+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Surcharge To Fund Education (/showthread.php?tid=20188)
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - Chunkster - 09-18-2018
" . . . the irony may be an Oahu teacher's rent going up because of the tax. . ." - - knieft
Ah, those unintended, but entirely predictable, consequences.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - kalakoa - 10-02-2018
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2018/10/02/hawaii-news/school-executives-to-see-pay-hike/
The new pay range for deputy superintendent will be $155,000 to $180,000 per year, assistant superintendents pay range will be $145,000 to $175,000 per year and complex area superintendents will earn between $135,000 to $170,000 per year.
...
According to DOE communications director Lindsay Chambers, the current median salary of executive level superintendents is $143,760 and their last pay raise was in 2017.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - leilanidude - 10-02-2018
Screw these people!
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - EightFingers - 10-02-2018
Glad you all are “getting it”. Went through the “We have to do it for the children spiel!” Twice on the mainland. I’m sad it’s coming over here.
I’ve been watching the doings on Na Leo tv for a couple nights and it pretty much confirmed my position.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - kalakoa - 10-02-2018
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2018/10/01/business/guess-which-agency-can-impose-state-tax/
But did you know that the DOE can also impose tax?
The Hawaii Revised Statutes contains 12 sections relating to "school impact fees," starting with section 302A-1601. The law states, in part, "New residential developments within identified school impact districts create additional demand for public school facilities. As such, once school impact districts are identified, new residential developments shall be required to contribute toward the construction of new or expansion of existing public school facilities."
In a news release, the DOE announced that the fee, which goes into effect on Oct. 1, will be $3,864 per unit.
Multiplying the current fee by the 39,000 additional dwelling units that the DOE is anticipating yields more than $150 million...
According to its audited financial statements for fiscal 2017, our DOE's total revenues were $2.915 billion and total expenses were $2.817 billion. A recent Star-Advertiser article (Aug. 19) raises questions about whether the DOE is entitled to tens of millions more in federal reimbursements (and we will write about this next week). And, of course, it is the only state agency with independent taxing power.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - Chunkster - 10-02-2018
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. Simply pouring more money into a failing system without fundamental reforms is an expensive exercise in futility.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - glinda - 10-04-2018
In an eleventh hour move the counties fight back...
From: https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/10/supreme-court-agrees-to-consider-challenge-of-constitutional-amendment/
"The Hawaii Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of accepting a request from the state’s four counties to consider their petition to invalidate a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 6 ballot.
The court has scheduled a hearing on the matter just 19 days before the election. Ballots have already been printed that include the proposal for a state tax on investment properties to fund public schools
The court issued a brief order Thursday morning that indicated its acceptance of the counties’ writ. The order established a timetable for the parties to appear before the court to deliver oral arguments and requested the State of Hawaii and Elections Office to file a response to the petition by Oct. 11..."
More at link above...
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - kalakoa - 10-04-2018
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2018/10/04/hawaii-news/amendment-weighed/
The original text of the proposed amendment included in Senate Bill 2922 did specifically include "property valued at $1 million or greater" and excluded a homeowner's primary residence. That bill also included a definition of "residential investment property."
The bill also specified the revenue would go to educational uses, among them teacher retention and recruitment, public preschools, lower class sizes and special education programs.
The final version of the ballot question didn’t set a value threshold and only specified the revenue "shall be used to support public education." The final text of the bill also didn't include a definition of "real investment property."
Those specifics were removed when the House made its changes to the Senate bill -- changes Kahele said he disagreed with.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - Chunkster - 10-04-2018
I rarely agree with the county, but this is an exception, and I hope they prevail. Besides not being a good idea on general principles, it now appears that the ballot proposal was not even based on the original proposal as "sold" to the legislature. While it isn't "gut and replace," it's the same deceptive concept.
RE: Surcharge To Fund Education - Lolo - 10-04-2018
If there was a provision that 100% of the additional funds would go directly to the classroom I would vote yes. We all know that the DOE spends more money on administration than they do for classrooms. I speak as a former teacher who left because of the mismanagement and waste.