> The richer areas have higher scoring schools because wealth correlates with school scores probably due to a combination of natural ability and a more conducive parental and community environment

True enough.

> Richer areas get less state funding than poorer school districts.

Also true.

> These districts have to scramble to just narrow the gap rather than have more funding.

The necessity of narrowing the gap is not at all obvious; as you point out, test scores correlate with local wealth. But test scores also correlate with per-pupil spending -- and that correlation is (1) small; and (2) negative. This is easy to explain with the model "poor students attract spending", but you also need the coda "...and it doesn't accomplish much".

They need enough to pay for teachers, administrators, facilities, and the supplemental education that better off folks love: debate, music, sports, speech therapy, early reading help, etc... That extra money has very high return.

> An income tax per parcel does not scale. How do you tax rentals? Who pays the tax? What if you want to own multiple homes?

I was not proposing an income tax per parcel, I was proposing a flat tax per parcel and also an income tax on everyone who lives in the city.

Parcel taxes should be paid by the owner of the parcel. Income taxes should be paid by the earner of the income. It's not hard to deal with.

There are already flat taxes per parcel.

So you are taxing an owner of a rental on their total income rather than the income they earn on the property?

What if a corporation owns the property? If you do this, I would transfer the property to a corporation and then rent it back to myself for a $1 a year. The corporation would have only $1 of income per year.

This is so badly thought out.

No, I'm proposing taxing city residents on their income regardless of whether they own or rent. If the owner of the parcel doesn't live in the city then he wouldn't pay a dime of income tax to the city -- he would pay the parcel tax to the city where the parcel is located, and he would pay income tax wherever he lives.

Time for the international buyers to buy housing en masse, rent it out, and not pay your income tax. The renters would be stuck paying the income tax and the international buyers would just pay the parcel tax. So renters would be stuck paying for rent and an additional income tax for renting. Hahahahaha.

That's fine, they will pay the parcel tax and their tenants will pay income tax.

It seems wrong to me to make someone pay tax where they do not live. It's not like the owners of rental homes are the people who use the city services -- the people who live in the homes do, and they should pay for them.

Way to screw over renters with an additional tax. That sure sounds regressive to me. The owners are generally much richer than the renters.

Another hack. Claim residency in another state or country. Voila your personal income tax for the property disappears and you can live in the home for one day less than six months out of the year. This proposal would be a vacation home rebate. In fact, just keep buying vacation homes. The people stuck living there year round would be screwed.

Another hack. Buy the biggest parcel you can find. Then you can build a huge home and pay the same taxes as the 800 square foot bungalow. Build a bunch of huge vacation homes. The help have to pay for the services. You don’t.

Yet another hack. Build a house and rent it out on AirBnB. That way you only pay the parcel tax and NO ONE pays the income tax. Genius. It’s a discount to run an AirBnB. Better raise the hotel tax to compensate.

Pretty sure that won't work. CA is famous for vigorously going after people trying to doge taxes like this, and the rules for residency/part year residency are pretty stringent for what taxes you will owe.

Look up the law. I know of law abiding people who do exactly this. Live in Vegas and come back to California once in awhile.