On Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2005, a meeting was held in Roswell on House Resolution 58, the proposed change to fund education by a 3% tax which would ultimately abolish property taxes. Jerry Keen, the Republican speaker of the GA House, a co-sponsor of the resolution spoke in favor of it. He, along with the Heritage Foundation and another mysterious foundation that he won't name yet, is working on ways to promote HR 58. Keen contends that Georgia citizens need to abolish property taxes because property tax revenues have increased steadily over many years. 

This, as all of us in the metro area are aware, is due to the vast amounts of new home building and commercial development. Most of the new homes in my area now cost $500,000. and up. The reason that this area can sustain such expensive homes is that our schools are perceived to be very good. In a sense, it is because of our good schools that our properties keep gaining value and that is why tax revenues are up. 

A large audience comprised of ordinary citizens, educators and school board members from virtually all the metro counties filled the Roswell Cultural Arts Center auditorium. A great number of people spoke about their reactions to HR 58, most in opposition to it. 

Four objections kept recurring, along with a host of minor ones. The first and most formidable objection is about the loss of local control. Under the present system, citizens, who now can communicate easily with their Boards of Education and hold them accountable for bad decisions, will have a harder time holding state representatives accountable. Individuals will be up against the power of the state instead of dealing with their own communities. School Boards which can now make decisions about special programs like art, music, and foreign languages in the lower grades, and good teacher’s packages, will be rendered irrelevant if they lose control of the spending decisions for their own districts. They, and superintendents, principals and teachers, all worry that the programs and packages may cease to be funded. This resolution wrests control of education in Georgia and all the vital decisions now made on the local level and gives it to the state. Both conservatives and liberals seemed to agree this would be a bad idea.

The stability of a source of revenue from sales taxes is the second greatest concern. School boards in counties like Gwinnett and Cherokee that have tried this approach to supplementing the funding for their schools through SPLOSTS have found the actual experience to have resulted in huge shortfalls of projected income. 

Other objections that were heard repeatedly were that if we must consider a change in our tax system, then GA residents should decide for themselves, at the polls, what kind of taxation they want to fund their schools. Many citizens from suburban metro Atlanta districts expressed the fear that they would receive even fewer funds under this proposal, as HR 58 says nothing about how the monies collected will be spent. Some felt this would create expensive lawsuits where districts would be suing the state, with both sides being funded at the tax-payers’ expense. The idea was expressed that presently good school systems might become inferior due to the volatility of the revenue source and the lack of specifics about distribution of the monies thereby reducing property values in what are now good school districts.

The following sensible comments were made by the many individuals who spoke at this event:

• That HR 58 is a regressive tax, as there is no exemption for grocery expenses, medications, or clothing up to a certain amount, a tax that will put a much heavier burden on the lower socio-economic group and on senior citizens living on reduced incomes or social security. 

• That the only real winners under HR 58 would be large corporate land-holders. 

• That contrary to the common wisdom, renters actually pay, in their rent, an amount that goes to pay the landlord’s taxes, so it there is no real disparity between what home-owners and renters contribute to school funding. 

• That this proposal holds no advantage for the average person who will find himself paying more in sales taxes than the taxes they pay under the current system. (One smart woman had actually crunched the numbers for her own household and found just that.) 

• That while one can deduct mortgage payments and taxes on a home, one cannot deduct taxes on other expenses, like groceries, medicines, clothing, and transportation. 

• That, at a time when the U. S. has competition from China and India for jobs and is faced with the need to produce citizens who speak foreign languages because of security concerns, we should not be taking risks and experimenting with sources of funding for education.

I cannot disagree with any of this.

The good people of Georgia should look beyond the specious promise that HR 58 makes to their less altruistic interests and see the larger picture. There are compelling reasons to continue funding education as we do, through property taxes, which economists call a good tax, (yes, there are good taxes!), especially one which is predictable, equitable, and elastic. The system has been working for us in the outlying metro counties and it can work for all the people of Georgia. Legislators need to turn their attention to how to make that happen instead of dismantling our existing source of funding for education. HR 58 should be defeated.