|
Local Tax Reform
|
Text
Text of Act 1 of 2005/6
Text of Act 50
of 1998
Text of Act 24 0f 2001
Text of Act 72 of 2004
PowerPoint & other
Act 24 of 2001
Act 50 of 1998
Tax Fairness: video
Why reform local taxes?
Act 24 of 2001
Act 72 of 2004
Homestead Exclusions
Local Tax Options
Farm taxes
Where can I learn more?
|
If you have questions about Pennsylvania local taxes and local tax reform, contact Tim Kelsey or your local Penn State Cooperative Extension office |
|
Other Links! Penn State Cooperative Extension
|
|
Disclaimer: The Pennsylvania Local Tax Reform website is strictly intended to help you know and understand more about local taxes and the tax options available to jurisdictions in Pennsylvania. The material is general and educational in nature. It is not intended to be legal advice, nor to replace the need for legal advice. If legal advice is what you need, you are encouraged to seek the aid of a competent professional in your area. |
|
Webpage and content developed by Tim Kelsey, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn State University |
@copyright 2007
Page last updated:
07/31/07
How Might Act 50 of 1998 Affect Real Property Taxes?
If the higher earned income tax provisions of Act 50 were implemented in Pennsylvania school districts, how might it affect residential real property taxes? The following table is a county-level summary of how Act 50 would have affected residential real property taxes in each county in 1995 (the most recent year for which information is available). To find out how Act 50 would have affected specific school districts, in the table below click on the county name, or select the appropriate county link at left.
Overall, Pennsylvania school districts would have experienced an average reduction of 27 percent in residential real property taxes if they had implemented Act 50 in 1995. Note that these percentages vary across school districts, however. Forty school districts would actually have had to raise their real property taxes under the plan, because it will cost them more to eliminate nuisance taxes than they will gain from the higher earned income tax rates.
These estimates assume school districts increase total revenues the maximum possible in the implementation year; if the increase is less, the real property tax reductions will be greater.
Estimated Reduction in School District Real Property Taxes from Residential Land |
||||||
| County | Average Reduction Among School Districts in County |
Number of School Districts in County with Impact |
||||
Reduction in Real Property Tax |
Increase in Real Property Tax |
|||||
0-15% |
15.1- |
25.1 to 50% |
Greater than 50% |
|||
| Adams | 8.0% |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Allegheny | 23.2 |
2 |
28 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
| Armstrong | 17.2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Beaver | 24.1 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
| Bedford | 24.1 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Berks | 26.0 |
1 |
6 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
| Blair | 33.0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
| Bradford | 8.9 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| Bucks | 28.8 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
| Butler | 29.7 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
| Cambria | 30.6 |
0 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
| Cameron | 25.3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Carbon | 14.4 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Centre | 6.6 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Chester | 31.9 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
| Clarion | 14.0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
| Clearfield | 28.9 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
| Clinton | 6.3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Columbia | 7.9 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
| Crawford | 29.0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
| Cumberland | 6.2 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Dauphin | 2.1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| Delaware | 41.8 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
| Elk | 64.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
| Erie | 103.7 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4 |
| Fayette | 64.1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
| Forest | 7.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Franklin | 23.4 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
| Fulton | 21.7 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Greene | 20.0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Huntingdon | 36.9 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
| Indiana | 7.6 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Jefferson | 9.2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Juniata | 81.9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| Lackawanna | 33.2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
| Lancaster | 26.5 |
0 |
4 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
| Lawrence | 30.1 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
| Lebanon | 25.3 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
| Lehigh | 28.4 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
| Luzerne | 30.8 |
0 |
3 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
| Lycoming | -3.4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| McKean | 30.9 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
| Mercer | 33.5 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
| Mifflin | 15.6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Monroe | 13.0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Montgomery | 53.3 |
1 |
6 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
| Montour | 10.4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Northampton | 20.4 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Northumberland | 6.8 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Perry | -2.5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
| Philadelphia | 57.1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| Pike | 12.5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Potter | 22.7 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
| Schuylkill | 25.2 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
| Snyder | -24.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| Somerset | 23.8 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
| Sullivan | 13.6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Susquehanna | 34.1 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
| Tioga | -0.1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| Union | -16.2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| Venango | 25.8 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
| Warren | 36.6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Washington | 27.5 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
| Wayne | 14.5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Westmoreland | 28.1 |
0 |
6 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
| Wyoming | 23.3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| York | 30.4 |
0 |
7 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
| TOTAL (n=501 school districts) |
27.3 |
73 (15%) |
151 (30%) |
210 (42%) |
27 (5%) |
40 (8%) |
This table comes from "Understanding School Tax Change Under Act 50 of 1998," and is based on analysis by Kathleen Miller and Timothy W. Kelsey, Research Assistant and Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Penn State.