Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hashslingingslashar OP t1_j7mmjrd wrote

Not an expert in this subject matter but this seems like it would have massive implications for the state... anyone who knows more want to chime in on what this means and where we go from here?

60

maxwellington97 t1_j7mp91l wrote

https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvania-school-funding-lawsuit-waiting-ruling/

An article from last month about some more details on this.

35

shubaka17 t1_j7nz1ul wrote

good read, thanks for sharing! although I wonder whether the legislature would enact a tax-ceiling before they would enact any equitable laws to redistribute that wealth.

I also wonder about teacher wages, but I suppose that's probably beside the point.

2

randompittuser t1_j7p9m12 wrote

So Shapiro supported it as AG and will appeal it as Governor? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, why?

1

IndependentCode8743 t1_j7qxc4k wrote

Well finding an additional $5B in the state budget will be a challenge for the governor and state legislature. The AG doesn't have the same concern.

4

randompittuser t1_j7r4acg wrote

Yeah, that's what I gather. Though I was mistaken in what I said-- the article mentioned that the governor may appeal. Shapiro's office hasn't officially come back with a decision on their response to the ruling yet.

1

nayls142 t1_j7n9b8h wrote

This is how New Jersey got an income tax. After the Abbott decision in 1973, the state was ordered to find funding other than property taxes for poor school districts. Hence, a brand new income tax in 1976. And nobody's ever complained about public schools in Camden, Trenton or Newark now that those cities are showered in money.

34

Or0b0ur0s t1_j7niq9u wrote

The problem is, PA already has a too-high (or, at least, too regressive) income tax, and many municipalities have multiple layers (county, city, local, "occupational privilege", that sort of thing).

36

choodudetoo t1_j7p5boe wrote

Flat Income Taxes are by nature, regressive.

17

hsavvy t1_j7pgbn3 wrote

Yes but the GOP has claimed that a marginal tax rate violates the PA constitution 🙄

6

Or0b0ur0s t1_j7pnl9i wrote

Yes, but you have to consider the source. This is part of the same organization that has strongly hinted though their stacked SCOTUS that things like non-white, non-landowning people and women probably shouldn't vote, since it wasn't "original" to the U.S. Constitution.

They're fascist plutocrats who will justify literally anything to put their hands deeper in your pockets or strengthen their power over you. If they told me the sky was blue and I was to get free tacos for life, I'd wonder what they were hiding up there and assume the tacos were poisoned so they could sell me the antidote.

8

hsavvy t1_j7psrgj wrote

I worked against them in the House for 5 years so I am painfully aware of their bullshit.

3

veovis523 t1_j7x7ovo wrote

Suffrage for non-whites and women was made part of the Constitution through the amendment process. The Supreme Court can't touch it, the only way to get rid of it would be to pass new amendments or completely get rid of the constitution.

1

Or0b0ur0s t1_j7xrxor wrote

Unfortunately, those are both things the Republican Party has discussed doing since 2016. Fortunately, they don't seem to have the seats at any level needed to consider it since 2022.

What I was getting at is that they'll lie and bend any principle to grab more naked power. There's nothing you can point to and say "they won't do that" or "that goes against their platform / ideology", or even "that's nonsense / contradictory / hypocritical, because if it gets them more power, they absolutely will find a way to justify it.

2

nayls142 t1_j7plnht wrote

Flat income taxes are by nature, flat.

1

ryeinn t1_j7qzk9j wrote

Yeah, but 1% of $1,000,000 is a much smaller deal in your ability to live than 1% of $20,000.

3

Bicycle-Seat t1_j7pqzqs wrote

Everyone pays the same percentage, how is that not fair? It treats everyone equally.

−3

choodudetoo t1_j7pty4o wrote

If you make $1,000,000 per year you still have $969,300 to live on.

If you make $15,080 per year you have $14,617 to live on.

Hopefully you can see that at the lower income level. the tax has more of an impact on one's living standard than at the higher income levels. I would have no problem living on $900,000; $14,600 not so much.

Thus the classic definition of a regressive tax - more impact on a lower income person's life than a higher income person.

A recent proposal by a certain faction in Congress to scrap the Federal Income tax and replace it with a 30% sales tax is a Smash And Grab for the Wealthiest Folks who were ever Chauffeured around the Planet Earth.

7

IndependentCode8743 t1_j7qxpx7 wrote

And yet Philadelphia, one of the poorer counties in the state, has the highest income tax and sales tax. There is zero incentive for a high income earning family to live here, unless they make their money on non-waged income (i.e., interest and dividends). Add in the "soda tax" and the poor and low income families are taxed thru the roof.

1

choodudetoo t1_j7qyap5 wrote

The COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA government severely limits what local jurisdictions can tax.

Then a certain elephant party blasts away at the resulting chaos and claims it's the local's fault.

1

IndependentCode8743 t1_j7r0ywb wrote

The corruption in this city is second to nowhere, and its been run by one party for 70 years. So those in charge have nobody to blame but themselves. I mean the unions put a guy in city council and kept him on the union's payroll, then cry foul when the FBI charges the union leader and councilmember with corruption.

As far as limits on tax, we have to pay an additional 2% sales tax, a soda tax and a wage tax. The sales tax exemption was approved by the state. The working poor and middle class folks are paying these taxes, especially in today's remote working environment. And yet we still can't buy books for kids in schools.

0

choodudetoo t1_j7r93br wrote

Is it any wonder the elephant party is good with regressive taxes?

2

IndependentCode8743 t1_j7rj8al wrote

The city has used wage taxes vs property taxes as a way of funding their government. Its not an elephant party thing, since they haven't been in charge in Philly for almost a century. So both parties are OK with regressive taxes, as long as they get their money. What is worse about the city wage tax is dividends and interest income are excluded. So you could be a billionaire, live in the city and pay $0 in wage taxes if you aren't collecting a salary. However, if you are a business owner you are taxed far more if than if your business was just outside the city. And if you are too poor to own a car, and need to buy necessities to live, those are going to cost more than your neighbors in Montco or Bucks, since you can't drive across county lines.

1

choodudetoo t1_j7rrr73 wrote

> The city has used wage taxes vs property taxes as a way of funding their government.

Having lived in Philadelphia, you have just confirmed that you are a Lying Sack of Fertilizer.

What part of the State Government severely limits what localities can tax is beyond your comprehension?

I hope you are being paid a living wage for your trolling.

1

yeags86 t1_j7r9pt8 wrote

I pay a wage tax to work in Reading because I don’t live there. Is it like that for Philly? Live and work there, no tax, commute in, get taxed.

I haven’t actually worked in Reading for 3 years as I am remote now. I still pay it. Not gonna complain because I would like Reading to get it’s shit together.

1

IndependentCode8743 t1_j7rfkoy wrote

If you live in the city or work in the city you need to pay the tax. So if you live outside the city and are now a remote employee you do not need to pay the tax.

I live in the city and work outside the city, so I pay the tax regardless if I am remote or in the office.

NYC is in a legal battle with NJ/Conn over this issue as its tax base took a serious hit with remote work.

1

PermissionToConnect t1_j7oc335 wrote

PA needs to charge estate taxes

−6

JessicaDAndy t1_j7p18p6 wrote

Pennsylvania does charge estate tax. For any amount. The rate changes based on relatedness to the decedent. Children pay less than your buddy you willed your boat to.

EDIT: Pa Department of Revenue website regarding Inheritance (Estate) tax.

10

hsavvy t1_j7pg9bb wrote

IMO the estate tax should be changed to factor in the amount or the tax bracket of the recipient but yes, it does change based on your relationship.

3

PermissionToConnect t1_j7sruhp wrote

> Pennsylvania does charge estate tax

no, they charge inheritance taxes and only if you aren't transferring to a spouse or joint owner

0

Hashslingingslashar OP t1_j7n9knp wrote

And NJ has the best public schools in the country. Go figure. Lots of reasons for that though.

31

IamSauerKraut t1_j7nbg44 wrote

This very issue came up across the Commonwealth when a well-meaning group marketed the current system as the best that could make it thru the legislature.

This ruling will be appealed to SCOPA and the current funding scheme will continue until they rule because the legislature is too busy chasing their tails and litterboxes to give a shit (pun intended).

22