Months in the making and just three weeks before the June 13 House primaries, lawmakers have produced a plan that would raise the state's sales tax by a penny to 6 cents on the dollar. Supposed tax relief would come from elimination of local residential property taxes used to pay for school operating costs.

The agreement also ensures that no county would get less than $2.5 million from the higher sales tax. Local governments would be permitted to add a 1-cent local sales tax to the state's sales tax. And the state sales tax on groceries would fall to 3 cents beginning in October.

While this may look like a swap of sorts -- higher sales taxes for lower property taxes -- it is not likely to work out that way for many, if not most, of the state's homeowners. Some will see little tax relief; many will see none; and many will pay more in taxes overall.

The state already exempts the first $100,000 of the value of an owner-occupied home from school taxes. That means anyone with a home valued on the county rolls at $100,000 or less -- more than 70 percent of all South Carolinians -- will realize no savings on school taxes from this tax plan.

Furthermore, for homeowners 65 or older, the state already exempts up to $150,000 of the home's value from school taxes. Thus, older homeowners are even less likely to realize savings from this plan.

And while homeowners with a $100,000 home will see no savings in school taxes, they will be paying a penny more per dollar in sales taxes. Renters also will see less benefit from the plan but will spend more on sales taxes. And while property taxes can be itemized on tax returns, sales taxes generally can't.

Who will gain? Those who will benefit most from this plan are those who clamored the loudest for it: Owners of expensive homes who have been hard hit by the surge in assessed value of their property. So, if you don't own a mansion near the water, don't expect much tax relief from this plan.

Also, the sales tax is a regressive tax. While the eventual lowering of the sales tax on groceries was crucial to getting this plan approved, the sales tax burden still will fall most heavily on the poor and moderate-income citizens who spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on goods than wealthier citizens do.

Businesses also will be hard hit. They will see a 20 percent tax increase on almost everything they buy.

And public agencies, which are not exempted from sales taxes in South Carolina as they are in many other states, would feel the pinch. Winthrop University, one of the largest employers in York County, pays approximately $700,000 a year in sales taxes. With the penny increase, that would jump by $140,000 or more.

This plan also seriously undercuts the "three-legged stool" model of taxation that has provided a generally solid financial foundation for the state. Two of those legs, the sales tax and income tax, fluctuate with the economy, while property taxes tend to be stable from year to year.

With the cut in property taxes and increased reliance on sales taxes, revenue sources for school operations will be considerably less reliable. And with a downturn in the economy, the state could be forced to cut services or turn once again to deficit financing.

Perhaps the most galling aspect of this plan is the way in which state lawmakers have stripped local governments of their authority to manage their own schools. Wealthier school districts such as Rock Hill and Fort Mill have long paid more than the state minimum for teachers to attract and retain good faculty. With the support of voters, they have been able to pay for modern schools and more programs than school districts in poorer areas of the state can afford to. This plan would make it far more difficult to continue doing that.

Another serious threat to York County that would arise from this plan is a potential flood of new residents from North Carolina lured here by low property taxes. The rise in the school population would create crowded classrooms and the need for more schools. Local voters still could pass bond referendums to build those schools, but could not raise local taxes to cover the cost of operating them.

A Senate request that county voters be allowed to impose higher taxes on themselves was dropped from the final deal, and, under a compromise demanded by House negotiators, reinstating local property taxes would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature. In other words, all taxing authority would be vested in Columbia, while local counties would be powerless to address local needs.

The promise of a minimum of $2.5 million for every county would be a boon for many poorer counties that now collect far less in property taxes. That would help equalize school funding statewide.

But the plan also would spend about $180 million from the state general fund to defray the cost of reducing the sales tax on groceries; to provide money to pay part of the county portion of owner-occupied property taxes; and to create a new sales tax-free holiday the friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving to reduce the cost of school supplies.

What happens when a dip in the economy sends sales tax revenues south and there is no surplus in the general fund to make up the difference? Local school districts would be at the mercy of state lawmakers,

The Senate and House still must decide whether to approve the deal after they return next Tuesday, and it must be signed by Gov. Mark Sanford. This plan would be a frightening erosion of home rule, and we urge lawmakers to think twice before enacting it.

IN SUMMARY
Many homeowners would not benefit at all from so-called property tax relief proposal.