The bills, which were approved in recent weeks by ad hoc committees in S.C. Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, differ in significant details. Nevertheless, both would increase the sales taxes by 40 percent, from 5 to 7 cents, in order to wipe out property taxes for school operations -- the largest portion of most citizens' property taxes.

The rationale for reforming the state's tax structure has some logic. Replacing local property taxes as a revenue source for operating schools, in theory, would eliminate disparities between the wealthiest and poorest schools in South Carolina. Many districts, including eight that have sued the state over unequal funding, simply don't produce enough property taxes to support schools adequately. The plight of such districts was featured in a recent documentary, "Corridor of Shame."

The bills also would force counties to limit rising assessments on homes, most likely by freezing values until a property was sold or major improvements were made. Such tactics would reduce the sticker shock homeowners experience when they are hit by a general reassessment, required every five years under state law.

We agree with the S.C. Chamber of Commerce and others who say there are ways to soften the impact of reassessment without undermining the state's entire tax structure. For example, state Sen. Wes Hayes, R-Rock Hill, a member of the Senate's ad hoc tax committee, favors letting taxpayers pay property taxes monthly, much like they do utility bills. The state chamber and S.C. Fair Share, a grass-roots organization, recommend adopting a "circuit breaker," which would cap property taxes if they exceeded a certain percentage of a homeowner's wealth. That method has worked well in other states.

Problems with the bills are many:

• They would shorten one leg of the "three-legged stool" on which our governments depend. Compared to the state income tax and the sales tax, property taxes are less vulnerable to an economic downturn.

• Sales taxes are said to be "regressive" because they fall hardest on people who spend the highest percentage of income on necessities. Although both bills would exempt groceries, we are not convinced the change would help the most vulnerable. For one thing, many poor or moderate-income citizens pay little or no property taxes now.

• Businesses would pay a whopping 40 percent more in sales taxes without getting any relief from property taxes.

• Public agencies, such as public universities and cities, pay sales taxes under state law. Rock Hill, for example, pays approximately $2 million in sales taxes annually. The cost to Rock Hill taxpayers would be approximately $800,000 more! Winthrop University would see its burden jump from $700,000 a year to almost $1 million.

• Merchants in border counties, including York County, which levies a 1 percent sales tax for its "Pennies for Progress" roads fund, could lose business to Charlotte, where sales taxes would be lower. They could also expect to lose customers to Internet shopping, which would made that much more attractive to consumers.

• Cutting taxes on homes here could accelerate the exodus of Mecklenburg County citizens looking to abandon Charlotte schools for schools in York County. Ironically, the tax proposals also would lead to the deterioration of quality in our schools by shifting revenues to poorer areas of the state, reducing or eliminating discretionary spending for above-average teacher salaries, programs for advanced students and extracurricular activities.

• The authority to raise taxes would shift to the General Assembly, contradicting the principle of Home Rule and reversing several decades of progressive government in this state.

We expect that businesses, school districts, and city and county governments will mount a concerted effort to change these controversial tax plans. Citizens who care about the public life of their communities and their state need to let their lawmakers hear from them as well.

Problems with rapidly escalating home taxes should be addressed but not at the expense of fiscal responsibility.

We hope lawmakers from York, Chester and Lancaster counties can persuade their colleagues to put the brakes on these bills.