Beware this Wolf I
Does Pennsylvania need another redistributionist governor? According to The Associated Press new story “Wolf: Wealthy should pay more to cut school taxes” , Tom Wolf, Democrat candidate for governor, is that man.
He would increase the state income tax rate on the wealthy, whom he depicts as households with taxable incomes greater than $90,000, and exclude households with taxable incomes less than $70,000 — this to help the state assume 50 percent of the cost of the public school system vs. the current 33 percent. He would make mandatory a dollar-for-dollar reduction in property taxes for any increase in state funding.
Beware the Trojan Wolf; there may be unspoken consequences. As the state's percentage of funding the public school system grows, we can expect the state's role in the education of our children to expand. Local school boards would have less say.
Wolf also would impose higher taxes on the natural gas industry to help collect more money for the public schools. Before he curtails this job-creating industry, shouldn't he be looking for ways to reduce the cost of public education? Progressives' first thought always is to throw more money at a problem rather than seeking ways to reduce costs.
In the end, Wolf will advocate for a new flat percentage tax that will be higher than the current 3.07-percent income tax rate. As he stated, “I think people like me should pay more. I think people who are starting out, building a business, starting a family, should pay less.” I'm wondering: If he really believes he should pay more — is he?
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.