The Vermont House passed modest changes to the education finance system Wednesday, despite calls for more drastic reform and opposition from Gov. Phil Scott.
The bill, which passed 85-54, would shift $59 million in education funding from the property tax to the income tax. It would also cause tax rates to increase faster in school districts that spend more than about $12,000 per student, with the goal of discouraging high spending in future years.
Calling on her colleagues to be bolder, Rep. Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe) proposed an amendment that would have dramatically expanded the proposal, shifting about $120 million from the property tax to the income tax, among other changes.
“This is our chance to do something meaningful,” Scheuermann said. While many lawmakers complain that the current system is convoluted and contributes to high education spending, attempts to overhaul it have invariably failed.
Scheuermann’s proposal, which was defeated on a 51-90 vote, closely resembled an early version of the bill that the Ways and Means Committee had previously ditched because it would have increased tax bills for low- and middle-income residents in high-spending districts.
Proponents of the version that passed argued that the changes would lay the groundwork for more sweeping measures in the future. “You never know what seeds planted now will grow into beautiful trees in the future,” said Rep. Cynthia Browning (D-Arlington).
The bill would enable “a significant and important shift” in education financing, said Rep. Dave Sharpe (D-Bristol), who chairs the House Education Committee. “This creates a pathway to get to where we’d like to be in the future.”
Scott, however, may stand in the way. The governor, who has repeatedly said he won’t support any increases in taxes or fees, reiterated his opposition to the changes in a statement released ahead of the vote. “Reducing property tax bills only to make up the difference by collecting more from Vermonters’ paychecks is not what they’ve asked for and it is not relief,” he said.
Complicating matters further, the bill contains two modified versions of proposals Scott put forth. One would stave off a $30 million income tax increase caused by federal tax changes, and the other would eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits for individuals whose income is less than $45,000 and couples whose income is less than $60,000.
Updated 3/22/2018 at 6:50 a.m. to clarify the income thresholds for Social Security recipients.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Let’s make education something payed for by less people.
At least everyone pays property tax, either directly or through rent.
This seems like an easy way to raise revenue in the very short term. The result is more people moving away.
In Washington D.C. there has developed the bad habit of combining bills in order to exert political pressure on the passage of measures some of which may not be as popular as others. It is troubling to see that the legislation on school funding was bundled with important but unrelated issues of changes needed due to new federal tax laws and how we handle taxing social security in Vermont. All these issues deserves consideration and debate on their own merits and citizens deserve to know how their legislators vote on each issue. Political maneuvering of this sort may have some short term advantage but in the long run it is detrimental to the transparency and trust upon which good government depends.
We all know how thisll work. Theyll shift education taxes to an income based tax so well wind up paying more in income taxes then of course theyll find other things to move to property taxes so then we will wind up paying more in both income and property taxes and be worse off than we are now. Im a lifelong Democrat but am at the tipping point. The longer I work and the more
money I make the less of it stays in my pocket. Im all for investing in my community but when that gets in the way of my ability to invest in my future it is a problem. When will those idiots in Montpelier understand that the taxpayer cant be all things to all people? When will they understand that taking more and more of our hard earned cash isnt going to solve all of societys problems? At some point people have to be responsible for themselves and their families.
At some point people have to be responsible for themselves and their families.
Easy to say but not so easy to do when the cost of education, healthcare, and property far outpaces the rate of pay.
Doom- Not everyone pays tax through rent. Section 8 housing doesn’t pay taxes through rent. BHA and other nonprofits don’t pay property taxes. Federal buildings and religious organizations don’t pay taxes. Nearly one third of the city of Burlington is non taxed.
Yes that’s true. Those don’t pay income either.
Easy to say but not so easy to do when the cost of education, healthcare, and property far outpaces the rate of pay
Thats very true but you dont think that holds true for all of us? If one is unable to support ones self, thats a problem but not one that should be endlessly fixed by taking other peoples money. Again, at some point people need to be responsible for themselves instead of feeling entitled to have other people foot the bill. Many of us support ourselves and struggle to put money away so that we are not destitute in our old age. This should not be an impossible task but it becomes one when Montpelier continues to pick our pockets because they believe as you obviously do, that someone elses inability to take care of them self takes precidence over my ability to save for my future.