Save OKC Schools Initiative

[Pete]

Went to the meeting last night. Here are the scanned hand-outs.

[Pete]

Good article by Free Press OKC:

https://freepressokc.com/save-okc-schools-income-tax/

[RodH]

What is the tax rate? How much will it raise? How will the bonuses be paid? Will they be across the board or prorated? Will each district determine how the funds will be used? Can restrictions be placed on how the funds can be used? Who decides these and the many other issues if the tax is approved?

[SoonerDave]

As much as I realize our schools need funding, there is absolutely no way I can support an OKC-based income tax. I will be actively opposing this. Monies allocated from my income taxes via state appropriations combined with my local property tax tell me its time for someone *else* to step up to the plate and start pitching in, not punish me for living in OKC -- especially as I'm not even living in the OKC school district.

[Pete]

As much as I realize our schools need funding, there is absolutely no way I can support an OKC-based income tax. I will be actively opposing this. Monies allocated from my income taxes via state appropriations combined with my local property tax tell me its time for someone *else* to step up to the plate and start pitching in, not punish me for living in OKC yet not even living in an OKC district.

The money would go to all school districts within OKC, just like MAPS for Kids.

[SoonerDave]

The money would go to all school districts within OKC, just like MAPS for Kids.

Appreciate that, Pete, but for me that's not the issue. If we have potential sources such as regional average wellhead taxation, broader and/or disproportionate corporate breaks, then we need to fix those issues - not put more tax burden on the citizens - especially on an income tax. As I said, it's time for other parties to come to the table. I just cannot support a city-based income tax.

[Pete]

Appreciate that, Pete, but for me that's not the issue. If we have potential sources such as regional average wellhead taxation, broader and/or disproportionate corporate breaks, then we need to fix those issues - not put more tax burden on the citizens - especially on an income tax. As I said, it's time for other parties to come to the table. I just cannot support a city-based income tax.

Did you also vote against MAPS for Kids?

You almost certainly paid more in sales tax with that increase than you would here.

[Zuplar]

Appreciate that, Pete, but for me that's not the issue. If we have potential sources such as regional average wellhead taxation, broader and/or disproportionate corporate breaks, then we need to fix those issues - not put more tax burden on the citizens - especially on an income tax. As I said, it's time for other parties to come to the table. I just cannot support a city-based income tax.

I'm 100% with you on this Dave.

[SoonerDave]

Did you also vote against MAPS for Kids?

You almost certainly paid more in sales tax with that increase than you would here.

Yes, I opposed M4K on principle, because in all frankness as a Moore district resident it isn't my responsibility to subsidize OKC schools. And I pay a premium in property taxes to support those Moore schools, so it surely isn't like I'm shirking my responsibility (and I haven't had kids in the system for a few years now).

And, again, the amount isn't honestly relevant to me. The point is these monies need to come from someone else's pocket, be it the oil and gas industry or any other industry who has arguably received the most benefit from recent tax policy decisions at the state capitol. And the funding issue needs to be *solved* at the state level.

I suppose that makes me a cruel city hater; meh, so be it. No one else is going to help me fight to keep what I can of what I earn - no choice but to do that myself. And when I realize the cutoff shown above won't even protect my 81-year-old mother on her fixed income from paying even more in taxes, it just makes me double down on the issue. People are not an infinite source of money.

[Pete]

^

I'm not saying I'm for or against this initiative but where is this "put more tax burden on the citizens" argument for all the MAPS programs?

Tax is tax and this would be generating less tax than a $.01 MAPS tax.

[Pete]

And just to be clear any 'premium' you pay in property tax is due to bond issues that must also be approved by voters.

Otherwise your property tax rate is the same regardless of school district.

And of course, Moore schools would get their proportionate share of any money raised here.


I don't even have children and I pay for schools for everyone else. This 'doesn't benefit me personally argument' doesn't wash for virtually anything funded by tax dollars.

Also applies to all the MAPS stuff as most people will never use the convention center, etc. But there is the greater good of investing in your communities that benefits everyone in a larger sense.

[SoonerDave]

And just to be clear any 'premium' you pay in property tax is due to bond issues that must also be approved by voters.

Otherwise your property tax rate is the same regardless of school district.

And of course, Moore schools would get their proportionate share of any money raised here.


I don't even have children and I pay for schools for everyone else. This 'doesn't benefit me personally argument' doesn't wash for virtually anything funded by tax dollars.

Also applies to all the MAPS stuff as most people will never use the convention center, etc. But there is the greater good of investing in your communities that benefits everyone in a larger sense.

And those property tax bond issues are easy to pass for the number of people that aren't property owners yet get to vote to pull money out of the pockets of those who do.

No disrespect, Pete, but if my "doesn't benefit me personally" argument doesn't work, then the "greater good of investing" can't work the other direction, because that could be used to rationalize any tax for any "public benefit." And the former argument has to be a fundamental assessment for anyone as they judge whether to support a tax that gets even a whiff of public input - am I willing to support this even though it probably doesn't help me? For me, the answer is an emphatic no, because there are other avenues available.

Certainly appreciate the discussion, Pete, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I've put my $0.02 out there, for what it's worth, and will be opposing this tax as best I can. Just have to see how it goes.

[Pete]

I"m just saying you have to be consistent if you are going to take the very simplistic approach you are describing.

It also means you should have voted (and continue to vote) against all the MAPS programs and even the general obligations bonds as well.

[Midtowner]

The proposal is unclear as to whether teachers in OKC Charter schools would receive these bonuses. These schools are essentially in their own independent districts, so I'm guessing no?

[SoonerDave]

I"m just saying you have to be consistent if you are going to take the very simplistic approach you are describing.

It also means you should have voted (and continue to vote) against all the MAPS programs and even the general obligations bonds as well.

Not at all - the value proposition you reference for the *original* MAPS was more than adequate to receive my support, and there was no reasonable expectation anyone else would or even should pay for a ballpark, or a convention center, or improvements to its fairgrounds. Schools are a different matter. They're a state and federally funded entity. There are state resources available to bring to bear on them as I've previously outlined, despite our current legislature's impotence in doing so.

[OkieDave]

What is the tax rate? How much will it raise? How will the bonuses be paid? Will they be across the board or prorated? Will each district determine how the funds will be used? Can restrictions be placed on how the funds can be used? Who decides these and the many other issues if the tax is approved?

The tax rate would be 0.5% and would raise roughly$50 million/year for 4 years. It would be paid as an annual bonus to teachers, nurses and support staff. How the money was divided between those groups and whether incentives would be given to teachers working in struggling schools etc.. would all be negotiated between each school district and the unions. The funds could only be used for these annual bonuses and cannot be diverted for any other purpose. The money would be divided among the school districts according to the proportion of okc children attending school in that district (identical to the MAPS for KIDS formula). The tax is temporary because the coalition organizers agree that the legislature needs to assume responsibility and properly fund schools. But no such effort has been forthcoming and it will be 2019 before there is any legitimate chance of a raise in teacher pay given that next year is an election year. Meanwhile teachers are leaving the state/profession and college students are abandoning education as a career.

[OkieDave]

The proposal is unclear as to whether teachers in OKC Charter schools would receive these bonuses. These schools are essentially in their own independent districts, so I'm guessing no?

Teachers in OKC Charter Schools would also receive the annual bonuses.

[Pete]

Not at all - the value proposition you reference for the *original* MAPS was more than adequate to receive my support, and there was no reasonable expectation anyone else would or even should pay for a ballpark, or a convention center, or improvements to its fairgrounds. Schools are a different matter. They're a state and federally funded entity. There are state resources available to bring to bear on them as I've previously outlined, despite our current legislature's impotence in doing so.

Absolutely not true.

Lots of different ways to build big projects like ballparks and convention centers, which is how most other communities do it instead of raising sales tax.

Also, if you refer to the information I uploaded regarding the meeting last night, you'll see 40% of school funding in OK comes from local sources.


If you are against this because you don't want to pay for 'someone else's schools', that's fine but the arguments you are trying to make instead are illogical.

I point this out for other people reading this thread so they don't follow the same flawed logic.

[riflesforwatie]

Are federal and state dollars for education "free"? Would more federal or state funding for education result in a larger tax burden on citizens, whether through increased income taxes or increased corporate taxes and correspondingly higher consumer prices?

If we have to pay more to properly fund our schools, would we rather pay that money to Washington, where people far away have way more say in how it's allocated, or would we rather pay it locally where we (presumably) have more say over how it's used?

Are property taxes borne only by property owners? When property taxes increase, do landlords eat the cost?

What is a better use of tax dollars? A stadium? A convention center? Or our public schools?

[SoonerDave]

Absolutely not true.

Lots of different ways to build big projects like ballparks and convention centers, which is how most other communities do it instead of raising sales tax.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I was driving at the notion that there was no expectation that the state or certainly anyone at the federal level should pay for a Bricktown Ballpark, regardless of the mechanism (be it sales tax, property tax, income tax, whatever). There is *absolutely* the expectation that the state should be dealing with school funding.

Also, if you refer to the information I uploaded regarding the meeting last night, you'll see 40% of school funding in OK comes from local sources.


If you are against this because you don't want to pay for 'someone else's schools', that's fine but the arguments you are trying to make instead are illogical.

I point this out for other people reading this thread so they don't follow the same flawed logic.

Well, I've tried to outline as best I can why I will be actively opposing this initiative; that it should be the state's responsibility to fix the overarching problem (primarily) and those actually in the district (secondarily), and I would of course disagree with the unilateral assertion that the "logic is flawed" merely because you disagree with it, which is absolutely your prerogative. I suspect those who follow the thread will likely not be influenced by my opinion at all, flawed logic notwithstanding.

As I tried to say before, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'm the only one fighting to keep my own paycheck. It's always easy to support a reach into someone else's, as this initiative clearly demonstrates.

[Pete]

^

Even if you want to put this on the state, the whole point is to bridge the gap and quell the emergency until they do so.

Hence, the 4-year term.

Waiting for the state to do something is how we got into this mess and merely waiting further is not going to resolve anything in the next few years, especially because they can't even find the money to cover current obligations.


So by the same standard you are invoking, there is absolutely no expectation the state is going to do anything about this for the next several years.

[SoonerDave]

^

Even if you want to put this on the state, the whole point is to bridge the gap and quell the emergency until they do so.

Hence, the 4-year term.

And I have absolutely no confidence that this wouldn't become permanent. Once the infrastructure is set up to collect the tax, it will become perpetual, and there will be another raison d'etre to support it.

Waiting for the state to do something is how we got into this mess and merely waiting further is not going to resolve anything in the next few years, especially because they can't even find the money to cover current obligations.

So by the same standard you are invoking, there is absolutely no expectation the state is going to do anything about this for the next several years.

I would respectfully submit that the natural response to the legislature's inability to function does not immediately rationalize a new income tax on OKC citizens.

I did not mean to start a flamewar or argument on this; I speciously avoid political commentary here and on most social media for this very reason and I guess this is treading too close to that line. I'm sorry if it's perceived I started one. I've made my case, I'll oppose the income tax, and obviously everyone else will make their own decisions on it. I'm sure my input has not one shred of influence on the eventual outcome.

Have a great day everyone.

[Zuplar]

This is all tough. It's unfortunate we have to even worry about fixing a problem that should have never happened, but here we are.

I share a lot of the same sentiment Dave expressed. And I'd further add that my fear with fixing someone else's problem (cause that's what it is, we all pay our taxes for the government to handle this), is that politicians revert to this in the future. It's a bailout plain and simple. When was the last time funding for education hasn't been a problem in this state? I honestly can't think of a time where it wasn't some sort of headline. Part of that is the nature of the territory, but still if I went to my job for 20 years and failed to fix an issue, well I mean we all know I wouldn't have ever made it 20 years.

I'm tired of paying taxes to an incompetent system. I'm tired of paying taxes for someone else to mismanage. I'm tired of fixing other's problems. There is no accountability anymore. It's finger pointing galore and it's of course never anyone's problem.

And yet here we are again being asked to pony up more money.

[jonny d]

But Oklahoman's pay a really low income tax as it is. It is a more stable way to pay for education than sales tax, as we see with it having been in the tubes. Just my opinion. We have to do something, since we won't vote out those who don't care, or we will keep losing teachers to other states. I know most don't care, but that means great friends of mine will leave to surrounding states.

[Pete]

Nothing could become permanent without a completely separate vote, so if you don't want it to extend beyond four years, worry about the next vote not this one.

This is not a fix. It's a bridge until the state legislature does something. And it's only for OKC and only a partial, temporary gap-filler. The idea this would dissuade the legislature from actually doing something is a bit silly.

In the meantime, doing nothing sacrifices the future of kids.


Everybody wants something done, so here is your chance.

Education has to be paid for in some way and taxation is the only revenue generator, regardless of the form it takes.