Uncategorized

Better Education vs. Tax Breaks

Just as the state tax debate comes to a close for this year, the tax reform debate at the federal level is heating up.  And once again, the choices are stark.  Americans for Tax Fairness put together the following example of the trade-off between tax cuts for some of the wealthiest individuals in the US and funding for elementary, secondary, and special education. While members of Wall Street are seeing more money in their already hefty pockets, children across the country are experiencing a loss of instructors, transportation, and more as a result of budget cuts driven by an inadequate and unfair tax system…

Read more at: http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/blog/2013/08/06/tuesday-tax-trade-off-better-education-for-our-kids-vs-tax-breaks-for-wall-street-fund-managers/

10 Comments

  1. Doug

    August 8, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Well better education is what we are getting with over funding education to a tune of 4.8% increase when the projected population of K-12 students is going down and inflation is 1.6%. This argument is the biggest straw man I have ever seen.

    http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates/demog/statesingleage_2010_2019.html

  2. gregflynn

    August 8, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    As I have previously responded to the same comment you made elsewhere there is no K-12 drop: There is a drop in K-3 ages in 2017 which corresponds with a 4 year decline in births before 2013 but other groups continue to increase after 2013. If you take all ages 5-18 there is a steady increase every year in spite of the 4 year blip that moves diagonally across the chart.

  3. Jim Wiseman

    August 8, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    If educrats can’t spend money and get results, it needs to go back in my pocket where it belongs anyway.

  4. Doug

    August 9, 2013 at 8:38 am

    spin it however you like greggy, but the straw man arguments you guys are putting up don’t hold water with the population decreasing overall and at a minimum zero growth it speaks volumes that the NCGA is increasing spending by a HUGE amount overall. When inflation is at the most 1.6% you leave a 3% increase for the education crowd. If anything this is over funding them.

  5. Doug

    August 9, 2013 at 8:53 am

    I posted this elswhere too…but assume you guys are not going to go back that far:

    Regardless of how you spin it, the increase is statistcally irrelevant. It is essentially a zero percent increase each year….open your excel and calculate the percentage changes and you get not one that can even round up to a 1% change and only one can round to 0.5%. That bascially blows a huge shotgun hole into the population change vs funding hysteria as presented here. That combined with an inflation rate that is 1.6% gets you to a generous funding model. I will spell it out for you:

    Inflation rate – 1.6%
    Growth rate – 1.0% (I will be generous for you guys so the next lines do not blow your minds too bad)
    Total required – 2.6% (this is the progressive argument…fund population + inflation)
    Total fund increase 4.8%
    Total over funded 2.2%

    So you guys are screaming even though there is a HUGE padding factor in the budget for errors in growth rate or a fluctuation in inflation.

  6. gregflynn

    August 9, 2013 at 9:34 am

    What about the 4.8 percent increase in public school funding? Where does that number come from?
    This percentage is from a comparison between the FY 2012-13 Budget Money Report with this year’s Budget Money Report ($7,865,960,649 vs. $7,506,553,067) — a 4.8 percent increase. The 4.8 percent increase reflects increases in the state retirement contribution, hospitalization costs, and the 1.2 percent pay increase that was provided to teachers and public school personnel in 2012-13 but not placed in the public school fund at that time. These three things make up $259 million of the 4.8 percent “increase” in the public school fund, but these dollars are either not new to schools or represent status quo funding only, and will not go to support the additional services or personnel needed to help students learn.

    The Governor’s Continuation Budget and the final budget also restored $72 million to line items that were over-expended (longevity, workers comp, unemployment, etc.). This restoration also explains part of the difference in the two Money Reports.

    Finally, the public schools’ student population grew by 17,192 students. So, without going line item by line item, the simple comparison between Money Reports from last year and this year would indicate a difference of $359,407,582, or 4.8%.

    When you take that amount and back out the salary and benefit changes for FY 2012-13 ($259 million) and the coverage for over-expended line items ($72 million), you are left with $28 million to serve 17,192 more students. By the way, the actual cost to serve these new students is more than $5,400 each but the amount provided in this budget is far lower, $1,629 per student.

    – MountainXpress

  7. Doug

    August 9, 2013 at 10:17 am

    Also, I would suggest reading this. It is quite interesting how all the bases of the liberal arguments are covered.

    http://nchouse116.com/state-education-spending-the-facts/

  8. Doug

    August 9, 2013 at 10:18 am

    Oh, and greggy, your little blurb up thre. The 17k students is waaaayyy over stated in the flat environment we have with no real population growth being seen over the past few years or for the foreseeable future.

  9. gregflynn

    August 9, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Students:

    Allotted ’07-08 1,462,740
    Allotted ’08-09 1,476,566
    Allotted ’09-10 1,464,914*
    Allotted ’10-11 1,475,668
    Allotted ’11-12 1,480,991
    Allotted ’12-13 1,492,793
    Allotted ’13-14 1,509,925

    *1 year drop due to change in K age eligibility

  10. Doug

    August 9, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    And alloted means? Is this actual attendance or and estimate? Must be the estimated since you have so many

    And you really only serve to make my point what could be the current data is actually only flat and feeds well into my premise. A 10,000 increase of students in a year on 1.5 million students is around 0.67%. That fits my 1% premise above very very well, and you could add another 5,000 to boot.

    And you harp on this K elibibility thing, but there were multiple years where there were increases. But if you want that straw man go ahead if it makes you feel better. I for one started in 13-14 where there were multiple decreases from there out even in the five year olds so….my premise still stands.

    Good luck with bringing another straw man to distract….you may be out of straw though.