NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED224140
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1982-Jun
Pages: 66
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
Proposition 2-1/2: Initial Impacts.
Bradbury, Katherine L.; And Others
Beginning with the background to the 1980 passage of Massachusetts' Proposition 2 1/2, the authors analyze the first-year effects of the property tax limitation measure. Section 1 describes Massachusetts' previous high dependence on property taxes and outlines the provisions of Proposition 2 1/2. Section 2's analysis indicates that the state's property taxes are so high because local governments cannot use other taxes. Earlier attempts to lower taxes are also covered. Local governments' aggregate statewide revenue losses because of the measure are estimated in section 3, which also looks at the response of increased aid from state government. Section 4 analyzes the impact of Proposition 2 1/2 in terms of communities' population size and the amount of their revenue loss. It finds the greatest revenue losses were in large communities and in communities with moderately high income, property, and tax levels, but that small towns benefited most from the state aid increase. Data in section 5 indicate that Proposition 2 1/2 affected school spending more than other local spending and increased somewhat the disparities across communities in education service levels. The final section summarizes the paper and suggests ways of ameliorating some of the measure's long-run effects. (Author/RW)
Publications, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Education, CERAS Building, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 ($1.00).
Publication Type: Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: Stanford Univ., CA. Inst. for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
Identifiers: Massachusetts; Proposition 2 and One Half (Massachusetts 1980); Tax Limitations
Note: A condensed version of this paper appears in a two-part series in the "New England Economic Review," January-February, 1982 and March-April, 1982. For related documents, see ED 213 100 and ED 220 983.