News, Events, Announcements
Vermont Government Transparency Site Goes Live!
The new website, a joint venture of Ethan Allen Institute and Public Assets Institute, has a wealth of information about state revenues and spending, both current and historical. Please go here and take a look: http://www.vttransparency.org
We The People of Vermont
We urge all members to fill out this non-partisan survey located at: wethepeoplevt.com
See the results of the pole here.
Announcement
And now, a public service announcement. more...
Act 250 Site
Go directly to the Act 250 site. more...
City of Rutland
View the City of Rutland web site. more...
Did You Know?
Vermont has 290 school districts, and 251 towns.
Put another way: we have 1 school district for every 312 students.
Between the State Board of Education and another 63 distinct supervisory bodies, Vermont has 354 political bodies to govern education (more than 1 per town) but only 328 schools & technical centers.
In the last decade school property taxes have doubled from $450 million to $900 million. The actual cost of education for 2010 is in excess of $1.45 billion in Vermont. The rest of the funds come from income taxes 45% and sales taxes 33%.
Let’s see: More school districts than towns. More bureaucratic bodies to govern schools than schools to be governed. School taxes doubled.
Do you think there’s a connection?
The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes we need to elect state representatives who will streamline the school bureaucracy with an eye to reducing the number of school districts and supervisory bodies. The goal is to reduce the cost of education by eliminating unnecessary layers of spending, while reducing property taxes and lowering income taxes.
Did You Know?
The student population in Vermont has declined from 106,341 in 1997 to 91,807 in 2010. We have 14,534 fewer students a 13.7% decrease.
The K -12 staff has gone from 15,535 in 1997 to 19,363 in 2010. We currently have 3,828 more employees than we did in 1997, a 24.6% increase.
In 1997, Vermont was already the most staff intensive system in the United States
Between 1997 and 2010 education spending increased by 6.6% per annum
Put another way: between 1997 and 2010 every time the state’s school system lost 4 students a new employee was hired.
Personnel costs account for 80% of total school spending.
In the last decade school property taxes have doubled from $450 million to $900 million. The actual cost of education for 2010 is in excess of $1.45 billion in Vermont. The rest of the funds come from income taxes 45% and sales taxes 33%.
Let’s get this right: Schools are adding staff as enrollment drops. And school taxes have doubled.
Do you think there’s a connection?
The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes we need to elect state representatives who will act responsibly by reducing school staff when the student population declines. We must start reducing the cost of education in order to reduce the tax burden.
Did You Know?
Current figures released by the Vermont Department of Education show that the pupil to teacher ratio in Vermont is 11.05 students to 1 teacher. The national average is 15.5 students to each teacher.
Vermont’s pupil to staff ratio (all adults in the education system) is 4.55:1. Think about that: we have 1 adult in our schools for every 5 children. That’s the lowest ratio in the nation.
In 2010, Vermont’s educational cost for each K-12 student is approximately $14,000. That’s one of the highest in the nation, and 35% above the national average.
Let’s see: Vermont has a third more teachers in the classroom than the national average, and our educational cost per student is 35% above the national average.
Do you think there’s a connection?
Governor Douglas has said that increasing our student-to-teacher ratio from the current 11:1 to 13:1 would cut $100 million from the education budget all by itself. The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes Vermont taxpayers need to elect state representatives who endorse Governor Douglas’ proposal. We are entitled to a reasonable expenditure of our tax dollars. A per-pupil education cost that is 35% higher than the national average is not a reasonable expenditure.
Did You Know?
In the last decade education property taxes have doubled from $450 million to $900 million.
That $900 million pays for just two-thirds of the cost of educating Vermont students.
In addition:
About 1/2 of state income taxes are earmarked for education
About 1/3 of state sales taxes are earmarked for education
About 1/3 of state purchase and use taxes are earmarked for education
About 1/3 of state lottery earnings are earmarked for education
About 1/3 of state earnings from Vermont Yankee are earmarked for education
The total FY2009-10 education bill is 1,327,000,000. (That’s 1.327 billion dollars.)
So: even though Vermont school property taxes have doubled in a decade, we still have to take half of the state income taxes and a third of a bunch of other taxes in order to pay for our public educational system.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Business pays 63% higher property tax rates than homeowners. In addition, homeowners receive rebates on their property taxes. We need to decrease taxes to maintain jobs. The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes we need to elect state representatives who understand that our per-pupil educational costs are out of whack, and are consuming entirely too much of our state’s various revenue sources. Introducing higher pupil-to-teacher ratios, consolidating school districts, and eliminating bureaucratic duplications are good places to start.
Did You Know?
Vermont has 60 superintendents with an average salary of $105,337 a year and $26,000 in costs for benefits and other costs. In addition, there are 16 assistant superintendents and 103 administrative positions. We have only 328 schools & technical centers. That is an average of 5.4 schools per superintendent.
We pay over $8 million dollars a year just for superintendents and more for their support staff. If we reduced the number of superintendents to 30 we could save well over $4,000,000 dollars a year.
In the last decade education property taxes have doubled from $450 million to $900 million.
Do you think there’s a connection?
The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes we need to elect state representatives who will streamline the school bureaucracy with an eye to reducing the number of school districts and supervisory bodies. The goal is to reduce the cost of education by eliminating unnecessary layers of spending, while reducing property taxes and lowering income taxes.
Did You Know?
In a 2008 State Business Tax Climate study, Vermont ranked 44th in overall ranking and ranked 46th in property tax index ranking.
Income Sensitivity was intended to reduce the educational tax burden on the lowest earners in the state. However, today more than 2/3 of Vermont residents qualify for some level of Income Sensitivity. The cost gets passed on to business, apartment owners, and second homeowners. In fact, the non-homestead rate is 63% higher than the residential rate.
This results in voters not realizing the full impact of the cost of education in Vermont. The program has grown at an alarming rate. In the last decade education property taxes have doubled from $450 million to $900 million and rebate programs have grown too.
In 1997, the program cost $35 million dollars.
The rebate cost continued to balloon:
2005 – Program cost $104 million dollars
2007 – Program cost $114,675,634
2008 – Program cost $115,395,480
2009 – Program cost $135,850,961
Vermont stands out for the amount of money in the rebate program with a maximum credit of $8,000. Many states provide relief only to those over 65. The highest other rebate maximum amount is Maine at $2,000. Vermont’s income sensitivity program is more expensive than the five other New England States combined.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes that the program has become a tool to quiet complaints about outrageous property taxes. The root of the problem is education expenses that are simply out of control. We need to elect state representatives who will put a firm stop to this kind of structured abuse of the tax system and address the issue of the cost of education in Vermont.
Did You Know?
Of the 6 New England states that offer some form of tax relief for low income homeowners, Vermont’s relief is the most liberal.
Vermont’s program costs more than the other 5 New England states combined.
In 2009, Maine was the second highest. Their maximum earning level to qualify was $81,850. The maximum rebate was $2,000.
In 2009, Vermont’s maximum earning level to qualify for a rebate was $90,000 – and up to $106,000 in certain special cases. The maximum rebate was $8,000.
School taxes doubled in the last decade, from $450 million to $900 million. But those who qualify for Income Sensitivity do not pay more than 1.8% of their previous year’s income toward the costs of educating Vermont students.
That means the costs of educating students has grown much faster than the average resident’s contribution. How is the difference made up?
The educational costs have been shifted from local boards and citizens passing their own local school budgets – and funding them – to a system that taxes businesses, the state’s few high-income earners, and second homeowners.
This system discourages business development and expansion, and encourages high-income earners to relocate and spend their discretionary income in another state. Also, second home owners have stopped shopping for homes in Vermont.
According to 2008 U.S. Census data, more people are leaving Vermont than coming in.
Let’s see: Vermont let’s residents who earn as much as $106,000 qualify for a rebate on their school tax bill. The maximum a qualifying resident pays is 1.8%, up to refund limit of $8,000, of their annual income. That restricts the money available to pay school costs. But the cost of educating our children has doubled in a decade. The gap has been made up by targeting businesses, in-state high income earners, and second homeowners. And people are leaving Vermont.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The real problem is that Vermont’s education system has grown at a rate that is out of control and cannot be sustained. The Vermont legislature has created an artificial solution to the issue by creating higher and higher rebate returns. However, that cost is passed along to businesses and second homeowners. How much more can they afford to pay?
To create new jobs, businesses need fair taxation and access to people with money to spend. The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes we need to elect representatives who are friendly toward job growth, and who understand that if there is no business development and expansion, there are no new jobs. We need legislators who understand that it is short-sighted to target the pocketbooks of Vermont businesses, wealthy Vermonters, and second home owners who choose to spend their leisure time and money in our state. We need laws that promote jobs by fostering business growth and encouraging wealthy people to spend their time and money in our state.
Did You Know?
Vermonters who own their primary residence in Vermont are eligible for a special Homestead tax rate on their primary residence. Secondary residences and business properties are charged a higher Non-Homestead tax rate.
Many Vermonters think the majority of Non-Homestead school taxes are paid by people whose primary residence is in another state. That’s not true. Here’s where the money actually comes from:
Homestead Tax (after accounting for Income Sensitivity) 38.4%
Non-Homestead Tax paid by Vermonters 44.8%
Non-Homestead Tax paid by non-Vermonters 17.2%
This means that Vermonters who own second homes, apartment buildings, and businesses are paying the majority of education taxes in the state. And because many small businesses are Sole Proprietorships, the income earned by the business is often treated as personal income to the owners.
That artificially pushes small business owners into high tax brackets for both personal income taxes and ACT 60 taxes. (It’s artificial because owners can’t spend all of the profit. A large portion of their “income” has to be kept in the business in order to buy goods and services, expand business, and pay employees. Business owners have to plan for slow months, quarters or years, which means they have to have large cash reserves to keep the business running through bad times.)
So: ACT 60’s tax provisions put an added burden on Vermont businesses. The more money a business must pay out in various taxes and fees, the less it has to spend on employees. That means that higher taxes and fees cause businesses to hire fewer people and produce less goods and services.
What’s wrong with this picture?
The Rutland County Pro-Business Council believes we need to elect state representatives who understand the difference between business income and personal income, and who will not pretend to be business-friendly while devising tax schemes that confiscate the money businesses need in order to grow and add new jobs.