* JB Pritzker in Bloomington…
Pritzker, a Chicago entrepreneur and investor, spoke of restorative justice for Illinois inmates, how to lessen dependency on fossil fuels and the need for increased funding for education.
“We’re so vastly underfunded in our school systems that schools are fighting for scraps,” said Pritzker. “The state only gives 26 percent of funds to schools and the rest is funded by taxpayers. The state has shirked its responsibility for too long and needs to step up and pay those bills.”
“The state” is funded by “taxpayers,” too. But I digress.
* Chris Kennedy went much further while speaking in LaSalle County…
Kennedy said he is opposed to funding kindergarten through high school public schools through property taxes.
“We need to get rid of that system. It’s a terrible system,” he said. “Every other state in the United States has figured that out. They pay for their schools at the state level and not through local property taxes and they have much better outcomes.”
Man, that would cost a whole lot of money.
* And what he said isn’t quite true. From NPR…
In the U.S., school funding comes from a combination of three sources. The balance varies from state to state but, on average, looks like this: 45 percent local money, 45 percent from the state and 10 percent federal.
NPR used US Census data to make that claim.
* Related…
* Illinois Education Secretary Purvis weighs in on the future of rural schools: Purvis went on to suggest a history buff could go back to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention and take the headlines from that time about our school funding formula and put it in any current newspaper in the state and they would be relevant today. “So are we fairly funding the schools? No. But that begs the question why aren’t we doing so?” she said.
- DuPage - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:08 pm:
More pie in the sky political promises! EXACTLY where would he get the money to replace the school property tax??
- illini97 - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:09 pm:
Yes, I’m shocked how many times I have heard that the State needs to pay for things so local taxpayers don’t. Where does everyone think the State is getting that money?
- Doug - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:10 pm:
He’s a Democrat, facts don’t matter
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:11 pm:
That Chris Kennedy…
Has that Crew run the numbers for Illinois, as a state, to fully fund and no property taxes?
What if Kennedy wins and the backlog, and the debt, and the tax increase… now add to these issues… fully funded K-12 education, a revamp of how and why property taxes are where they are, and the different districts’ challenges.
Hmm.
- Skirmisher - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:12 pm:
Dupage: we get it from a properly structured and adequate income tax system, that’s where. Like we should have been doing all along.
- Just Observing - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:14 pm:
=== “The state” is funded by “taxpayers,” too. But I digress. ===
That was the first thing that crossed my mind.
- blue dog dem - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:14 pm:
This man is on the right track. Rauner and his people can’t think outside the box or this would have been his emphasis from day 1. Kennedy needs to keep this front and center and he wins.
- DuPage Saint - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:16 pm:
To paraphrase Mark Twain (who stole it fair and square) Everybody complains about school funding but nobody does anything about it.
- RNUG - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:29 pm:
== EXACTLY where would he get the money to replace the school property tax?? ==
Obviously a progressive income tax.
- titan - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:40 pm:
I can see the New Trier crowd really loving that idea.
- blue dog dem - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:42 pm:
somehow, one of these brilliant actuaries can calculate what are state income tax needs to be based on a reduced contribution from local property taxes. This, this what Rauner voters hoped would be an outcome. Not these stupid turnaround agenda items.
- OneMan - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 12:44 pm:
So the Kennedy Plan as it were, would be the state funds K-12 directly without property tax assistance….
It seems ‘the state picks up the tab’ is the easy part.
So how is the following going to work?
School construction - new:
Without property taxes, one would assume that the school district would have to go to the state to build a new building. Would there then be a ’standard’ grade school, middle school, high school that state would fund? How big would a standard gym be in each school? How many students would a new ‘Kennedy School’ be expected to hold at each level, would it be one HS for every 2,000 kids, 5,000? Would a Kennedy High School have a pool, an auditorium?
School construction - existing:
So currently I (and many others) are taxed via property taxes in part due to existing construction (we had a huge construction boom in our district resulting in a new building on average a year for a decade) would the state pick up those costs we are still incurring due to the new construction (I guess they would have to)
Teacher pay:
Since the state is my source of revenue and that (and federal dollars) would be ‘all the money I get’ I guess the state is going to a large degree set teacher pay then. Would you give the local cost of living a consideration in that calculation?
Administrator pay:
How is this going to work, would it be you get X in administrator pay per student, spend it as you wish or is the state going to set max pay rates for administrators? Would size and complexity of the district come into play, would a superintendant of a large CUSD get more than an elementary district super?
The differences in districts:
How or would you take into account things like poverty rates, ESL, district size (geographical & student population) into account?
The idea of more state funding for the base level is an interesting idea, however, the affluent districts are still going to do better and have more either via indirect fundraising and/or parent involvement.
- Anonymous - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
Neither Kennedy or Pritzker know what a deficit feels like when you live on a tight budget. They were both from money, and never needed or wanted for anything. They just can’t honestly relate. “I don’t understand why poor, hungry people don’t just ring the bell?”
- City Zen - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
Is Kennedy aware that retirement income is exempt in Illinois and that removing property taxes from the funding equation would result in retirees not paying one dime for education?
- Jerry 101 - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:10 pm:
I can’t speak to every state in the union, but in Colorado, most of our property tax bills goes to the local school district. It’s not too different a system than Illinois.
- JoeMaddon - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:23 pm:
**In Colorado…its not too different a system than Illinois.**
CO public schools receive 64% of their funding from state taxes.
I’m not sure if Pritzker’s 26% is correct (I’ve also seen numbers in the mid/high 30’s), but I know for sure that IL’s state funding for public schools isn’t anywhere close to 64%.
- DuPage Bard - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:24 pm:
Only way to reduce our property taxes in DuPage and pay for schools is to………..? I don’t know. Unless you impose a full Progressive tax, that takes in the highest rates in the Midwest and starts taxing retirement income?
Whatever……campaigning, right?
- RNUG - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:44 pm:
== Is Kennedy aware that retirement income is exempt in Illinois and that removing property taxes from the funding equation would result in retirees not paying one dime for education? ==
In Georgia, on a county choice basis, you are exempt from the school portion of the property tax once you reach a certain age.
- City Zen - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 1:47 pm:
==CO public schools receive 64% of their funding from state taxes.==
And Colorado does it with a flat income tax rate and one of the lowest property tax rates in the country.
- Ron - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
“viously a progressive income tax.”
Only if we eliminate public employee benefit protection when amending the state constitution.
It’s criminally unfair to the vast majority of Illinois citizens.
- Anonymous - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 2:11 pm:
CityZen, CO will take in $200,000,000.00 in marijuana taxes in 2017. Can’t hurt.
It also has less than half the population of IL.
- Smitty Irving - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 2:41 pm:
City Zen -
CO, like FL, “exports” part of its tax burden to tourists. CO, like WY, “exports” part of its tax burden to people who use the minerals extracted in CO. The only way Illinois could “export” its tax burden would if it could charge a fee for changing planes at O’Hare and Midway.
- Give Me a Break - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 2:49 pm:
==“Every other state in the United States has figured that out. They pay for their schools at the state level and not through local property taxes and they have much better outcomes.”==
FALSE. Most, if not all states still use property tax as some part of school funding, http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/funding-approaches-the-property-tax-and-public-ed.aspx.
Kennedy is out of touch and should stick the silver spoon back in his mouth.
- Smitty Irving - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 2:52 pm:
Give Me A Break -
KY used to, and still may, collect property taxes on a statewide basis, not locally.
- GA Watcher - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 2:59 pm:
Mr. Kennedy is on to something in the sense that the way to solve the property tax problem in our state is not via a freeze, it’s by having the State assume its responsibility to provide the preponderant share of funding for education. According to the Governor’s Education Funding Reform Commission which Ms. Purvis chaired, education funding makes up 70 percent of the average property tax bill. So reduce it by 25 percent to the 45 percent average and require a dollar for dollar swap with some other source, i.e. income or sales taxes.
We currently pay $7,100 in property taxes to local schools in our area. We would gladly pay more in sales and/or income taxes to reduce that amount by 25 percent.
- blue dog dem - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 3:17 pm:
This is a winning message. Not marijuana. Not HB40. Not Trump bashing. Certainly not more gun laws. Whoever develops this thought into a working plan wins the gig. Parlay this alongside a tax on Oreos and you have a winning formula.
- RNUG - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
== Only if we eliminate public employee benefit protection when amending the state constitution. ==
Ron, you’re like a broken record. You can only play one track.
You can’t eliminate protection for existing employees. You can’t negate the pension debt. The courts have already ruled on that.
Illinois IS going to have higher taxes to increase school funding, pay off the bill backlog, and pay off the pension debt. That is simple math.
The only thing left to debate is when it happens and whether or not the State will provide most K-12 school funding in exchange for a reduced property tax.
- Ron - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 4:04 pm:
Benefit protection elemination for future workers is a must so future generations of Illinoisans aren’t saddled by over promising goons in state government. Only a fool or an Illinois public employee would disagree.
- Ron - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 4:06 pm:
Marijuana will produce hundreds of millions in tax revenue for illinois. I’d rather tax that before increasing income taxes.
- RNUG - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 5:06 pm:
Ron,
A new tax on Marijuana that brings in, say, $700M isn’t going to close a $4B - $7B revenue shortfall.
- blue dog dem - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 5:17 pm:
The worst tax in the world for the working middle class and small business is property tax.
When A small.mom/pop business doesn’t make money in a given year for whatever reason, wham, they still have that bill. When a trade union member doesn’t make as much in a year because of weather, wham they still have that property tax bill. Nope give old Blue a bigger income tax any day of the week.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 5:38 pm:
–I can see the New Trier crowd really loving that idea.–
LOL, you bet they would; 96% of their revenue comes from local sources, only 2% from the state.
With my local schools, the state provides about 10% of funding. I’d be happy for every taxpayer in the state to share the burden for the whole nut.
Seems some haven’t figured out yet that suburban property owners will make out like bandits if state sources replace local property taxes as the main funding source for schools.
- Veil of Ignorance - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 6:18 pm:
@Doug: facts don’t matter to Democrats? Just wow…
- City Zen - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 6:37 pm:
==Seems some haven’t figured out yet that suburban property owners will make out like bandits if state sources replace local property taxes as the main funding source for schools.==
Assuming there is a corresponding progressive income tax, those suburban property owners will assume most of the tax burden. Considering you need to working adults to afford those property taxes to begin with, I’d bet they’d end up paying more.
- RNUG - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 6:37 pm:
Just saw where I probably overestimated in my 5:06pm post. In 2025 Colorado only brought in $200M from their marijuana tax. $200M is just a rounding error in the State budget.
- RNUG - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 6:38 pm:
2015 … not 2025
- Anonymous - Monday, May 1, 17 @ 6:45 pm:
–Assuming there is a corresponding progressive income tax, those suburban property owners will assume most of the tax burden. Considering you need to working adults to afford those property taxes to begin with, I’d bet they’d end up paying more.–
You’re assuming a lot, such as a Constitutional amendment. I’m guessing suburban retirees would swap property taxes for income taxes.