Should we give special tax breaks to teachers?

No
Mary Bergan:
Don't cut taxes, raise salaries

In May of this year, California Gov. Gray Davis put forward a proposal to exempt all fully credentialed teachers from paying state income tax. The idea received a less-than-enthusiastic response from those it was intended to honor and benefit.

Many teachers simply didn't like being singled out from other workers, especially other workers in public service, including those working side by side in education. Some went so far as to say the tax exemption made teachers seem like charity cases. While appreciating the governor's impulse to honor the profession, they had to say the proposal didn't fulfill that intent.

Moreover, an exemption is just another name for a tax cut. The California Federation of Teachers has opposed almost every tax cut proposed over the years. Tax exemptions are revenue reductions; this particular one represented a reduction of over half a billion dollars. When state revenues go down, so does funding for education.

How could we in good conscience support a tax cut--some might call it a new loophole--for ourselves that we would oppose for anyone else? How could we justify shifting that much money out of the system?

One thing seems certain: These days especially, tax-cut proposals are driven mostly by anti-government ideology, not by any clamor from the populace for tax relief. Statewide polling has consistently shown that the public today prefers education funding over tax cuts.

The proposal provides little help in addressing the critical teacher shortage we face for the foreseeable future. Those looking at jobs and careers look at the salary figure, not whether that salary is tax exempt. Last year the governor signed legislation providing funding to raise the minimum salary for credentialed teachers to $32,000; this year's legislation takes us to $34,000. A significant portion of a new $1.8 billion in discretionary funding will go to negotiated salary increases. This is taking us toward a funded minimum of $40,000, which would make a real statement that California wants good teachers and values them.

Dollars to guarantee this minimum added to the $1.8 billion would give us the ability to establish salary schedules that would help us both attract good teachers and keep them in the classroom beyond the first few years.

No matter how well-intentioned, what are essentially piecemeal solutions are not going to build the teaching corps we need. Teachers need decent salaries, and support in doing their jobs. Treat us like professionals, pay us professional salaries, and we'll pay our fair share of taxes.

Yes
Gray Davis:
Who deserves special treatment more?

Because I am convinced that the teaching profession is uniquely important to all of our children, I proposed to make teaching free of state income taxes for all fully credentialed public school teachers in California.

I offered a bold use of the tax code to attract new teachers to California in a manner similar to how the state uses tax incentives to lure business. I saw it as a clarion call to everyone in America becoming a teacher or contemplating teaching that California was the place to go to. The proposal garnered resounding praise from some quarters and equally resounding criticism from others. But it got people's attention. Ultimately, the Legislature opted for a less-daring tax credit for teacher recruitment and retention.

While not as bold as an out-and-out tax exemption, the message sent by this novel use of the tax code is that California truly values its teachers.

Our tax code already contains myriad provisions providing special treatment for various types of specific groups of taxpayers. There is nothing unusual about using the tax code to achieve socially desirable outcomes. And because recruiting and retaining teachers is the greatest challenge facing California, using the tax code in that effort is wholly appropriate.

Over the next decade, California will need to recruit 300,000 new teachers, only a part of the 2 million new teachers that will be needed nationwide. And state after state is offering its own set of teacher recruitment inducements. That's why I proposed forgivable housing and education loans, incentives for teachers to join low-performing schools, bonus pay for teachers in schools that exhibit extraordinary improvement and more. And that was why I proposed the teacher tax exemption. We give special benefits to peace officers over and above those given to other public service workers. Of course, we do this to appropriately honor their contributions. But we also provide them such special benefits because of the need for highly skilled and able officers. Providing special tax benefits to bring in new teachers represents precisely the same idea.

Why not just give higher pay? Salaries are negotiated by local school districts--not the state. To enable such raises, I have added, and the Legislature has approved, $1.84 billion in my 2000-01 budget for discretionary, no-strings-attached funding. I anticipate that most school districts will use the bulk of these funds to provide teacher raises.

Meanwhile, of all the teacher recruitment and retention initiatives I have proposed, a teacher tax benefit is the one that will touch all credentialed public school teachers in the state, regardless of the school, school district or locality in which they teach.

Japan's Exchange and Teaching program has been offering teaching positions to foreign teachers--free from Japanese income taxes--since the 1980s. With just such bold initiatives to attract the best and most dedicated teachers, California can once again become the educational capital of the United States.

American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO - 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20001