[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1114-E1115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    STATEMENT BY SPENCER CRISPE, BRATTLEBORO HIGH SCHOOL, REGARDING 
                    EDUCATION FUNDING AND TAX REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 4, 1997

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would 
like to have printed in the Record this statement by a high school 
student from Brattleboro High School in Vermont, who was speaking at my 
recent town meeting on issues facing young people.

       Mr. Crispe. Hello, Congressman Sanders. On February 6th the 
     state Supreme Court ruled on the Brigham vs State of Vermont 
     case claiming there is a statistically significant 
     relationship between the wealth of a school district and its 
     spending per student. They decided that there is a great 
     disparity in the quality of education that a student in 
     Vermont receives. It depends on where he or she resides; thus 
     they ruled the current property tax for funding education is 
     unconstitutional and it is up to the legislature to overhaul 
     this unjust system.
       The House Ways and Means Committee set to work and on March 
     19th of this year the legislature passed the controversial 
     House Bill, 527 for property tax reform. I am a concerned 
     Vermonter and so I want to see this new bill equalize 
     educational opportunity.
       The bill which the Senate is currently reviewing I believe 
     to be better. I also understand that property tax reform is a 
     tedious, confusing, and almost insurmountable task that 
     legislatures have faced, and for me to try to understand how 
     to make the bill better is even more difficult. However, I do 
     believe there are some important additions that could be 
     made.
       There is a large, non-residential tax rate for second 
     homeowners and large businesses of $1.32 per $100 value of 
     property. Under this progressive tax formula people will pay 
     based on their ability. Places like ski areas and second 
     homowners in Vermont will pay more while residential property 
     taxes will be cut by two-thirds. I believe the higher income 
     earners should pay more; however, in Vermont the highest 
     income earners are already paying the highest rates in the 
     country.
       The high non-residential tax could drive out businesses and 
     hurt Vermont's largest industry, tourism. For a hypothetical 
     example, Mt. Snow Ski Area has lots of money, but if it is 
     taxed a lot more the ticket prices could go up and tourists 
     refusing to pay the exorbitant amount will to Maine or New 
     Hampshire to ski. All in all, it could create a cyclical 
     domino effect that would end up hurting Vermont's economy and 
     stunt its growth.
       Furthermore, second homeowners in Vermont will be hit hard 
     under the non-residential tax. I feel they should pay more, 
     but we should keep in mind that many of them are already 
     paying for their own children's education in their respective 
     states. We should not place a burden so high that they move 
     away or our state is less attractive to stay in. It is 
     important that income earners at all levels pay their fair 
     share, but the non-residential range should not be so high as 
     to end up damaging Vermont's economy by making it unreachable 
     to outsiders.
       Also in the bill is the net residential tax of two acres of 
     land. Basically any resident will pay the residential rate of 
     39 cents per $100 property value on up to two acres of land. 
     After that two acres, they pay the large non-residential rate 
     of $1.32 per hundred dollar value. This is unfair to 
     Vermonters because two acres is a meager amount of land to 
     only be able to afford. If people have to get rid of their 
     land over two acres because they cannot afford the non-
     residential rate, we will not be using our land effectively 
     and it is simply unfair.
       Another last thing to think about is the local income tax. 
     This would be the third tax Vermonters pay: State, federal, 
     local. We want to equalize education but we are doing it at 
     the local level with the presumption that the towns are going 
     to tax themselves to raise money above the state block grant. 
     This may be a poor presumption because honestly people care 
     about education but gag when they hear anything about more 
     taxes. If this presumption fails and the towns do

[[Page E1115]]

     not tax themselves as planned, we could end up with the same 
     educational disparities as the present system.
       House Bill 537 is generally good, but some of the 
     aforementioned taxes could be eased by a couple of things: I 
     propose to fix some of the problems of the bill by taxing 
     heavily products totally unnecessary to Vermonters. We could 
     put a larger tax on tobacco products, all lottery tickets and 
     games, alcoholic beverages and even candy. I understand that 
     in 537 there is going to be broad-based taxes on things like 
     rooms, meals and gasoline, but a heavy tax on the mentioned 
     products ought to generate a lot of additional revenue to 
     ease the other taxes.
       Also for revenue a higher tax should be put on inheritances 
     and trust funds, but not for inherited agricultural land. 
     With the revenue from these taxes we could put forth the 
     money to fixing some of the problems with the bill. We could 
     allow a residential tax for maybe up to six acres of land and 
     reduce the monetary need for the local income tax by pouring 
     some of the revenue into the state pool for block grants.
       Other revenue could go to reducing the non-residential tax 
     so businesses and non-residents won't move out or be 
     discouraged from coming here. This can make our state 
     attractive to prospective businesses which if they moved in 
     could stimulate our economy.
       Lawmakers need to move slowly and do this reform correctly. 
     We definitely do not want as equally a poor system that will 
     just have to be overhauled again in another couple of years. 
     We should run statistic tests and implement the reform 
     gradually to see how it evolves and works--I know the revenue 
     from alcohol, tobacco and other products fluctuates--to 
     examine the amount of the income the proposed taxes do indeed 
     generate.
       Lastly, politics should be left out of this bill. It is 
     important to remember that the bill is for the kids and 
     justice in funding education and remember that a good 
     education makes for the best economic climate.
       I think that everyone has made this bill so complicated, I 
     didn't touch on a lot of the nitty-gritty complications of it 
     and I think they get lost in all those complications, so if 
     you just think about it sensibly and make it simple. As I 
     mentioned in my presentation that people who earn more should 
     pay more. The progressive tax format I believe works for 
     property but I think and I do like House 527, I just think 
     there are things that might be made better partly because 
     they made it so complicated.
       You can get into a whole other topic because sure, the 
     federal government subsidizes or whatever education and you 
     get into issues like how much--I mean if you look at the pie 
     chart of what they spend each year, they spend five to ten 
     percent on education and then you get into issues of how much 
     they spend on defense and the military as opposed to 
     education.
       The present system basically there was a lawsuit that 
     stemmed out of this whole thing and it is actually been a 
     problem for a number of years. Matter of fact, in 1987 
     Madaline Kunin said years ago that the quality of education 
     that a child in Vermont receives depends on where he or she 
     resides, she just said it straight out, and people all the 
     way back to the 70's and before. The problem--but it is being 
     forced that the legislature has to do something and something 
     has to be done because of the Supreme Court decision stemming 
     from a lawsuit or whatever, the case of Amanda Brigham, and 
     they ruled last February that it was unconstitutional and 
     that they should totally--that it is going to be totally 
     overhauled and the legislature should do it as fast as they 
     can.
       Some property-rich towns were spending twice as much, say 
     between eight and $11,000 for people for education while 
     other property-poor towns under the present and all funding 
     systems were paying half that, 3,000, 4,000, $5,000 for 
     people.
       Thank you for your time, Congressman Sanders.

       

                          ____________________