property tax prop 13 type reform in Idaho? (real estate market, foreclosed)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you have to assume that the landlord is passing the cost of property taxes on to the renters in the rent they pay, so I don't think it's accurate to assume renters don't bear a share of the taxes that are collected through property taxes.
Landlord's charge rent up to what the market will bear, regardless of what costs desire to be covered. Those that try explicitly to get their just desserts will have a combination of high vacancy and high turnover.
Also, landlords have no legal capacity to charge rent by the the tax burden of any tenant. So renters with 4+ kids are able to derive great benefit from a public school finance system which places a large burden on the homeowner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
As for older people paying for schools, when I was younger I used to think that those with children should bear the costs of having them. However, I've come to realize I prefer to live in a society with bright, educated people who are equipped to have productive lives and participate in our society as informed citizens.
I think there is a happy medium, with responsibilities and obligations going in both directions. As I age, I have no problem paying property taxes that fund public schools. However, I have the right and responsibility to scrutinize expenditures and productivity of schools such that we do in fact get an educated, well equipped, and productive next-generation that can shoulder the burden that includes financial support of the elderly. Also, without requiring renters to put skin in the game, incentives can become perverse, something we see in many large urban districts. The solution there has become the exit option, something I would rather avoid here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
One can debate whether our current approach to education is achieving that outcome, or whether we are spending our money in the most efficient and effective way, but in principal I'd argue we all benefit from a strong education system. So, as a soon to be retired person I am willing to pay my share. I would like to see the money we spend spent differently, but that's a different question.
If nothing else we need those young people to get good jobs so they can continue to cover our social security benefits.
Dave
I agree. I would just add that there are few school districts that do not tout their own successes. The ultimate metric is of course post-graduation performance on quantitative screening exams, at colleges & universities, and in the job market. If school processes have no bearing in these arenas, then the quality of the workforce notwithstanding, there really is no net benefit of the schools.
Landlord's charge rent up to what the market will bear, regardless of what costs desire to be covered. Those that try explicitly to get their just desserts will have a combination of high vacancy and high turnover.
True enough, but landlords who don't cover their costs, including property taxes, aren't going to be successful in the long term.
At the time Prop 13 was passed one of the arguments made by those working to defeat the measure was that it would only benefit homeowners. The argument against that was that a portion of the rent paid by tenants is covering the taxes paid by the property owner, and that those taxes are actually a higher percentage of the value of the property since there is no homeowners exemption in place. So, in time, a reduction in property taxes should be reflected in lower market rents. I think the market will reach an equilibrium where the market rent for a property is sufficient to cover the costs of owning a property plus a reasonable profit for the landlord so long as there is sufficient competition among landlords and there isn't undue regulatory interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpointian
Also, landlords have no legal capacity to charge rent by the the tax burden of any tenant. So renters with 4+ kids are able to derive great benefit from a public school finance system which places a large burden on the homeowner.
This is a bit of a red herring argument, as even for property owners there is no direct correlation between the property taxes paid and the tax burden created by that household. Compare the well to do family living in an expensive home with a single child to the less well off family living in a modest home with five children. Which family pays the most in property taxes, and which creates the most costs for education and other government services? And to be clear, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, it's simply the reality of the way taxing property values works in terms of funding government services.
[soapbox]
This is sad to see. An well educated and informed populace is the strength and future of a society. Local school bonds on the ballot will have my support.
[/soapbox]
[soapbox]
This is sad to see. An well educated and informed populace is the strength and future of a society. Local school bonds on the ballot will have my support.
[/soapbox]
The Post article revealed a subtle reason that is part of why Utah and Idaho's expenditures are low…
it mentioned the lowest per-pupil expenditure is in W. Jordan, Utah.
West Jordan isn't a very big community, and naturally, it doesn't need to pay the costs of a large school or a lot of teachers because there aren't a lot of kids going to school. The same could be true in all of Idaho's small towns.
A tiny school district that serves a combined total of 200 students in all grades isn't going to cost very much compared to a single school that has 1500 students in it.
It's easy to forget that a small school's monthly bills are going to be lower than a big school, and school utilities, just as they are for the rest of us, increase as the square footage goes up. Janitorial needs, maintenance demands, and wear and tear in a small school are going to be lower, simply because there are so few kids attending a lot of our schools here.
Just as it is elsewhere, a lot of our small towns are shrinking these days, not growing. There were a lot of new schools built in the 50s in this state, and they were built during a lot of small town's highest population point. EVen if they are inefficient by today's standards, updating them periodically has happened in some of them, and some may be spacious in comparison to the size of their classes in the past.
Even so, I agree, volosong; Idaho really needs to give our children the best education that's possible to deliver in our largest and smallest districts alike. If we don't, we will continue to watch our best students leave.
There are brighter horizons out there for them right now, and the thing I've learned is that, while life in Idaho is always in their hearts, it is very seldom so strong as to make them want to move back when they are leading a better, more prosperous life somewhere else.
Nostalgia don't feed the bulldog, and no one can eat the scenery. Every future champion who leaves is a permanent loss for all who remain. Many of the best kids I went to school with have made their lives, and the lives for their employees, and their companies, better out there, not here.
Your post above, BM, got me to thinking, (uh oh, that could be 'dangerous'). I wanted to compare Idaho with our two closest neighbors, the two closest who are kindred spirits, Montana and Wyoming. (I perceive Utah to be too different than the others. "ID, MT, UT, WY . . . which doesn't belong?" WA, OR, CO are way, way too different.)
Here's what a quick Wikipedia search shows:
(city populations are 2013 estimates, state populations are 2014 estimates)
Idaho, 200 cities/towns. Largest is Boise at 214,237 and smallest is Warm River at 3. The state population is 1,634,464. This gives us an average population for a Idaho city as 8,172.
Montana, 130 cities/towns. Largest is Billings at 108,869 and smallest is Ismay at 13. The state population is 1,023,579. This gives an average population for a Montana city as 7,874.
Wyoming, 99 cities/towns. Largest is Cheyenne at 62,845. Smallest is Lost Springs at 4. The state population is 584,153. This gives an average population of a Wyoming city as 5,900.
Assuming that the ratio of student to population is similar in each state, and not including post high school students:
I'm probably missing something, but it looks like the state with the largest average city size spends the least per pupil on education while the state with the smallest average city size spends the most per pupil. There must be other factors involved other than infrastructure costs. p.s. The average $/pupil for the country is $10,700.
Sorry to reply to my own post. Poor form. I think it might be an income issue.
Wyoming, $56,322 mean household income, $28,902 per capita income
Montana, $44,222 mean household income, $25,373 per capita income
Idaho, $43,341 mean household income, $22,568 per capita income
Average household income in the United States is $50,500; $24,062 per capita for those 18 and older, (post high school).
So . . . yeah, it makes sense. More income, more to spend on education, less income, less to spend on education.
I don't know the numbers Volo, but I suspect some of that disparity is driven by income collected by MT and WY as a result of oil and coal extraction industries in those states, neither of which is present in ID to any significant extent.
[soapbox]
This is sad to see. An well educated and informed populace is the strength and future of a society. Local school bonds on the ballot will have my support.
[/soapbox]
Doesn't necessarily correlate, Ca. is one of the biggest spenders but consistently ranks around #49 on students test scores. You can get by for less (sometimes) by spending wisely.
Doesn't necessarily correlate, Ca. is one of the biggest spenders but consistently ranks around #49 on students test scores. You can get by for less (sometimes) by spending wisely.
I agree with the premise that we shouldn't use spending as the sole measure of goodness when it comes to evaluating education.
However, California actually ranks very low on the list of spending per student - 46th in cost of living adjusted spending on this list. Idaho is two places behind in 48th place. Note that the list has 51 entries since they include D.C. along with the states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
