Josh Buckley

Red Mountain High School teacher Josh Buckley last week defended the initiative that would add a surcharge to income tax levies on people earning more than $250,000 annually.

A Mesa high school teacher and other organizers of a ballot measure to generate $690 million a year for education are defending their plan to have all of that new money paid by what essentially would be the top 1 percent of Arizona wage earners.

Dana Naimark, president of the Children’s Action Alliance, acknowledged that the plan for an income tax surcharge would affect only individuals making more than $250,000 a year and couples with earnings above $500,000. The proposed rates would be even higher for single filers in the $500,000-plus range and married couples with incomes exceeding $1 million a year.

But Naimark pointed out that still means the lion’s share of state dollars for education is coming from the state general fund. And the majority of those dollars are raised through the state’s 5.6 percent sales tax – a levy she said has a disproportionately higher impact on those at the bottom of the income scale.

Supporters of the so-called Invest in Education Act released a statewide survey showing that 39 percent of those polled said they definitely support the proposal, with another 24 percent saying they probably would vote for it if it gets on the November ballot. That compares with 21 percent who are definitely against it and 8 percent who are leaning that way.

Organizers would not disclose how many of the 150,642 valid signatures they need already have been gathered.

They did acknowledge that the biggest contributor to the cause is the Arizona Education Association.

Josh Buckey who teaches 12th grade government and economics at Red Mountain High School, rejected the suggestion that the initiative is “class warfare,’’ pitting the 99 percent of those who would be unaffected against the 1 percent who would.

“Why is it when we talk about a sales tax that you don’t get the reverse on that?’’ he asked. “Why is this dubbed class warfare?’’ he continued, calling the surcharge “one piece of the puzzle’’ for funding education.

Central to the issue is whether more money is needed for K-12 education and, if so, how much.

Gov. Doug Ducey and GOP lawmakers have boasted about the plan approved earlier this year to provide enough new dollars over the next four years to boost teacher pay, on average, by 19 percent. There also is a commitment to restore $371 million for things like books, computers and buses that Ducey and his predecessors took away from state aid to schools in prior years.

The initiative is built on two issues.

First is the question of whether the state will have the additional $1 million eventually needed to fund all the promises. Ducey is counting on an expanding economy, though the state’s jobless rate, while better than a year ago, is still higher than that of the rest of the country.

And even if those dollars are there, education advocates say the new funds still won’t replace all the funds taken from public schools in previous years.

The state Department of Revenue does not produce data that corresponds exactly to the tax brackets proposed in the ballot measure.

But it does conclude that virtually all of those new dollars would come from 20,211 taxpayers at the top of the income scale. That’s out of nearly 2.8 million tax returns filed.

Naimark said the question of the inequity of the current system on the poor extends beyond the current reliance on sales taxes to fund education and the entire state budget.

She pointed out that some of the money that will help fund the promised teacher raises is coming from a new vehicle registration fee. And Naimark said that fee, estimated at $18 – the exact amount will be set by the director of the Department of Transportation – “is the same dollar amount, no matter if you drive a 2000 Honda Civic or a 2018 Tesla.’’

“This proposal puts more balance into what is now a very unbalanced system,’’ she said.

There is not yet a formal campaign against the ballot measure, at least not officially.

Business interests started running commercials earlier this year (before the state budget was adopted) that Matthew Benson, spokesman for the Arizona Education Project said was designed to convince voters that the state’s education situation is not as bad as some would say. Benson said the ads were to counter what he called the “negative voices’’ in education.

And since the funding plan was approved, the Republican Governors Association has been spending money on TV commercials – it has yet to disclose the cost –- extolling Ducey for “strengthening education without raising taxes.’’ Ducey himself came out against the initiative last month.

But Naimark pointed out that the live telephone survey of 646 likely voters, conducted last month, even with the ad blitz, found that  56 percent said they believe much more needs to be done for K-12 funding, with another 15 percent saying education funding needs a little more. Only 22 percent said there has been enough allocated.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.