Act 1 was defeated by a large margin in the NASD: 2114 - 1086.
Clearly I had advocated to vote in favor of Act 1 and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed and feel for the people who will be hit harder each year as school taxes and inflation rise far higher and in disproportion to their fixed incomes.
Here are the breakdown of voting results on Act 1:
Bushkill Center: 215 95
Bushkill Cherryhill: 175 82
Bushkill Clearfield: 107 42
Lower Nazareth 1: 295 109
Lower Nazareth 2: 153 65
Upper Nazareth E: 343 192
Upper Nazareth W: 122 47
Township Total: 1410 632
Nazareth 1: 214 122
Nazareth 2: 179 109
Nazareth 3: 122 114
Stockertown: 77 63
Tatamy: 112 46
Borough Total: 704 454
5 comments:
How the heck can you be in favor of Act 1. It benifited no one but old people and the poor and really not even them... Tax shifting from property to income doesn't reduce overall tax. It hurt renters who would now pay directly for school tax via EIT/PIT, hurt the middle class in terms of an overal tax increase PT+EIT/PIT and provided false budget controls on school districts. SD have an automatic pass on higher budgets as long as they phrase it the way harrisburg wants to see it (e.g. healthcare costs).
ACT 1 being voted down sends a clear messgae to Rendell and the legislature that Pennsylvanians will not be fooled into their shell games of tax shifting. AND it highlighted the most agreous [sp] sin of our lawmakers, shifting Casino money from REAL property tax relief to sports arena's in Pittsburgh. Rendell purposefully tried to CON the great citizens of this state and lost huge.
I favored it for the reason you note - it benefited 'old people and the poor'. The very people who most need the help.
I never looked at it as a tax reduction. I never anticipated gambling money. I may be wrong, but I expect it to be a bust and if its not, the money will go to the cities, not areas like Nazareth.
Property Tax is wrong. Tax based on an ability to pay - income is fair.
I've heard so many comments about the state, but this is about us, right here.
Inflation is growing in the Valley at double the national rate, our school taxes have gone up each year and will continue to do so, if you are seeking a tax cut and earning an income, think of how tough this has been on those living on a fixed income.
I didn't vote my pocket book, I voted for what I thought was a first step toward getting us off property tax and onto income.
I believe this is the 3rd time school tax reform has been shot down and each time people keep what we have because they know what it is and defeat the new proposal because they fear the unknown (or the fact that their tax will go up).
It wasn't good, but it was better than what we have, and a first step at being fair.
Even retiree's should be against it especially in areas of the PIT. Their retirement savings then become taxed. A retiree who owns their house and is living off of retirement income shouldn't have to pick up an additional PIT. They might be exempt in areas of EIT but its only time before the coffers come looking for their money too.
As it stands now, the middle-class disproportionately pays the burden of school (PT) taxes. The middle class owns the homes and earns the income. ACT 1 only increased the burden on the middle class. You talk about being fair and this certainly isn't fair.
What the State and Rendell did to the poor and seniors in their game playing with ACT 1 and Casino money is where all the displeasure with the failure of Act 1 passing should be placed. ACT 1 with Casino revenue should have been tax reform and reduction AND not the crap we got from Harrisburg.
Several SD in the Scranton area and specifically board members actively campaigned against Act 1. This is as close to unanimous as a message can come from voters.
I am not against PT -> EIT/PIT but don't play us for fools. Give us an ACT that is a 1 to 1 trade and stop the casino revenue hording.
Trifster-
Tuesday's vote did not "vote down" Act 1. As part of Act 1, school districts were given the opportunity to present to voters whether or not they wanted a property tax reduction in lieu of higher EIT (or in some districts, PIT) increase. It was THAT part of Act 1 that was "voted down". Act 1 still stands and with it, the gambling/casinos and "supposed" money that will eventually (if it ever materializes?) trickle down to the school districts.
Act 1 is still here. School boards are still forced to stay under a state mandated inflation index. There still will be exemptions to the index and possibly referendums if school boards are forced to exceed the index.
Ross is absolutely correct about the gambling money. Already, Harrisburg has said there will not be any this year. After everyone gets their hands on this revenue source, I will be suprised if there is any left for schools. Maybe Philly and Pittsburgh schools, but certainly not places like Nazareth as Ross astutely points out.
Thanks brad for clairification on what this ACT 1 vote was for. SO it sounds like we all agree that Casino revenue has been hijacked by Harrisburg and an overall PT relief completely scrwed up by politics!
Post a Comment