I suspect the analysis fails to recognize some of the differences in the make-up of the various cities and towns.

Using only the residential levy will distort the result by making suburban taxpayers appear more generous than they are. Urban communities have a significantly higher number of apartment developments (both rent subsidized and not) that are privately owned, yet classified and taxed as "commercial" property. The folks who live in these apartments are having their income counted in your analysis, but the levy on their "residence" isn't being counted.

The disproportionate amount of such residential high density living creates an appearance of low taxation where it may not truly exist.

Adding to the problem in doing such an analysis, the various special laws regarding classification may have the break for classification as residential or commercial at different points. Generally, state law forces classification of every building with six or more apartments as commercial property. In Woonsocket, that threshold is for ten units or more. There may be other special differences, but I have not done that research.

I think further research needs to be done before your conclusion can be supported.

Maybe later we can discuss the burden caused by the effect of public housing PILOTS that are like pocket change ($150,000 in Woonsocket this year) and the lack of state support for the high number of students residing in that public housing whose income (small as it may be) you count and that produce virtually no property tax support.

After that we can consider the fact that only a few communities in the state get to send their Career & Tech students to Davies for free while others have to pay out their budget for the same education. For instance, Pawtucket spent only $350,000 for 480 students to attend Davies Voke ($729/student) while Woonsocket spent $2,000,000 out of the local school budget to provide Career & Tech education to its 307 students($6,514 per student). The now discretionary state aid does not account for that difference in education financing. Add to that the fact that the state support for Davies Voke has increased every year while local state education aid has remained flat.

This is a very complicated stuff and a simlistic analysis does not address the disparities of need, resource, support and social challenges we should be attempting to resolve.

Please let's continue the discussion.

Leaving aside for the moment that increased expenditures are not correlated with education system performance (but are correlated with the teachers unions' "take") ...

The real (the unannounced) idea is to transform the property tax into a form of progressive tax, modeled on the income tax.

"Wealthy" district will receive less "aid" and so will fund all (or nearly all of their school systems), while "state aid" (largely derived from the income tax and sales taxes) will be redistributed to the "poor" districts.

Standard left-wing collectivism. Consider, for example, some senior on a fixed income in a "wealthy" district, that perhaps bought their home back in the 1960's will now pay even more punitive property taxes - while another senior in an identical house and in identical circumstances will pay far less via what will amount to state-subsidized property taxes.

Standard left-wing collectivism. Consider, for example, some senior on a fixed income in a "wealthy" district, that perhaps bought their home back in the 1960's will now pay even more punitive property taxes - while another senior in an identical house and in identical circumstances will pay far less via what will amount to state-subsidized property taxes.

Posted by Tom W at July 29, 2009 11:18 AM

Is there a difference in the property values between your two invented identical seniors ?

Andrew, you prove my point. Woonsocket has the highest commercial rate in the state! Obviously, even with that there is significantly less reource per student in the school system! Plus the lack of support for public housing (not enjoyed by those in suburbia) and the corruption of the Career & Tech school entitlements.

John,

You type faster than I keep up.

I've promoted your description on the issues regarding apartment classification to the main body of the post -- but I think you've seen that by now!

I'm not presenting the charts in the main post as the final word on the subject, but the separation of residential from commercial/industrial levies is a definite improvement over lumping all property taxes into a single sum, which is the methodology that the current "funding formula" bills in the General Assembly use. One concern, for example, is that a "funding formula" which fails to separate residential from commercial/industrial could encourage short-sighted politicians to raise rates on the commercial side, making it look like they are increasing their "tax effort", but creating long-term negative economic consequences. Could we already be seeing related effects in some RI communities? I know RIPEC did a study a few years back, on problems with Providence raising commercial taxes in order to keep residential taxes low.

Finally, I think we share a very important point of agreement, on what a truly rational system would look like…

Only a few communities in the state get to send their Career & Tech students to Davies for free while others have to pay out their budget for the same education. For instance, Pawtucket spent only $350,000 for 480 students to attend Davies Voke ($729/student) while Woonsocket spent $2,000,000 out of the local school budget to provide Career & Tech education to its 307 students($6,514 per student). The now discretionary state aid does not account for that difference in education financing. Add to that the fact that the state support for Davies Voke has increased every year while local state education aid has remained flat.

Now we are beginning to drift towards each other.

>Is there a difference in the property values between your two invented identical seniors ?

There may well be. But so to will the "per 1,000" rate in each community. Ultimately municipalities jigger their rates over the total value of property in their communities to "make" whatever they spend. So the more they spend, the higher will be property taxes across the board.

On a between municipalities "macro" level communities with less state aid are going to hit their homeowners with relatively higher taxes since they are paying full (or near) full boat for their school systems, while the "poorer" districts are not paying full boat for their school systems.

Tom W..."On a between municipalities "macro" level communities with less state aid are going to hit their homeowners with relatively higher taxes since they are paying full (or near) full boat for their school systems, while the "poorer" districts are not paying full boat for their school systems."

But the "poorer" districts are paying the full boat for all of the children in public housing. Shall we share them with you. Feel free to build all the family public housing you like in the "wealthier" communities. We''ll pay the bus fare and moving costs.

You're turning this into class warfare. Do you contend that by virtue of their lack of wealth they deserve less?

Andrew..."One concern, for example, is that a "funding formula" which fails to separate residential from commercial/industrial could encourage short-sighted politicians to raise rates on the commercial side, making it look like they are increasing their "tax effort", but creating long-term negative economic consequences."

You are absolutely correct. The bottom dwellers in your list are the communities with either a classification system, a homestead exemption, or both. These decisions were made by shortsighted politicians in order to pander to the voters (homeowners) and limit residential tax levy growth while shifting the load to businesses (they don't vote, except with their feet when they leave town).

All of these classification and homestead exemption plans were approved by the General ASSembly. Nobody in that august body had the good sense to simply outlaw such political gamesmanship because it was detrimental to the economic interests of the state. Why you may ask? Because they are pandering idiots that go back to their community to brag about how much they've done for their town. They're too dumb to know they just screwed things up a little more.

Should we expect more?

>>But the "poorer" districts are paying the full boat for all of the children in public housing.

Oh really? What about all that "federal" and "state" money that is "pumped into those communities" via Section 8 (the LANDLORDS still pay property taxes) and Medicaid and "family independence program" (or whatever the euphemism du jour for welfare is) and food stamps? I seem to recall that the folks from the Poverty Pimp Institute were pushing increasing enrollment in food stamps as "economic development."

Since with our "progressive" income tax system the "rich" (who reside in the "wealthier" communities are footing the bill for that "economic development" - I don't think that you want to go down that path.

Finally, why should it be a taxpayer problem if certain irresponsible people decide to produce children that they can't afford? If we stopped subsidizing this behavior by insulating the practitioners of it from the consequences, we'd have far less of it.

Government programs don't lift people out of poverty, they perpetuate it. The parasites at the Poverty Pimp Institute know this, which is why they and their ilk have been around for over 40 years, and fully intend to be around for 40 more, and 40 more after that ...

"Woonsocket and Pawtucket, in particular, combine large per-pupil state education aid totals with small residential tax levies into the smallest amount of per-pupil spending in Rhode Island, suggesting that they have been using state education aid money not as a supplements to local revenue sources for building stronger education systems, but as replacements for local revenue. For example, if Woonsocket’s residential tax-levy per dollar of community income was at the level of Pawtucket's, i.e. second lowest on the list above, instead of the lowest, about $5.5 million additional dollars each year would be available to the Woonsocket school system."

Still feel bad for the athletes in Woonsocket to lose their sports? Wasn't the amount that they had to cut somewhere around $6.1M? So by adjusting from the current rate, to Pawtucket's, they could fill the great majority of what they now need to cut.

Who's fault is this again? Not Sue Menard's? Them Woonsocket voters sure love her. Keep showing up at the high rises with the dog and bean dinners and not raising taxes and get re-elected. Sweet deal!

Tom W.

Those of us governing locally have to deal with the effects of the Federal programs that promote baby mommas, multi-generational government dependence and the like. I hate the system, but I am obligated to work with what we have while trying to fight the system. You seem not to have such a burden. I guess I could just quit and be like you.

The food stamps, medical care and others go to the person, not to reduce the property tax burden placed on the community by these people. The rent subsidies help the landlord pay the tax bill, so those houses do contribute to the tax revenue and help offset the budens that the subsidized family bring.

We raised our taxes this year to the cap (4.75%) and left another $2.4 million unbudgeted that we should have spent because two members said no. Even with all that (and the remaining $2.4 million) we still would be level funding education and would still be $6 million short of their budget. So now Woonsocket has a residential tax rate in the middle of the pack and still has the highest commercial tax rate in the state. I'm really feeling suburban now!

I feel so good for you that you could escape such a fate and feel comfortable in your belief that those who choose to live in the community in which they were born deserve to suffer at the hands of the liberals in Congress. I envy the horror of the burden you bear of being better than us. It must be terrible. I might lose sleep tonight worrying about you.

>>Those of us governing locally have to deal with the effects of the Federal programs that promote baby mommas, multi-generational government dependence and the like. I hate the system, but I am obligated to work with what we have while trying to fight the system. You seem not to have such a burden. I guess I could just quit and be like you.

I don't have the burden of being an elected official - just of being a citizen and taxpayer.

Perhaps in your elected capacity it's time for you and others (strength in numbers / not being the one nail sticking up, etc.) to commence some "civil disobedience" - e.g., if the state don't fund it start eliminating the "unfunded mandates" instead of school sports.

Then publicly challenge Bill Murphy and Teresa Paiva-Weed to come and do a Donald Trump to your group and tell you that "you're fired." Invite Jack and Sheldon and Patrick and Jim for good measure.

This state is collapsing, and judging by the General Assembly's (again) passing the buck to the localities it's going to take taxpayer revolt and local officials' resistance.

The current funding 'formula' puts a burden on the elderly who haven't had kids for some time. School funding can be 75% of the property tax there should be some credit for the elderly on this imo.