Regarding the League of Women Voters letter concerning Illinois education funding [The answer to tax relief is in the state legislature, Viewpoints, Aug. 16], the proposed solution (greater state funding of education) fails to quantify inevitable massive individual state income tax and, worse, ignores the root cause of the current dilemma-namely out-of-control local school expenditures due to salary increases far in excess of inflation and staffing increases disproportional to enrollment trends.

Let's say that schools are entirely funded by state income taxes, i.e. property taxes are no longer necessary to fund Illinois primary and secondary education (I ignore higher sales tax as a funding solution because of the limited deductions available on federal income taxes).

According to the U.S. Census website, Illinois had an estimated total population of 12.763 million in 2005. Because approximately 25.5 percent of Illinois residents are under 18 years old and approximately 7 percent are under 5 years old, a decent estimate for the school-age children is 18.5 percent of the population (about 2.36 million students). (U.S. Census bureau - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16000.html)

During the 2003-04 school year, the local school districts had the following operating expenditure per pupil:

D90: $10,301

D200: $14,201

D97: $11,185

(School report cards - http://webprod1.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx )

I'll assume that 2006-07 school year operating expenditures per child are $13,000 in the Oak Park/River Forest communities (using around 3 percent per annum inflation for the last three years).

If property tax revenue is replaced by state income tax revenue, won't every community want the same level of expenditure per child? Would that level be less than is currently spent locally? Imagine the uproar. If every student (statewide) receives $13,000 in expenditures, the annual state expenditure would be $30.7 billion.

The State of Illinois education budget is a little hard to decipher, but it looks like $8.8 billion is to be spent (including federal money) during the upcoming school year. (Illinois State Board of Education budget request: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/budget/FY07/budget_request.pdf )

That leaves an incremental $22 billion funding gap to be made up at the state level to fund education if property tax funding is eliminated.

Total individual state income taxes are budgeted to be around $9 billion in 2007. This is based on a 3-percent state income tax rate. (State of Illinois 2007 budget: http://www.state.il.us/budget/FY07percent20Budget percent20Book.pdf)

Extrapolating, it would take a roughly 10 percent state income tax rate (more than tripling) to raise the incremental $22 billion.

Breakeven analysis shows that households with earnings 10x that of property taxes would be affected only slightly. For example, a household earning $100,000 and paying $10,000 in property taxes would suffer only marginally under this scheme. The $6,700 property tax savings (around 2/3 of property tax dollars fund local education) would be offset by a $7,000 state income tax increase (7 percent of $100,000), i.e. a net tax increase of $300.

However, those households with earnings-to-property-tax ratios of greater than 10 to 1 would be dramatically affected. Households earning $300,000 and paying $15,000 in property taxes (20 to 1 ratio) would see an increase of $11,000 in net tax burden ($21,000 state income tax increase, $10,000 property tax decrease).

While it may be more equitable to fund schools with state income taxes, it would increase the local tax burden (which you have failed to mention). Relatively well-to-do areas (Oak Park and River Forest) would effectively subsidize the less wealthy communities of the state. As it stands now, the property tax funding scheme ensures that most tax dollars are spent locally, not statewide.

The root cause of the massive property tax increases is, quite simply, the equally massive increase in local education expenditures. Are the expenditure increases necessary? Using River Forest District 90 as an example, teachers were given sequential raises of 7 percent, 7 percent, 6 percent, 5.5 percent, and 5 percent from 2002-2006. During the nine years ending 2005, D90 staffing increased from 122 to 184 as enrollment grew by only 131 (from 1242 to 1373), or nearly 0.5 new staff members for each new student. Not surprisingly, as salaries and benefits account for 85 percent of the budget, D90's expenditures have averaged gains of 6.6 percent for the last five years. Such increases are fiscally reckless (what private sector business gave out similar raises during the last five years?) and, as we now know, ultimately painful to the property owners of the community.

Whether or not education is funded locally or by the state, taxpayers of one form or another will have to foot the bill. The solution, in my opinion, is not to play a shell game of alternative taxing schemes (property tax vs. income tax is a worthy debate, but has little relevance to the expenditure problem) but rather to elect fiscally responsible school board members who will make it a priority to rein in the rate of spending increases. Without such discipline, the pain will only worsen.