Read on Twitter
Yo @errrica, this “con” against increasing school funding is misleading, illogical, garbage. https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/pennsylvania-taxes-school-funding-tom-wolf-budget-education-20210215.html
Start with this. It’s a lie by omission.
Yes, the tax rate will go up. But so will exceptions, to a massive degree. In reality, 40 percent of taxpayers will have their taxes cut.
Yes, the tax rate will go up. But so will exceptions, to a massive degree. In reality, 40 percent of taxpayers will have their taxes cut.
If you are a family of four, your taxes are cut up to an income of $87,000.
The median household income in Philadelphia? $46,000.
Allentown? $41,000.
Wilkes Barre? $38,000.
Reading? $32,000.
Johnstown? $25,000.
This is also where funding increases dramatically.
The median household income in Philadelphia? $46,000.
Allentown? $41,000.
Wilkes Barre? $38,000.
Reading? $32,000.
Johnstown? $25,000.
This is also where funding increases dramatically.
So what is the proposal? It is making Pennsylvania taxes more progressive, while also infusing underfunded districts with money.
The kids who most benefit are *overwhelmingly* not in families who actually pay more in taxes.
The kids who most benefit are *overwhelmingly* not in families who actually pay more in taxes.
Then there is this garbage. The majority of districts already have plenty of funding according to whom?
The last time the state measured it (2011), districts were underfunded in general education funding alone by $4.5 billion. If you run the formula today, it’s $4.6 billion.
The last time the state measured it (2011), districts were underfunded in general education funding alone by $4.5 billion. If you run the formula today, it’s $4.6 billion.
If districts had plenty of money, we would surely just run it all through the fair funding formula. We don't do that, because it would shift over a billion dollars from district to to district. https://whyy.org/articles/advocates-highlight-how-pa-s-outdated-school-funding-policy-causes-deep-inequities/
And in that scenario, who would lose out most? Small, shrinking districts. Who represents them, you might ask?
And maybe the hold harmless debate is a pro-con kind of thing. But this point is more flat out BS. This is not a pro or con thing. What would a reader understand after reading this? That Philly is sitting on $750 million.
Here is reality.
The School District of Philadelphia projects to end the year with $31 million dollars in the bank. Less than one percent of its annual expenditures.
The School District of Philadelphia projects to end the year with $31 million dollars in the bank. Less than one percent of its annual expenditures.
Now, I could get deep into why the source document linked for that point-the Commonwealth Foundation's own spreadsheet--is bizarrely misleading.
But what the reader is supposed to understand from the point is that Philly is sitting on piles of cash. It is garbage.
But what the reader is supposed to understand from the point is that Philly is sitting on piles of cash. It is garbage.
Here, in reality, is SDP's actual budget projections going forward.
All of the BS is of course just a way to get to this point.
Vouchers.
Vouchers.
It ends where it started, with a Koch foundation sentence generator: "Working parents do not deserve to lose more money to the government while it also denies our children options and opportunity."
And sure, we could have a pro/con that has @LauraBoyce215 argue for money for underfunded schools, while the Commonwealth Foundation argues against public education itself.
But that would be unpopular to say, so instead we get the purposeful misleading of readers.
But that would be unpopular to say, so instead we get the purposeful misleading of readers.
