Sources Of Revenue And Funding

Indirectly, or directly, one can argue, public schools are controlled by the federal and state governments. Several issues have emerged, because of the conflict between federal and state requirements for education. “Under the Tenth Amendment, any authority not given specifically to the federal government is reserved to the states. Thus, the federal government has no authority to regulate education directly; that belongs to the states” (Underwood, n. d., p. 2). To get around this, the federal government controls the schools through funds for complying with certain initiatives, procedures, and policies (Underwood, n. d.). Ironically, both the state and federal levels of government hold the district liable for implementing different agendas and legal obligations. The federal government, however, can ensure that no citizen is denied their rights or privileges, even in a private institution, because of the Bill of Rights and other amendments. Failure to comply by these amendments or statutes can lead to the loss of federal funding and legal reproductions for schools.

The educational funding problem in Michigan takes root back in 1809, when the first public school was founded. While funding was not an issue at the time, the way schools were funded through local property taxes eventually created a large problem. Fast forward to 1985, Michigan has long moved past the rural cities of the 1800’s and into affluent suburbs and cities. The size and taxation pools of cities have greatly changed from 1809 to 1985, but the way schools were funded remained exactly the same. This lack of change led to a large disparity in school funding from richer districts to poorer districts. Coupled together with local governments’ inability to convince citizens to vote in favor of millages and tax hikes, the disparity ballooned. In 1993, Bloomfield Hills ranked in the 99th percentile of Michigan schools, was spending on average $10,294 per-student, while Standish Sterling ranked in the bottom 1st percentile, spent $3,738 per-student, roughly a $6,500 difference per-student (Roy 2003). This inconsistency greatly disadvantaged students all the way to 95th percentile, where there

want to keep property tax for public education funding. In my point of view, usually the schools

Education is the foundation of a person’s success and way of life. Graduating from school is important not only for an individual, but it helps the local and national economy. A study by the Alliance for Excellent Education shows that with higher graduation rates among high school students, the economies of cities, states, and of the country would increase (Rollins). Compared to the rest of the world, the United States spends a large amount of money on education (U.S. Education). While many may think this sufficient, Professor Bruce Baker discusses the correlation between supporting schools with federal funding and the success of students, “When schools have more money, they have greater opportunity to spend productively. When they don’t, they can’t” (ii, Baker). If students are to graduate and contribute to the boost of economies, education must be the forefront of federal funding.

Throughout Indiana, school buildings have been sprouting up. With many high growth communities such as Fishers, Westfield, Avon and Crown Point, new and beautiful school facilities have been added to these flourishing locations. However, in many of these cases, if residents from these flourishing communities travel 20 miles away from their front doors, they would discover numerous schools in disrepair and meek at best. While home property taxes have were equalized throughout the state in year’s past, and funds “equally” distributed to districts; how can a school built in the 1960’s compared to the shiny

There has long been a debate about the progressive tax. Is it fair that the citizens who earn more are taxed at a higher rate? Is it fair that those who do not make as much pay a smaller percentage of taxes? This paper will discuss these questions along with the history of progressive tax. The United States collects income from six different tax brackets that range anywhere from 10% to 35% on an individual’s taxable income.

Taxes are something the people of America have had an issue with since the very creation of this nation, and it is one of the main reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The issue of taxes has morphed over time, and in our current time period, people are debating which tax system should be implemented. Even though this is a broad topic and a national issue, this paper will only cover the income tax version of these systems, and which income tax system would be most beneficial to the state of Texas specifically. Currently, there are three main types of income tax systems, and they are the progressive income tax system, the flat income tax system, and the no income tax system. By analyzing research from reputable economists and academic journalists,

In our country, some of the most opinion-filled conversations to be had involve taxation. Taxation refers to compulsory or coercive money collection by a levying authority, usually a government. Funds received through tax collection are used in many different ways; a large portion of taxes collected fund our military, are applied towards the United States’ national debt, federal relief organizations, and to law enforcement and other government agencies. Although every working American is required to pay taxes based on their income, deductions, and withholding allowances, the way in which those wages are taxed has often been questioned. Here, we use a progressive tax rate structure. This method of taxing income increases as the tax base, or

As Figure 4 illustrates, the correlation between tax rates and revenue generations are assumed to be a direct correlation; that is, as the tax rate increases, revenue collections increase, and vice versa. However, this pattern is only true for tax rates that lie on both the high and low ends of the tax scale. By finding the mean of the highest tax rate of states with recent reforms (Illinois @ 9.5% and Connecticut @ 9.00%), we calculated ½ of a standard deviation and assume this to be the relevant range of tax rates where there is no significant correlation with revenue collections. In this range, increasing or decreasing the corporate tax rate will not automatically lead to similar results in revenue collections.

The fact of life, is that money is needed to live in this day in age. It is used from buying a simple carton of eggs to running basic government operations. . Over the years government spending has increased from 10 percent of the GDP (gross domestic product) in 1929 to 34 percent of the GDP in 2015. To be able to spend money of this gratitude, people are required to pay taxes. Two categories of taxes progressive and regressive, which defines how much a person pays. A progressive tax requires high-income groups to pay a larger percentage than low-income groups. Regressive taxes require low-income groups to pay a larger percentage than high-income groups. There are many different types of taxes such as property taxes, state sales taxes, selective sales taxes, state income tax, and corporate taxes. Some states such as Louisiana has to have cutbacks because of a gap in the state budget which can be partially accredited to tax breaks, so they take revenue from places like university funding, and healthcare.

At the beginning of the year tax season rolls in and millions of people rush to prepare their previous year’s financial statements and documents, ready to calculate their tax returns and credits. Currently, thirty-four states use progressive income tax systems, and seven states utilize flat tax systems. The remaining nine states either have no income tax or a “limited income tax” on individuals, taxing only dividend and interest incomes (i.e. AK, FL, NV, SD, TX, WA, WY, NH, TN) (Bell). A progressive tax system is most commonly referred to as a tiered income tax that shifts more of the revenue burden onto the wealthy.

​Although not all schools are equal, America spends over $500 billion a year on public elementary and secondary education. The Federal Education Budget Project explains the three types of funding for public education. All three levels of government – federal, state, and local - contribute to education funding. States typically provide a little less than half of all elementary and secondary education funding. Local governments generally contribute

School financing, in the future, will be affected by requests binding school performance to responsibility for behavior, the attractiveness of select programs, the huge needed thing for repairing infrastructure, and the moving forward with well-off groups to hold their taxes in their own municipality promising the most for schools within the well to do communities (Sadker & Sadker, 2005). The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, education is the responsibility of the states. In any case, government practices amazing effect through court activities, and particular projects backed up by the U.S. Bureau of Education. Federal money gives nearly six to 8 percent of K-12 education costs. Most Americans understand government is underfunding education. The most elementary state sources of school financing are property charge, sale taxes, individual taxes, state lotteries, and different taxes. Subsidy to especially poorer states and communities is difficult, even with high taxes; they still do not help enough cash for the schools. A relatively large lot of the state sources of income are backward, putting almost all the weight on the poorest residents. States have tried different things such as "foundation programs and a guaranteed tax base for all

Variations of budgets exist. “Even within an education system, student achievement varies among localities that spend comparable amounts” (Vegas & Coffin, 2012, p. 1). There is evidence that some schools’ investments have been correlated to effective and efficient expenditures. Vegas & Coffin (2012) offer examples of educational reforms in Armenia and Ontario that have led to increased student achievement after changing funding formulas to support localities with lower socioeconomic resources, geographical locations, and special needs (p. 3).

According to Singers(Aug 24,2017), ITEP’S (July,2017), (July,2017),(Aug 2011), and(December 2011), higher sales and gas tax in Connecticut have consequences and a solution proposed to reduce tax burden on low income family. Based on the readings and my understanding of this topic, I conclude that increasing sales and gas taxes in Connecticut to fix a budget crisis will be financially harmful to low income families and needs to be address with the new policy. Singer(Aug 24,2017), pointed out that, Connecticut legislators are deciding to increase the sales tax from its current level to 6.85 percent to fix a budget deficit, estimated to reach $3.5 billion in two years and improve state aid to towns. Based on Tax Foundation studies,