OPINION: Why consider rejecting the HUUSD budget? Reason #3: Affordability
February 22, 2025 | By Steven Martin The education system does not exist in a vacuum.
Some people may believe that there is plenty of money available for their every want if they could only get at it. One implication here is that, since most agree that Vermont has already become an unaffordable place to live, perhaps we could find somebody else to pay for our wish list.
Let's look at a few of those possibilities:
The federal government should pay more.
Remembering that one trillion is one million million, as of mid-morning on Feb 11, 2025, the U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time showed the following information (rounded):
Total debt = $36.5 trillion ($36,466,000,000,000)
Total number of federal income taxpayers = 112,478,764
Total debt per taxpayer = about $324,000
Annual interest on the debt (for which we get nothing) = $1,043,000,000,000
Annual interest per taxpayer = $9,272 every year, for nothing.
So, as “responsible” adults we are not only passing on this debt load to our children and grandchildren but are adding more to it every day. So who really thinks the federal government is the answer?
The rich should pay for it.
According to The Forbes 400 List 2024 - The Richest People in America Ranked, in 2024 the richest 400 people in the country had total wealth of $5.4 trillion. Remembering that these people are often huge philanthropists who support all kinds of worthy causes and that they employ untold numbers of people in the country, even if we held them all up at gunpoint and took every last dollar from them, it would reduce the national debt by less than 15%. Their wealth may increase over time, in part, due to wise investments, which allows them to voluntarily continue to contribute to the common good. Government, in contrast, “invests” more each year and typically either raises taxes or goes deeper in debt (or both), possibly because they make poor investments. So, would giving the government control of other people's wealth be a wise idea, even if it were possible, equitable and legal?
According to Who pays the most income tax? | USAFacts the top 5% of earners pay 66% of all income taxes. The top 50% of earners pay 97.7% of all income taxes. Therefore the bottom 50% of earners pay just 2.3% of all income taxes. Put another way, in dollars, the average taxpayer in the top half of earners pays 42.5 times what the average taxpayer that the bottom half of earners pay.
Exactly what do we think would be “their fair share”?
We should charge non-homestead property tax at higher rates.
I guess the thinking is, “if they can afford a second home, or a camp, or an apartment building, they can afford higher property tax rates.”
Of course, out-of-staters probably have no children in the Vermont education system. In-state camp owners are already paying separate homestead property tax on their residences. So these two groups consume virtually nothing, or nothing additional in the education system, but would be asked to pay more than those who do consume these resources. And commercial property owners including landlords merely pass along the added tax burden to their customers or tenants, so consumers and renters would pay a heavier pass-through property tax load than homeowners.
We could artificially lower property taxes without spending less on education. But if we then attempt to balance a higher budget, more money would need to come from new or increased taxes somewhere else (the old shell game).
We taxpayers could just quit complaining and endlessly “suck it up.” We could simply keep cutting deeper into our own household budgets in order to keep increasing the budgets of the education system. According to Tax Burden by State in 2025, Vermont has the third highest overall state and local tax burden in the country at 11.12%. New Hampshire has the second lowest at 5.63%. Vermonters pay almost double the tax burden of our neighbors in New Hampshire.
So I ask you, if you consider education spending within the larger context of the financial condition of our communities, state and nation, should we really be looking at increasing education spending? Or should we consider a freeze on spending and insist that our legislature and school districts find ways to do things a lot differently?
You have a chance to express your feelings on March 4. Please vote wisely.
Steven Martin lives in Waterbury.