Nora Gordon, an economist at Georgetown University who studies school finance, explains how the GOP tax plan will hurt the nation’s poorest schools. Schools will suffer while corporations and wealthy individuals will enjoy big tax cuts.
She writes:
It’s common to hear people say that the quality of students’ education shouldn’t depend on their ZIP code. But the Republican House and Senate tax bills would make ZIP codes matter more than ever. They would create an incentive to hoard opportunity by raising funds that remain close to home.
Why does our education system have so much at stake? A vast majority of funding for public schools, about 90 percent, comes from the money raised by state and local governments. Currently, taxpayers can deduct their state and local taxes, and that deduction makes them more likely to support higher spending on programs funded by those taxes, including public schools.
With its bills, Congress would significantly cut the deduction of state and local taxes, slicing into that incentive. This is why education advocates are fighting to keep the deductions, and why those who believe state and local governments are too big want to get rid of them.
After a consideration of eliminating all state and local deductions, current proposals have been marketed as a political compromise: Both bills take away taxpayers’ ability to deduct income taxes but allow a property tax deduction of up to $10,000 per year. The problem is that states depend more heavily on income taxes, and local governments on property taxes, so the compromise favors raising funds at the local level. Structuring it this way will only add to inequality in the school system.
As an economist who has studied education funding and policy, to me the historical record is clear: State-level school spending is critical. Economic segregation across school districts means some areas need an infusion of resources to have a chance at serving their students well, and states are the primary source of that infusion. Research shows that when states send more resources to their neediest districts, achievement levels in those districts rise.
But states are already in a tough spot: The most recent data show they are still recovering from the recession, with over half of them spending less on K-12 now, in inflation-adjusted terms, than they did in 2008.
It’s worth noting that more is at stake for states than just education funding. Federal spending cuts are sure to come to pay for this tax bill. There will most likely be calls for cuts in programs that provide food, health care and income assistance to poor families. Just as people will look to the states to fill these new holes in the safety net, it will be harder than ever for states to raise the funds to do so.

Sickening.
The citizens of this country need to get some brains rather than believe in the propaganda.
The entitled NEED SLAVES. They can’t do anything for themselves. Wonder if the entitled know how to peel a hard boiled egg? How about changing a light bulb?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Starving public schools will most likely be more willing to accept cheaper market based options like depersonalized learning, but then this is probably one of the goals of this bill. Starving public colleges are also more likely to give up their support of credit hours so that the unscrupulous profiteers can fill the gap with their profitable degraded “solutions.” This is probably are part of the coercive, conservative agenda that should be rejected by representatives, but probably won’t be.
LikeLike
link is wrong here
LikeLike
Well, the Senate and the House today agreed to amend the bill to allow deductions of local income tax (up to $10,000) as well as property tax, so I guess Nora Gordon is satisfied now. Problem solved!
Oh, and the conference committee also raised the bill’s corporate rate up to 21% so they could afford to cut the top marginal rate by a couple percentage points. Apparently the richest Americans were concerned that the huge wage benefits that purportedly flow from lower corporate tax rates won’t reach them, or won’t reach them soon enough — in any event, they’d like the money immediately, thanks in advance!
LikeLike
They are concerned that the 20% they pay on long term gains would be diminished by 1%, so they dropped the top marginal rate.
LikeLike
Here’s the view from NJ. Our family (upper-mid) will pay about $3500 more in fed taxes. Middle-class family about $1000 more. Lower-middle will get about $400 back. In NJ, this is all about prop taxes; we have long been a state that sweeps state tax from wealthier areas into poorer areas, & until 2010 (when prop taxes capped at 2% increase), municipalities have tended to raise local taxes to compensate the shortfall in state aid & maintain school quality (& housing market value). So we’ve ended up w/inner-cities & rural outbacks spending 22-30k per pupil while the rest of us ave 15-17k.
NJ’s 30-yr sch-funding formula has been a grand experiment, & despite the ‘failing schs’ mantra used to CYA thefts from pension funds & cynically usher in such travesties as Zuckerberg’s ‘One Newark’– & Peter robbing Paul resulting in crumbling pubsch infrastructure — there have been many bright spots & good stories.
I expect that’s all over now. Cries for a return to my$-my schools have started getting wind among conservatives in the last couple of years, no doubt now to be piled on by a wave of mid/upper-midclass taxpayers who simply can’t absorb what amounts to a sudden 15-25% increase in prop taxes… All so corps have extra $ for stock buybacks/ mergers & wealthiest loopholes for even lower rates & a few hundred families can become dynasties. Oh & let’s not forget red states who will have all that wealth transfer from blue states– not! (LOL. Our excess fed tax pmts will go straight up the chain, not into their social services).
LikeLike
The bill should have a provision that requires families that will owe more taxes to hand deliver the check to their wealthier neighbor. Perhaps also an option to pay in kind — cleaning the pool all summer, mowing the lawn, etc.
LikeLike