|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 2:25 PM
SRVUSD PTAs stump for Our Children Our Future initiative
Could send $23 million for district by 2013-14 school year
|
|
by Glenn Wohltmann
Photo
 | A petition drive is under way at San Ramon Valley schools to that could secure funding for schools across the state for the next 12 years.
The petition drive for an initiative called Our Children, Our Future would bump taxes and put the money for schools into a lock box.
The initiative would create a dedicated fund that can only be used to benefit public education, and focuses on investments designed to improve academic achievement. Neither the state legislature nor the governor could divert the money from schools, and control over spending would be local, with school board deciding where the money would go based on requests from the schools themselves.
Bekki Livingston, president of the San Ramon Valley Council of PTAs, said the petition is out at 33 of the district's 35 schools, with hopes to get about 4,400 signatures.
"We just asked our PTA members to go to their friends, family and neighbors and get signatures," Livingston said. "Our parents feel like this is important. It's what they want for their children."
Supporters say Our Children, Our Future could raise $10 billion a year by raising income tax rates on a sliding scale from .04 percent for some families to 2.2 percent for multimillionaires. The San Ramon Valley Unified School district would get more than $23 million in the 2013-14 school year, more than $40 million by the 2017-18 school years and more than $55 million by the 2023-24 school year. A searchable website shows how much each school would get.
The initiative would also limit the use of the money that could go toward administration, with 1 percent dedicated to administrators, and would specify that the funds could not be used for increased salaries or benefits.
Over the first four years of Our Children, Our Future, sixty percent of the funds generated would add directly to the budgets of individual schools. The remainder would go toward other things, including paying down a portion of the state's debt.
The initiative is one of three school funding measures that could make the November ballot. Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed increasing sales taxes and income taxes to support schools and the Courage Campaign would raise taxes for millionaires.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by RW Cook, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm To those that push for additional taxes on millionaires I submit this excerpt from an editorial in the Wall St Journal today:
"From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000."
Do you think additional taxes improve this situation or do more millionaires flee Kalifornia?
Will Sacramento ever get it?
|
|
Posted by Diane, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 6:56 am From the article:
"...raising income tax rates on a sliding scale from .04 percent for some families to 2.2 percent for multimillionaires."
Where does the scale start? Where precisely does it stop??
What multimillionaires - those who have multi-millions, or those who earn them per year based on IRS rules? Very sloppy reporting.
WHY DOES THE SCHOOL SYSTEM NEED MORE MONEY?!?!? They're lousy at using the millions upon millions they've gotten and are getting.
We are losing our tax base because of schemes like this one. If you don't think your wealthier neighbors will depart for pastures that appreciate their 'green,' you're not thinking.
|
|
Posted by Louie, a former teacher, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm More redistribution of other people's money.
When the hidden costs of the Obama health plan hit, those "fees" in addition to the multitude of add-on taxes being proposed, the American Dream will pretty much be a quaint memory.
No more working, saving, buying; the new america will be one of taking, squandering, and giving away.
|
|
Posted by Swimmer, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Mar 15, 2012 at 3:52 pm The problem is simply stated in the first comment, population up by 10,000,000 taxpayers up by 150,000. Even assuming that part of the 10M is due to under 18 there still was large increase in non-taxpayers. The solution is to give everyone a stakeholders right in the government by making sure that they all are taxpayers, this will cause government to be more accountable and transparent to all. All must be taxpayers for our government to be responsible to all. Not just tax the rich, esp when the definition of rich (millionaires tax) has been started in some proposals at $250,000 (while still a high number its easily reachable by a 2 paycheck family in Danville/San Ramon/ Silicon Valley) And these people are hardly "millionares".
|
|
Posted by Mom of 3, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 1:40 pm A "lockbox"? Would that be kind of like the social security lockbox? NO THANKS. And the PTA should stay out of it.
|
|
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm The fundamental fallacy in all "lockbox" promises (promises that the new taxes will only be used for certain things) is that the availability of the new funds means that existing funds that WERE being spent on those items can now be diverted to other purposes. So in the end, the new taxes are basically going into the general fund.....
Sure, none of the new money will be used for administration, nor for increased salary and benefits. We'll just use freed-up existing funds for THAT....
Are people really that blind to how things work, in our lovely state?
|
|
Posted by Douglas, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm Yes, C. R. Mudgeon, some people really are that blind and some are just very uneducated. Both kinds really need to take a class in basic economics.
|
|
Posted by Just saying, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 16, 2012 at 7:29 pm I was at a PTA meeting with the district a few years ago and a comment was made as to why the district pays so much for the administrator salaries. They commented, that it was based on bidding to get qualified persons. Well there are alot of very seasoned folks out of work that would be willing to work for less the couple of hundred thousand salaries we are paying now. The corporations are now doing that, why not take a look at the administrative salaries. Be more transparent.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
