I suppose, good on the Seattle Times editorial board for pushing legislators to solve Washington’s education funding crisis sooner than later: “State must start working harder to find an education-funding fix.” But considering the decades-long role our state’s editorial boards have played in obstructing funding reforms, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they offer weak sauce prevarication this:
Fixing a financing problem built for decades will be complicated, require a massive shift in property taxes and probably should include a new revenue source, such as a capital-gains tax. These are tough, but necessary, political tasks. The court set a deadline of 2018.
Okay. First of all, let’s be absolutely clear that the “massive shift in property taxes” that they’re talking about—the property tax levy swap—produces no net new revenue for our public schools. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It helps address the equity issue, yes, but it merely shifts funds from local levies to the state levy. So the editors should really look up the words “swap” and “shift” in the dictionary before misleading readers that this “shift” represents a funding solution (unless, of course, misleading readers is their intent).
Second, fixing the financing problem will “probably” require a new revenue source? Really? Just “probably?” Um, how the fuck else do you suppose we’re going to close the “eye-watering” funding gap that even the editors acknowledge to be “about $3.5 billion?” Glad to see them on board with a capital gains tax, but the estimated $800 million it might raise would still only get us less than a quarter of the way to the McCleary mandate; modifying the need for new revenue with a big fat “probably” isn’t likely to help lead us the rest of the way there. I mean, if the editors (or Republicans, for that matter) have any realistic suggestions for slicing $3 billion or so from elsewhere in the budget, let’s hear it. No? That’s what I thought. So enough with the “probably” already.
This isn’t my opinion folks. It’s math. There’s simply no way to meet McLeary without billions of dollars in new revenue. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Quite frankly, if our state’s editorial boards want to play a serious role in solving this very serious crisis, then they’re going to have to start talking about it seriously. And that means leveling with their readers that we need to raise about $3.5 billion in new revenue. Whether that means a substantial increase in our perversely regressive state sales tax and/or an expansion in the sales tax to services (or even food) and/or a hike in our state property tax levy without slashing local levies in return and/or the repeal of billions of dollars of tax “preferences” (exemptions, loopholes, whatever) and/or a spanking new capital gains tax — or the serious and sensible alternative: a modern, sustainable, and less regressive tax structure that taxes income like almost every other goddamn state — well, the voters will ultimately have the final say on the specifics. But we’ll never get to that point until our state’s so-called “opinion leaders” start having a serious conversation about the facts, however painful and unpopular they might be.
This is an opportunity for our editorial boards to reclaim some relevance by helping to lead our state toward a serious and sustainable education funding solution. And it may be the last opportunity they have.
$3.5 billion amounts to roughly $500 per state resident in new taxes. Where to get that kind of money? The obvious place: The undertaxed upper 10% of households who proportionately pay one-sixth as much of their income to state and local taxes as the poorest 10%. An income tax on incomes over $200k is the way to go.
@1,
Guess I’m lucky enough to know very personally more than a handful of those households. And my personal, non-scientific, non-statistical impression is that even at the lower bound they can afford it.
I’m not saying “Fuck ’em. Let’s take their money cause we can.” I’m saying if WA really believes in funding public education, and this amount is what it takes, these are the people to get it from. Most of’ them will miss it. But I think it’d be ridiculous to even imply this would somehow harm society. Many of them freely admit they’re undertaxed. The others are like the rest of us. Too distracted to notice what a bargain govt is.
Why tax the wealthy? For the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Or the same reason we irrigate our nasturtiums with water instead of turpentine.
The disconnect here is another example of something I’m starting to notice a lot. People don’t think things through. Now there has always been a lot of people who haven’t thought things past the bumper sticker slogan, but lately I’m seeing people in positions of responsibility display this dreadful sort of thoughtlessness.
“Fund the Schools!” says the Seattle Times, but when they think about where that money will have to come from they oppose it. The weird thing is that they oppose it as if it were a separate issue instead of two ends of the same snake.
The problem is that once people have raised their kids and no longer need the public schools, they don’t want to pay for them anymore. And they certainly don’t want to pay for ethnic minorities. Not a drop of altruism or responsibility toward fellow Americans. Not everyone, of course, but too many feel that way. I’ve heard it out of their mouths. One guess who it is. And like everything about them, it’s self destructive. Only government can force them to be responsible.
The real question is whether the legislature can find a way to kick the can down the road. If there is a way then the legislature has a foot that can kick that can an amazing distance.
One possibility is the Lake Wobegon way where all our children area all above average and therefore don’t need superior schools as they will all do all right with a poor to average education system. This way the current system and money is just fine.
After all the reprobates down at the Sidewalk Café are all just fine teachers and able to teach our children all the skills they will need in life and just maybe enough reading and writing to make a visit to the Hernden Library useful.
The young already have all them I pad dochichies and such all figured out so no real need for computer science in the schools.
University of Washington endowment, 2015: $3.076 billion
In 2011 it was $2.154 billion.
http://f2.washington.edu/treas.....cal_points
Won’t solve all problems but a cut to the university system and a commensurate increase in the K-12 programs of, oh, say $300 million per biennium will help quite a bit.
If you’re looking for revenue, first check your pockets.
@5. I have a theory that people no longer want to fund schools because of the “greed is good” mentality they have been sold. After all, the ungrateful children will take that great education that they paid for and move somewhere else and help that tax base richer. People have been trained by generations of conservatives to only fund things that directly help them. Bob’s a prime example. He’s against anything that might help someone besides himself if it cost him money, no matter how small,
@7,
I’m not a professional money manager, but I understand the endowment employs one or two.
As it stands, their professional judgment has them distributing proceeds to the University at amounts ranging from 75 to 100 million in each of those years, based on the growth and future stability of the endowment.
The Seattle Times Editorial Board estimates the funding gap at around 3.5 billion. So, I suppose we could take every single cent of what the endowment provides annually away from the UW. But you’d still have to come up with another 3.4 billion.
So, you’re one thirty fifth of the way there. What else ya got, Bob?
@ 9
Well, lessee, first of all I think it’s a biennial budget. $300M from the endowment in each of the next two years is $600M.
If Inslee was willing to raid the state’s rainy day fund for general needs, I don’t see anything wrong with expecting a $3+ billion dollar endowment to cough up more of what it’s accrued with those funds going expressly for education.
So that’s $600M out of $3.5B. And it’s already in-pocket in the endowment.
Which is easier, pressuring the endowment to release more so the state can divert funding from higher ed to K-12, and pointing to the $900M increase in the size of the endowment over four years as a reason the endowment should cough up more? Or convincing the state senate to create a new tax?
If you’re looking for revenue sources, look everywhere. That’s the only point I’m making.
@10,
Seems to help that you’ve concluded you can triple the fund’s annual distribution. Maybe the trustees are just completely fucked in the head. But so far they’ve been a bit more conservative about dipping into the principal. Got any numbers behind that? Or do you just plan to wipe out the endowment slowly?
@ 11
I guess I was in favor of quadrupling it for the next biennium. They’re currently dishing out $100M per year while they have grown $900M over four years. Bump that to $400M per annum for the next two years. Yes, it would hurt the endowment. But if educational funding is such a crisis and they’ve got $3B, it’s not like they’ll be bankrupted. They’ll be down to $2.4-2.5B two years from now.
And think of the fundraising appeals they’ll be able to make!
Perhaps ask Governor Inslee if he intends to wipe out the rainy day fund slowly, or if he is just addressing needs of the next biennium by proposing to raid it, whaddya think?
@12,
so you don’t.
Figures.
But at least you’ll admit that, in the absence of some kind of qualified financial analysis (the kind of thing the trustees are obligated to perform regularly), your plan will hurt the endowment fund. Your plan, therefor, is to wipe out the endowment fund slowly.
You could at least bother to discern how much of that growth is investment growth, as opposed to new endowments. Simply assuming that its all investment growth is incomplete and irresponsible. Without that, you don’t have a leg to stand on. These endowments are structured by contract. Until you show your work, we will have to assume that the managers are not able to distribute that much from these various endowments.
Bullshit bumper sticker solution being offered for a very serious problem. Very typical.
@7: the UW endowment?
1. It is private money the University has solicited and most of it goes to scholarships. The state can’t just “take” it.
2. The endowment went up because the stock market went up, it will be down this year.
3. This is not a real or practical solution for continued education funding, and bankrupting just the UW and not WSU or any other University- just looks vindictive.
4. We need a structural change: Eliminate ALL sales taxes. Put in a progressive income tax and eliminate ALL deductions and put in a surcharge over 250K per family and 175K per person. Put in an education surcharge for businesses over 100 employees with net profits over 1 million.
Done.
The fact that we can’t even get to the starting point of the conversation is ridiculous. There is a huge long conversation that needs to happen about where the money needs to come from, how the taxes will be spread out, how it will be applied, etc. Tons of important issues here! But after the “slap on the wrist”, the legislature hasn’t even gotten past the pouting stage.