Governor Rick Perry of Texas, much like another prominent [former] Texas governor, is in favor of giving tax cuts; ones that would benefit the rich exponentially more than the poor. Perry wants to lower state property taxes, an essential means for funding Texas’ schools. How does Perry intend to reimburse schools the money? Why, with a “sin tax” system that charges extra money for engaging in “vices” such as drinking, smoking, gambling and frequenting topless bars!
Most states fund schools through three taxes: income, sales and property. Texas does not have an income tax, so slashing property taxes this way shows “the governor is trying to run the state on a tax and a half,” according to F. Scott McCown, state judge who tried three major school finance lawsuits. That’s a sad 50 percent of how much most other states have for schools.
Gov. Perry has done everything in his power to promote “sin tax” without calling it a tax. Thanks to the wonders of English semantics, however, Perry doesn’t have to call this a tax, but instead he’s addressed it as “shifting off property taxes.” By this standard, the “sin tax” isn’t a tax in itself but is a remedy for an existing tax! Semantics is a dangerous thing in greedy hands.
Semantic issues aside, using “sin tax” to fund schools is unethical and unreliable. Think about it: education paid for by money gained from leering men unable to resist the allure of topless dancers and beer. That’s not far from changing school magazine drive fundraisers so that students are selling pornographic magazines to pay for their education. Actually, that might turn a better profit than just charging topless bar patrons $5 each time they visit. Call former California gubernatorial candidate Larry Flynt; he’ll be glad to help!
As far as “sin tax” being unreliable, let’s be frank. “Sin taxes” are not stable like property taxes. Texas comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn anticipates the “sin tax” plan would cause a shortfall of as much as $10 billion over five years. All citizens do not participate in “vices” that would be taxed. Those citizens who do might do so less often if they are taxed. They may try getting more bang for their buck at each visit, staying longer but going less frequently to avoid the fees. Also, if they fall upon hard times, they’ll probably cut back on trips to costly topless bars whereas they’d not be able to just “not pay” property taxes.
Despite the economic and ethical shortcomings of “sin taxes,” other states are looking into instituting similar things. Kentucky, Maryland and others have already shifted part of their school funding from property, sales and income taxes to taxes taken from gambling and topless bars. Other states have pursued at least expanding gambling practices such as slot machines to collect money for the state. This didn’t fly in Maine, but now New York is looking into using a similar practice to raise $2 billion annually for public schools.
I find it frightening that so many states are looking into funding the future of their children with money gained from “vices” widely regarded as “dirty money” on cop TV dramas. What’s worse is that those who want this instituted don’t even have the courage to call it what it is: a tax. If you charge strip club patrons $5 just to enter, how is that different from charging people a fee to pass through a tollbooth? Tollbooths are state institutions and taking citizens’ money to pay for repairs of city property like so is a tax. Collecting “toll fare” from strip club patrons to pay for schools is every bit as much of a tax. I don’t know what’s worse: that this issue has to be discussed at all or that I have to bring semantics into it.
Dan Goldstein can be contacted at [email protected]