Kansans need property tax relief. Here’s how to do it and fully fund our schools, too | Opinion

With the Kansas Legislature returning to work, there is an opportunity to begin to correct the inequitable nature of property taxes. Republicans and Democrats are both talking about addressing property tax complaints, but they should think bigger than the nip and tuck approaches they mention.

Legislators mistakenly think their authority extends only to the small portion of our property taxes that go directly to the state and that they can’t do much about the bigger picture.

My state senator, a pleasant young lawyer, made that claim to me. So did my state representative, a genial gent with a Ph.D. Even Gov. Laura Kelly, when I sent her a two-page letter on fine parchment paper last year, disclaimed any authority over property taxes. If I wanted to complain, her office said, I should call the Johnson County appraiser’s office.

All three might check the U. S. Constitution and the Kansas Constitution. The U.S. Constitution says, in the 16th Amendment, that there “shall be” an income tax, saying nothing about property taxes. Elsewhere, it leaves to the states the obligation to provide free basic education for all their residents.

The Kansas Constitution, in more convoluted language, gives operating control of schools to local boards and extends to cities the right of home rule — including levying a bunch of taxes, among them property taxes. In both cases, the Legislature retains the power to step in and overrule or make changes.

Only by eliminating property taxes entirely and creating other means of financing schools and local services can we lift the burden that now strongly discriminates against the roughly 40% of homeowners who are single, for whatever reason. Capping home valuations, as some legislators have proposed, might reduce the tax load on older people — but it would shift more of the burden to new buyers, including those struggling to get into their first house.

Here’s a prescription for more equitably sharing the cost of schools and local services: First, the Legislature could take over all funding of public education in Kansas through high school, establishing a date — say two years in the future — by which time it would raise state income taxes sufficiently to put that into operation.

This would allow the state to appropriate the support needed for school districts fairly. It would eliminate the old arguments about inequities between rich suburban districts and poor urban districts that may damage a child’s future prospects. It would also allow the state to nudge school districts in sparsely populated counties into more consolidation to lower costs and improve school quality.

This approach was suggested 20-some years ago by the late Wichita State University professor Glenn Fisher in his book “The Worst Tax? A History of the Property Tax in America,” published by the University Press of Kansas and still available for purchase. It would cut the property owner’s total tax bill to half or less. The tax burden would still be tilted against single homeowners and those with lower incomes, but the total bill would be much less.

Step two, a few years later, would be to establish funding of local government services, including police, fire, recreation and so on, through a combination of higher sales taxes and local income taxes.

These steps put the cost on our taxable incomes and spending, not our private sanctuaries — our homes. It means that the roughly 40% of property owners who now get shafted would finally get a break.

People in their peak earning years would likely pay more, as it should be, and so would the big spenders. First-time buyers at the beginning of their work lives, older adults and most singles would likely pay less in total taxes. For these new buyers, it could free up $300 to $400 a month to help cover the mortgage — and feed children.