those who have less. That’s what “society” does — at least civilized society.
If you have a personal net worth in excess of, say, $10M (chosen arbitrarily) then yes, in my opinion you should pay more — in both rate and amount — in Massachusetts taxes than someone whose net worth is negative (such as a recent graduate with six-figure or seven-figure student debt).
Taxes are not “confiscation”. Taxing wealth is not “confiscation”. Nor is it necessarily “hurt” in any meaningful sense of the word.
When I made a December 2015 comment here, the same site (Forbes) estimated her net worth as $12.5B.
That appears to be a gain of $1.6B in six months. Let’s say, for discussion, that there’s no change through the rest of 2016. If nothing else, I argue that an annual gain of $1.6B in net worth should be taxed at about the same 5.25% rate that the upside-down student pays on her earnings from Starbucks. For Ms. Johnson, that would be about EIGHT-FIVE million dollars MORE in Massachusetts taxes than she paid last year.
Do you think Ms. Johnson, or anybody in her wealth bracket pays amounts like this? If so, I invite you to offer evidence of it — I can’t find any.
I think your focus on property taxes of Andover residents misses the point.
Although you don’t want to hear this in Andover, that is the path that must be taken in this state. It is not a good thing that houses in Andover cost $600k unless you bought one of them for $600k. Our state is heavily screwed up, with massive differences between communities. In order to fix that, communities like Andover are going to have to equalize with other communities, and the only way for that to happen is for either their values to drop, or for them to stop rising while others catch up.
The inequality is far more harmful than you may realize. Let’s talk housing for a minute – let’s say that the town next to Andover has houses for a more reasonable cost, maybe $200k, because their school system sucks. So you buy one of those houses because it’s all you can afford and you don’t have kids. You need to have some work done – maybe a new roof, and every guy who shows up has the choice of doing work for you, or doing work for people in Andover. He can quote someone in Andover $30k for a roof because the house is worth $600k, so he quotes you $30k for your $200k house. He’s not going to lower his price just because you don’t live in Andover.
These massive disparities in income and wealth harm our state. They force us into a race with the Joneses. They are driving our young people out because at some point, the poor communities can’t afford basic services and become very undesirable, and the surrounding rich communities become too rich for someone just starting out in life.
Isnt that exactly the word used by charter school opponents, to describe what happens when someone choices out of the local struggling public school?
opponent, exactly.
This link would seem to support Merrimack, though it doesn’t say anything about Weld’s handling of things. From the Center of Budget Policy and Priorities:
If you follow the link, there’s a graph of state aid. Based on my discussion with the guy who was Finance Committee chair at the time, it was very difficult post-1982,
It gave an extra $10 million to Chelsea because that was the crisis point and that money was going to fix everything. Their test scores are worse now.
Included was a clause that in 10 years there would be a formula adjustment to re-examine the favorable status of certain urban centers which were deliberately given money in excess of the rest of the formula. The re-examination is now 13 years overdue.
Meanwhile, in many rural communities (including my own), the percentage of children in the Federal school lunch program which is an absolute and non-political measure of poverty is greater than the percentage in the favored cities.
Now you’ve got some wiggle room because “favored cities” doesn’t necessarily have a specific meaning, but here’s a list of free and reduced lunch by school district. I see lots of poor cities at the top, and not much rural. Remove the charter schools to just get cities and towns, and you’ve got, in order from most to least:
1. Southbridge 100%
1. Wareham 100%
1. Lawrence 100%
1. Boston 100%
5. New Bedford 99%
5. Holyoke 99%
7. Springfield 94%
8. Fitchburg 85%
9. Brockton 81%
10. Fall River 80%
11. Revere 78%
12. Lynn 76%
13. Everett 76%
14. Worcester 75%
15. Lowell 72%
16. Chelsea 72%
17. Greenfield 71%
18. North Adams 69%
19. West Springfield 68%
20. Chicopee 67%
So, what’s your source?
our problem is our size and our relative lack of income. I don’t know if this stands for PP. We’re in the second quartile from the bottom in terms of tax base.
http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/site/Default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&PageID=1&ViewID=047e6be3-6d87-4130-8424-d8e4e9ed6c2a&FlexDataID=3160
I think what you want is the number of students that would *qualify* for free or reduced price lunches under federal guidelines, not the number that receive them.
Free lunch is at least a constant measure between communities. My understanding on school systems as 100% is that it isn’t worth the effort to collect money from the small percentage of students who can actually pay.