Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:29:58.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative Forms of Taxation to Achieve Equitable Levels of Educational Expenditures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Fred C. White  and
Bill R. Miller
Fred C. White
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Bill R. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pressures are increasing for reforms in financing of local government services. At the local level, the property tax is a major source of concern. Two major charges leveled against the property tax are (1) that the property tax is regressive and (2) that financing local government services through the property tax leads to inequities in services received.

The charge that the property tax is regressive stems from the fact that it is a tax on wealth and not on income. The amount of real property owned by a person is not necessarily proportional to his ability to pay taxes. Several studies have shown that property taxes are regressive; i.e., that low-income families pay a greater percentage of their income for public services than do middle- and upper-income families.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 1973 , pp. 7 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Advisory Commission on Inter-Governmental Relations, Measures of State and Local Fiscal Capacity and Effort, October 1962.Google Scholar
[2]Brownlee, O. H., Estimated Distribution of Minnesota Taxes and Public Expenditure Benefits, Number 21, University of Minnesota, Studies in Economics and Business, Oct. 1960.Google Scholar
[3]Cohn, Elchanan, “Economies of Scale in Iowa High School Operation,” The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 1968, pp. 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Coleman, James S., et. al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 290–325.Google Scholar
[5]Flanagan, John C., et. al., Project TALENT: Studies of the American High School, Cooperative Research Project No. 226, University of Pittsburgh, Project TALENT Office, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Education Statistics: Current School Expenditure, 1970-71, Atlanta, 1971.Google Scholar
[7]Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Education Statistics: Size of School Systems, 1970-71, Atlanta, 1971.Google Scholar
[8]Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Education Statistics: State - Local - Federal Receipts for Maintenance and Operation, 1970-71, Atlanta, 1971.Google Scholar
[9]Georgia Department of Education, Statewide Testing Program Report, 1971-72, Atlanta, May 1972.Google Scholar
[10]Georgia Department of Revenue, 1970 Ratio Study, Atlanta, 1971.Google Scholar
[11]Georgia Department of Revenue, 1971 Statistical Report, Atlanta, 1971.Google Scholar
[12]Hady, Thomas F., “Alternatives to the Local Property Tax in Financing Educational Services,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, July 1973, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
[13]Hanson, Nels W., “Economy of Scale as a Cost Factor in Financing Public Schools,” National Tax Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 1, March 1964, pp. 92–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Hirsch, Werner Z., “Measuring Local Services,” Exploring the Metropolitan Community, Ed. Bollens, John C., University of California Press, Berkeley, 1961, pp. 353–368.Google Scholar
[15]Riew, John, “Economies of Scale in High School Operation,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. XLVIII, Aug. 1966, pp. 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Schmandt, Henry J. and Stephens, G. Ross, “Measuring Municipal Output,” National Tax Journal, Vol. XIII, No. 4, Dec. 1960, pp. 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Seaston, Don and Feather, Gerald, The Impact of Tax Burdens and Government Expenditure Benefits Upon the Distribution of Income in Colorado, Technical Bulletin 89, Col. State Univ., Agri. Exp. Stat., Tech. Bulletin 89, Oct. 1966.Google Scholar
[18]Tax Foundation, Inc., Tax Burdens and Benefits of Government Expenditures by Income Class, 1961 and 1965, Research Publication No. 9, Jan. 1967.Google Scholar
[19]U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970 Census of Population, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1970.Google Scholar
[20]U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969-70 Government Finances, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1970.Google Scholar
[21]U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis (formerly Office of Business Economics). Regional Information System Table 5.00, Personal Income by Major Sources and Earnings by Broad Industrial Sector, March 9, 1972, for years 1966-1970. Georgia Estimates (State, SMSAs, NonSMSA counties) on reference in the Division of Research, College of Business Administration, University of Georgia.Google Scholar