Who Wins and Loses in Pa. Property Tax Debate?

Pennsylvania lawmakers are trying to find a solution to the state's property tax issues.

By: Eric Boehm | PA Indepednent

HARRISBURG – Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are trying to find a solution to the state's property tax issues.

The question that lawmakers have to weigh as they continue to bat around a proposal to eliminate school property taxes in Pennsylvania and replace them with higher sales and income taxes is this: Who wins and who loses?

In an effort to offset more than $10 billion in annual revenue for school districts that comes from property taxes, lawmakers in the House and Senate have proposed a 1-percentage point increase for the state’s sales and income taxes, along with an expansion of the sales tax to do away with many of the exemptions in the tax code.

The plan is revenue-neutral from the state’s perspective, but the tax swap means some individuals will see their taxes collectively increase while others will drop.

The Senate Finance Committee met Thursday to debate the issue.

Like any state tax policy, shifting from school property taxes to sales and personal income taxes will result in winners and losers,” said state Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, a sponsor of the tax swap plan.

The break even point is $14,000 worth of sales taxable purchases for every $1,000 of current property tax payments, according to Folmer’s office.

For example, a homeowner with low property tax payments might end up paying more if the sales and income taxes were increased than the comparative offset in property tax payments.  Conversely, someone with a high property tax bill might have more to gain by paying higher sales and income taxes if they can dump the property tax cost.

David Baldinger, a leader of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations, which includes about 60 local taxpayer advocacy groups, said taxpayers would win if the proposed changes became law.

He told the committee that thousands of homeowners in Pennsylvania risk losing their homes every year because they are unable to pay school property taxes.

“Eliminating the property tax is the only way to give those homeowners peace of mind and bring an end to the unconstitutional school property tax,” he said.

Folmer, one of the sponsors of the proposal, said sales and income taxes are fairer.

Using the sales taxes to replace property taxes works because people have more control over paying these taxes,” he said.

State Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Blair, said the property tax effectively penalizes homeowners who increase the value of their property by assessing higher taxes, while homeowners who allow their property to fall into disrepair — which hurts the rest of the neighborhood too — will be rewarded with lower taxes.

But many special interests are worried they could come out losing under the property tax elimination proposal.

An increase in sales taxes would hurt purchasing patterns, which could lead businesses to lay off workers, said Alexandra D’Angola, director of governmental affairs for the Pennsylvania Retailers’ Association, which represents stores in the state.

“Such a hit to their bottom lines will likely lead to decreases in salaries, benefits and jobs,” D’Angola told the committee.

And, D’Angola said, low wage-earners who do not own homes would not benefit from the elimination of property taxes, but would have to pay more in sales taxes,

Organizations representing school districts also oppose the tax shift because the property tax is seen as more predictable than the sales and income taxes, which tend to rise and fall more abruptly with the cycles of the economy.

Those same groups also are concerned about the loss of local autonomy that would occur if school districts were reliant on state-level taxes for all their revenue instead of being able to levy local property taxes on their own.

An identical proposal to SB 1400 stalled in the state House earlier this summer, where it was positioned for a vote in the weeks leading up to the passage of the state budget.  Instead, lawmakers in that chamber passed a resolution creating a new commission to study the property tax issue and make recommendations for changes.

Like the House plan, the Senate proposal would not change the existing state funding formula for school districts.  But without property taxes to fund schools at a local level, districts would be reliant on the state formula for nearly all their revenue since the state collects sales and income taxes.

Folmer said consumers would have more disposable income if they did not have to pay the property tax.  That income would allow them to purchase more goods and services to benefit businesses and – by extension – schools that would be dependent on the new, higher sales tax.

State Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria, who supports changing the property tax system, said everyone wants fairer taxes, but that really means they really just want to see their taxes go down.

Everything is neutral until you start to put numbers on it,” he said, summing up the dilemma facing lawmakers.

Amend July 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM
This all sounds great, shifting the tax burden from property to sales and/or income, but how will already stressed districts account for their budgets from year to year considering no one can forecast the revenue from gross sales/income? Districts need reliable revenue streams to plan from, not numbers based on assumptions. Education is shared benefit, not a commodity who's value should rise or fall with economic cycles. It's easy to pass the buck when you overlook the value of quality education has on your community.
THOMAS P. TRINKLE July 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Interesting comment. I totally agree. Education funding in California is out of Sacramento. These guys pass legislation but no funding on the laws passed. My brother is president of the Board of Education in Orange County. His plight is lack of funding and overloaded classrooms of nonnative English speaking children. They now serve breakfast and lunch to children of poverty stricken families who fail to feed their children. Suddenly everyone is poverty stricken. His success has been to vacate some schools and turn them into rental office spaces to get extra financial support. I fail to understand how ASD has the right to raise my taxes without my vote. However how much more could Harrisburg do to make things better? It is a matter of concern for everyone.
Marie King August 03, 2012 at 03:18 AM
My friend's husband was moved to Lewisburg several years ago, they have since moved. They bought a house there and she proceeded to look for a job. After she had the job ,she found that anyone over 18 and under 65, had to pay $1,500.00 to the town to help with the school tax. This helped the senior citizens who were on fixed incomes. There are so many people don't buy a house, because they don't want the taxes. I had someone mention to me if they passed this fee on to landlords for each rental unit, they could pass this on in the rent to tenants that don't pay the taxes and resolve that problem.
THOMAS P. TRINKLE August 03, 2012 at 07:54 AM
In Pa. can a city tax individuals to pay school taxes? ASD is overloaded with over 40% of the families of children in school paying no taxes for education. Many of these are non-native English speakers. Poverty stricken and on welfare. I just can't imagine every citizen 18 - 65 paying 1,500 dollars to help senior citizens pay taxes for education.
Rosemary B August 03, 2012 at 12:07 PM
The tenants pay the landlords rent who pay the real estate tax on the property the tenant lives in. In effect, they are paying tax, it is just part of their rent


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »