A Bad Deal for Public Schools
The Case for Voting Against the 2024 Income Tax Constitutional Amendment
Highlights of this Report:
Loss of protection for public school funding: The current income tax mandate ensures that public school funding is protected from the traditional rat race of competing for funding from the state.
Alternative avenues for flexibility: The desire for more flexibility in the state budget is improvable without removing the income tax mandate. There are a number of earmarks, or “reservations” on funding in other areas, such as state sales tax, that could be altered for additional flexibility in the State’s budget.
Loss of transparency: With the income tax mandate, Utahns know where their money is going and how it is being spent. Removing the income tax mandate would remove a lot of certainty on how that money is being spent and would open up a large pool of taxpayer dollars for anything from private religious school vouchers to legislative pet projects.
Lack of adequate funding protection: The guarantees offered in the constitutional amendment for public education are not very strong.
Suspicious spoonful of sugar: Tying the removal of sales tax on food to constitutional amendment is unnecessary and could be done without tacking it on to this unrelated amendment.
