by Gerry Silverstein
In a recent VTDigger commentary Don Tinney, president of the Vermont National Education Association (NEA), portrays Governor Phil Scott as someone who is insensitive to the diverse needs of children in Vermont’s public schools.
His evidence, if you can call it that, is Governor Scott expressing serious concern for year-over-year increases in public school spending in Vermont (8.44% last year and projected to be 12% statewide this year) that the Commissioner of Taxes stated in his December letter to the Legislature are not sustainable when juxtaposed against revenues.
Mr. Tinney conveys, in effect, that Vermont can live with 12% year-over-year increases in school spending by simply raising taxes on households making $500,000 or more. That he says would raise $100 million dollars annually.
Those are the only two numbers in Mr. Tinney’s commentary.
When addressing the growth and long-term fiscal sustainability of public school spending in Vermont, choosing those two numbers and only those two numbers for critical decision-making, is the best example I have seen in a long time for the most dangerous bias there is: Selection bias.
Let’s look at some other numbers that need to be considered when making public school spending decisions.
In the community of South Burlington (SB) where I reside spending per pupil in the proposed FY25 school budget will be just under $28,000 per year. That figure is determined by dividing the total proposed spending by the number of actual students in the school system. This is the way the NEA determines per pupil spending in all 50 States.
[Sidebar: with the implementation of new Act 127 per pupil spending in SB’s proposed FY25 school budget is now presented as $13,579.35 per LTW ADM. The latter abbreviation stands for Long-term weighted average daily membership. Got that? If you are confused, be assured you are not alone].
According to the NEA only NY State spends more money per pupil than not only SB, but also Vermont statewide.
Of interest, $28,000 per student is more than twice what 16 other States spend per student on education, many with good outcomes academically.
NEA statistics also detail that Vermont is essentially tied with New Hampshire for having the lowest ratio of students to teachers (10:1) of all 50 States.
Perhaps the most dramatic statistic is that the Vermont State government funds the greatest percentage of the cost of local school district budgets compared to all other State governments.
This should not surprise anyone as the State Education Fund, which is the sole entity legally responsible for funding public school education in Vermont, gets only 25% of its revenue from primary homestead residents.
If there is one State that, through distribution of State assets, is already massively contributing financially to public school education, it is certainly Vermont.
To not so subtly suggest, as Don Tinney has done, that the Governor is ignoring or minimizing the needs of children in Vermont’s public schools is not supported by any objective database of knowledge that I am aware of.
According to NEA statistics, Vermont is at the very top of States making a massive financial commitment to public school spending.
What about raising taxes on the rich to cover the projected 12% increase in public school spending in FY25?
One of my favorite State publications is Vermont Fiscal Facts, published annually.
In the 2023 edition, excluding 2,296 personal income tax returns that are listed as returns in a negative adjusted gross income (AGI) class, the following information can be obtained regarding Vermont personal income tax returns for 2021 (pages 50-51):
73,635 returns in 2021 had AGI less than $20,000 and had an average Vermont income tax liability that was negative.
If we include another 15,778 returns with AGI between $20,000 to $24,999 (average tax liability of $10) then about 23.45% of Vermont income tax returns with a positive AGI either had a negative tax liability (in aggregate minus $10,756,812) or paid aggregate Vermont tax of $162,983 dollars.
Additionally these 89,413 filers received back Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) of $18,661,055
How about Vermont residents with AGI of $500,000 or more, the individuals who Mr. Finney argues could support 12% year-over-year increases in school spending statewide.
In 2021 there were 2541 returns with AGI of $500,000-$999,999, and 1243 returns with AGI of $1 million dollars or greater.
How much did these 3784 returns (about 1% of all returns with positive AGI) contribute to the State government?
$352,673,299 or about 31% of all Vermont personal income taxes in 2021!
So 23.45% of personal tax filers in Vermont with positive AGI either had a negative Vermont tax liability (minus $10,756,812 total) or paid an average of $10 (total: $162,983 dollars).
In addition these filers received $18,661,055 dollars back through EITC.
In contrast about 1.0% of all returns contributed 31% of all Vermont personal income taxes in 2021.
Mr. Tinney wants the latter individuals (all 3784 of them) to “contribute” another $100 million dollars. This would equal a 28.35% increase in their State personal income taxes.
With that increase 1% of tax filers in Vermont would pay 36.7% of all Vermont personal income taxes!
Considering such tax filers are already contributing on average $93,200 each, Mr. Tinney’s clarion call to further tax this small number of individuals in order to support 12% year-over-year increases in public school spending in Vermont, should be seen for what it really is: a Trojan Horse aimed at increasing the power and monetary income of Vermont’s most powerful union, the Vermont NEA and its constituent members.
No amount of money allocated to public school spending is ever enough when it comes to the desires and the demands of the Vermont NEA and its local affiliates.
I have studied and taught in the biomedical sciences for 5 decades, and if there is one thing I have learned that is more important than all else, it is that when studying complex topics that have an impact on key societal issues all relevant information must be collected, collated, and holistically analyzed in order to arrive at the most intelligent conclusions possible.
Failure to review and reflect on the entirety of all relevant information almost guarantees that the conclusions drawn will be neither justified nor reliable.
Mr. Tinney’s suggestion that the Governor is insensitive to the diverse of needs of the State’s children, and his call to further tax a small number of high income Vermonters in order to support unsustainable and economically destructive increases in public school spending year-over-year, profiles for students and adults alike the most dangerous and destructive bias of all: Selection bias.