I suggested this idea once before but it didn't get traction. Maybe now? While low oil prices don't help our state budget toward public education we could use the lower prices to help our school funding problems. Why couldn't we raise state gasoline prices by .50 but not exceed $3.50 per gallon as prices fluctuate. If we could add .50 a gallon toward school funding I can't but think it'd raise good money very quickly. Plus I think state citizen's would support .50 a gallon increase if they could be assured it would go strictly toward school funding.

Maybe I'm simple minded but this idea might be a way to demonstrate state support.

50 cents would be sticker shock to a lot of people. I think 5-10 cents would be more doable. But, many people I've spoken to have express frustration with these taxes that go straight to education. They cite the lottery and general administration as the biggest failures of our state's education budget. I think modest (modest!) increases to property taxes would be the easiest to pass. Hopefully, bucktalk, your idea will be more attractive to more people in the future as walkability, mass transit, and higher mpg cars take hold.

50 cents would be sticker shock to a lot of people. I think 5-10 cents would be more doable. But, many people I've spoken to have express frustration with these taxes that go straight to education. They cite the lottery and general administration as the biggest failures of our state's education budget. I think modest (modest!) increases to property taxes would be the easiest to pass. Hopefully, bucktalk, your idea will be more attractive to more people in the future as walkability, mass transit, and higher mpg cars take hold.

You might be right... .50 might be a tad steep as a start. But gosh it just seems like a simple way to raise funds even if it was a temporary situation. Thanks for your thoughts!

I support this or a production tax that's not tied to prices. However, one question I have is we have a land grant trust fund which has billions held for education yet it only gave $100 million last year. Why?

Gas taxes aren't the best way as time moves on people use less gas as alternate fuels come out and cars become more efficient. That is a problem nationally with gas tax funds helping roads. Less gas usage kills it.

It would work short term for sure. Probably need a long term solution.

I agree that a lot of people are upset that money promised before hasn't really gone to education or was offset by state funding decrease (lottery, etc), i think there are a large number of people that are of the frame mind that there needs to be some consolidation within the school districts also. For example, OK has 584 districts serving 673,483 kids. Texas has just over double the districts at 1254 but serves 4,331,751 kids. Missouri has about the same number of districts at 567 but serves 917,900 kids. I fully support the teachers but so not support a system of waste. There are ways to consolidate schools without closing schools or losing local support.

The constant demand of funding education should not be funded by cyclical revenue sources.

Given how much the state budget crashes when oil is down, I don't think it would be a bad idea to add on a sliding gas tax tied to oil prices are at. Obviously if oil were to ever hit $120/bbl again, the sliding tax should be at 0%. But when oil is at $35/bbl and gasoline is down below $1.50, I don't think it would be unreasonable to prop that up to $1.75 - $2.00. Sure, at $2.00 that's a 33% tax, but it would really help state coffers.

Not to mention with I-35 and I-40 (and I-44 to a lesser extent), we are bound to pull in some extra money from out of state truck drivers.

I support this or a production tax that's not tied to prices. However, one question I have is we have a land grant trust fund which has billions held for education yet it only gave $100 million last year. Why?

Without knowing a single thing about the trust, or even how many billions, my estimation is that it is only giving out earnings. In order to protect the value (asset base) trusts usually only make income related distributions. If your investment pool isn't performing particularly well, times may be a little tight for those that receive grants. If they give any more on a routine basis, the trust will die. Then nobody is helped.

. . . was offset by state funding decrease (lottery, etc),". . . not sure how to stop this with the current clown college at 23rd and Lincoln, but this was a show stopper for me. There must be a way to make the legislature step up to their responsibility in this.

Three-card Monte. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-card_Monte

. . . was offset by state funding decrease (lottery, etc),". . . not sure how to stop this with the current clown college at 23rd and Lincoln, but this was a show stopper for me. There must be a way to make the legislature step up to their responsibility in this.

Yup. Like I've said before, in THEORY Oklahoma has the most funding for education, because every time you turn around someone has an idea for how to fund it. Part of your vehicle registration still goes to 'education' last I checked. Horse racing was supposed to be the holy grail. Then off track betting. Then the lottery. But in actuality, Oklahoma is near if not at the bottom in education spending. Before coming up with yet another cockamamie idea like sales tax or gas tax or hotel tax or (insert cause of the week here) tax that STILL won't actually be given to 'education' (a term so nebulous that it often means private schools and universities, leaving public schools in the sad state of forcing the underpaid teachers to buy basic school supplies), why don't we demand an accounting of every penny that has been 'earmarked for education', in a 'lockbox the state legislature can never touch'?

. . . was offset by state funding decrease (lottery, etc),". . . not sure how to stop this with the current clown college at 23rd and Lincoln, but this was a show stopper for me. There must be a way to make the legislature step up to their responsibility in this.

They didn't offset the lottery funds. It's not allowed and there is a review process. The problem is the lottery brought in so little compared to what was promised. I mean, 90 million doesn't do much in a 4 billion dollar education budget.

I support this or a production tax that's not tied to prices. However, one question I have is we have a land grant trust fund which has billions held for education yet it only gave $100 million last year. Why?
As someone mentioned I think this is just like an endowment that only pays out what it earns. Which these days if its 5%, then you consider it doing fairly ok.


I agree that a lot of people are upset that money promised before hasn't really gone to education or was offset by state funding decrease (lottery, etc), i think there are a large number of people that are of the frame mind that there needs to be some consolidation within the school districts also. For example, OK has 584 districts serving 673,483 kids. Texas has just over double the districts at 1254 but serves 4,331,751 kids. Missouri has about the same number of districts at 567 but serves 917,900 kids. I fully support the teachers but so not support a system of waste. There are ways to consolidate schools without closing schools or losing local support.

There is only so much you can save by consolidation. Its not the holy grail for new funds. Say you cut our districts in half and say you save $250,000 per consolidated district, thats only $71 million. It was going to take about $250 million to give every teacher a $5k/yr raise. So consolidation isnt the end all be all for school funding and teacher pay increases. But I still believe it should happen. Certainly k-8th grade districts need to consolidate with nearby districts.

Here is a rational and reasonable thought. Maybe we just increase gross production taxes from 2% to 4% and call it good. I believe that would bring in about $500 million. Texas' rate is 7%, so 4% would still be very competitive. But good luck getting our easily lobbied legislators to go along with that. Maybe someone should petition this and get it on the ballot. Thats the only hope.

They didn't offset the lottery funds. It's not allowed and there is a review process. The problem is the lottery brought in so little compared to what was promised. I mean, 90 million doesn't do much in a 4 billion dollar education budget.

Was a *huge* frustration for me when the lottery was being so heavily sold. The numbers they promised were mathematically impossible to achieve. It was a failure from the moment it was proposed.

As someone mentioned I think this is just like an endowment that only pays out what it earns. Which these days if its 5%, then you consider it doing fairly ok.



There is only so much you can save by consolidation. Its not the holy grail for new funds. Say you cut our districts in half and say you save $250,000 per consolidated district, thats only $71 million. It was going to take about $250 million to give every teacher a $5k/yr raise. So consolidation isnt the end all be all for school funding and teacher pay increases. But I still believe it should happen. Certainly k-8th grade districts need to consolidate with nearby districts.

Here is a rational and reasonable thought. Maybe we just increase gross production taxes from 2% to 4% and call it good. I believe that would bring in about $500 million. Texas' rate is 7%, so 4% would still be very competitive. But good luck getting our easily lobbied legislators to go along with that. Maybe someone should petition this and get it on the ballot. Thats the only hope.

The problem is, $500 million would only give about $700 a year per pupil in increased spending. We need to raise per pupil spending by about $2k a year to be competitive (if not more... we're at like 8k, and the average is around 12k per pupil), so we need about 3-5 times what you're talking about. I mean, the $500 million is better than nothing but it doesn't get us enough.

I wish there was a way in which we can use lower oil prices toward our advantage instead of always bemoaning how lower prices are so bad for us. Let's be creative when prices are low for an extended time.

I suggested this idea once before but it didn't get traction. Maybe now? While low oil prices don't help our state budget toward public education we could use the lower prices to help our school funding problems. Why couldn't we raise state gasoline prices by .50 but not exceed $3.50 per gallon as prices fluctuate. If we could add .50 a gallon toward school funding I can't but think it'd raise good money very quickly. Plus I think state citizen's would support .50 a gallon increase if they could be assured it would go strictly toward school funding.

Maybe I'm simple minded but this idea might be a way to demonstrate state support.
A big huge NO to that idea. The last time Oklahoma attempted to raise gas tax, it was turned down by 90%. Never before in my life did I recall a state question turned down by such a huge amount.

Most people feel either taxed enough or taxed too much. It's up to the legislature to do its job, and find more money for education. It can do this my eliminating tax incentives. There may be other ways, too. I think oil company income taxes should be raised back to near where they were, but you can bet they would refuse to accept doing that. After all, they pay only 2% for the first 3 years of a well's operation, while other type businesses always pay 6%. It sure isn't fair. But then Oklahoma has got to be one of the most poorly run states.

I wish it was easier to break down the numbers to figure out what the exact problem is with our school funding setup. For instance this graphic from Ballotpedia shows 2013 numbers for Oklahoma and the striking difference is the number of districts. Still the admin to pupil ratio is comparable so it doesn't seem like administration is the hidden issue.
13287

So looking at other comparative items, it would look like our higher education spend is significantly higher as a percentage of budget versus other states in the region. I'd be curious why that is and the impact of re-allocating some of the overall education budget to increase K-12's allocation.
13288

Data attachments taken from Ballotpedia.