On Politics: Passive-aggressive ‘school tax’ proposal could turn out more aggressive than it seems

If it is possible to have a passive-aggressive tax bill, the proposed state constitutional amendment aimed at funding public education may be it.

Passive aggression is defined as “indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation.”

That definition ties in neatly with the Legislature asking voters to decide if they want to allow the state to start grabbing an unspecified part of an undefined type of real estate to be used to do something to “support public education,” with the caveat that the Legislature will fill in all the blanks.

It is nebulous enough that you can’t tell what exactly is going to be taken from someone, but more worrisome because you know someone’s wallet is going to get dinged.

The state Constitution says the state is responsible for providing public education and it does so by taxing its citizens. Right now the only taxing power given to the counties is the power to tax real property. The amendment would allow the state to tax investment real estate and use that money for public education.

The counties hate seeing the state nibbling on their major source of money, the property tax. The state is officially OK with the idea — the Department of Education thought it would be a good idea to have more money and during the Democratic primary, Gov. David Ige also endorsed it.

Endorsed it, indeed: The constitutional amendment is the brainchild of the Hawaii State Teachers Association, which is the biggest and most powerful supporter of Ige.

Corey Rosenlee, HSTA president, said in legislative testimony that the amendment will “authorize our state to debate the condition of our public school system, a debate that has been a long time coming.”

Some of the most savvy testimony cautioning the Legislature from putting the amendment on the ballot came from the League of Women Voters.

“There is no tax rate proposed in the measure. Not having any limit on the proposed residential tax troubles us,” the League said in a statement during the legislative debate, noting that aiming at some investment property “appears to discriminate against a limited class of residential property owners.”

The counties’ real property tax departments say they all have different definitions for what is investment property and ask specifically what would be taxed by the state to fund education.

Also, there is a real fear it will bankrupt the counties.

Big Island journalist Nancy Cook Lauer wrote in West Hawaii Today that “Hawaii Island property owners could end up paying an extra $75 million annually if a constitutional amendment passes.”

Lisa Miura, Big Island real property tax administrator, told the paper, “We can’t afford to open the door and let the state start taking county funds for state departments.”

The Tax Foundation of Hawaii warns: “Once the amendment passes, the genie is out of the bottle. It may not even be under control of the members now in the Legislature, because future legislators … may have different ideas from current members.”

On second thought, this tax idea may just be plain old aggressive.

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays. Reach him at 808onpolitics@gmail.com.