Rutland Herald
Opinion/Letter
March 18,2014
Where have the good jobs gone?
With all the discussion about increased education funding and reduced student population, it appears that the best our Legislature can do is a plan to increase property tax breaks for those earning up to $120,000 a year.
Unfortunately, this philosophy was somewhat addressed by our elected representative, Anne Gallivan during the Killington town meeting when she claimed that there is no problem with education spending, only how we pay for it.
I have commented before that just as we all must learn to live within our means, the state must also figure out how to do things smarter and more economically.
One of the issues commented on by many others is the income-sensitivity provision of the state education property tax. Although well-intentioned, it has grown to benefit 70 percent of Vermonters, and with the proposed increase, it is likely to grow to 80 percent. The complexity of the tax, and the perceived benefits to so many, have led to Vermont spending more per student than almost any other state; a trend that cannot continue unabated without serious financial consequences for all Vermonters.
Some may argue that those earning more than $120,000 a year should pay for those earning less. The concept sounds good until you realize that high-paying jobs are leaving Vermont much faster than they are arriving. Right or wrong, based on your perspective, Vermont is branded as one of the most business-unfriendly states in the country. As an example, IBM has lost more than 4,000 high-paying jobs, because the state did not adequately support its expansion efforts years ago. Instead, IBM moved their newest chip technology to New York, and now there are even some rumors of IBM selling its Vermont facilities. Vermont Yankee is another case in point.
In fact, hardly a week goes by that there is not another company leaving, or examining the financial wisdom of leaving Vermont.
I mention all this because when there are no $120,000-plus jobs left in Vermont, who will be left to pay for rising education costs?
MARTY POST
Killington
With all the discussion about increased education funding and reduced student population, it appears that the best our Legislature can do is a plan to increase property tax breaks for those earning up to $120,000 a year.
Unfortunately, this philosophy was somewhat addressed by our elected representative, Anne Gallivan during the Killington town meeting when she claimed that there is no problem with education spending, only how we pay for it.
I have commented before that just as we all must learn to live within our means, the state must also figure out how to do things smarter and more economically.
One of the issues commented on by many others is the income-sensitivity provision of the state education property tax. Although well-intentioned, it has grown to benefit 70 percent of Vermonters, and with the proposed increase, it is likely to grow to 80 percent. The complexity of the tax, and the perceived benefits to so many, have led to Vermont spending more per student than almost any other state; a trend that cannot continue unabated without serious financial consequences for all Vermonters.
Some may argue that those earning more than $120,000 a year should pay for those earning less. The concept sounds good until you realize that high-paying jobs are leaving Vermont much faster than they are arriving. Right or wrong, based on your perspective, Vermont is branded as one of the most business-unfriendly states in the country. As an example, IBM has lost more than 4,000 high-paying jobs, because the state did not adequately support its expansion efforts years ago. Instead, IBM moved their newest chip technology to New York, and now there are even some rumors of IBM selling its Vermont facilities. Vermont Yankee is another case in point.
In fact, hardly a week goes by that there is not another company leaving, or examining the financial wisdom of leaving Vermont.
I mention all this because when there are no $120,000-plus jobs left in Vermont, who will be left to pay for rising education costs?
MARTY POST
Killington
Comment: Right on Marty. In addition, one of Gov. Shumlin's rationales for spending so much on education is that since we have "the best education" in the country people are moving here. I haven't seen any evidence of that. In fact the state has been losing population for at least the last decade or two, about the same amount of time we've had supposedly best education system in the country. Well the only thing for sure is that we spend the most per pupil and have the highest student/teacher ratio in the country (14-1 last time I saw a statistic). And how is this great education benefiting the state economically? Although I only have anecdotal evidence, once these kids are so well educated they are apparently smart enough to look around and immediately leave the state because of the lack of opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment