Proponents of a 2-cent state sales tax hike to replace local property taxes for public schools should face a strong dose of skepticism from the public.

Taxpayers could not be blamed for suffering whiplash. One day, leadership wants to end the state income tax. The next, it wants to uproot school funding sources. Both revolutionary approaches probably have some merit, but South Carolina needs something better first. It needs an overarching, long-term approach to its entire taxation system, not annual tinkering with portions of it.

It is not comforting that the newest better idea comes from the same legislative body that has overseen the state government's swoon into a budget crisis.

Not long ago, the sate legislature stepped in to roll back local property taxes for schools. But there was no foresight in this grand gesture of the roaring 1990s. The state can no longer afford that largess, but it is saddled with the staggering annual bill. That is a sample of why the state faces a budget deficit while raiding trust funds, raising fees and slashing services.

It is in that setting that House Majority Leader Rick Quinn, R-Columbia, and 26 co-sponsors are trying to sell the sales tax plan for state school funding.

As more details emerge, remember:

Sales tax revenue is less stable than the property tax.

Money sent from this county to Columbia would come back through the use of a complex state formula. But just because the state says it will send money according to the formula does not make it so. For the past three years, Beaufort County has received less money from the state than it should, according to the existing Education Finance Act formulas.

Formulas are moving targets. They can be changed by the legislature, removing local decisions from locally-elected leaders.

Because Beaufort County is considered the wealthiest in the state, state formulas in the past have worked against this county. Poorer counties get a bigger piece of the state-funding pie. That increases the burden on local taxpayers. County Council and the school board approve local tax rates to fund schools at a level that meets local standards, not a state formula. That local contribution could apparently continue under the sales tax proposal, but it bears close scrutiny.

Local governments depend on sales tax revenue for crucial local projects. A hike in the state sales tax could make it harder for local governments to achieve things like the four-laning of S.C. 170, which was accomplished through a voter-approved, temporary local-option sales tax.

Businesses need to know the impact of a higher sales tax on corporate revenues. A business may pay less in property taxes, but still suffer if customers choose to spend their money elsewhere.

By switching the source of revenue, has the state really gained anything? The state needs more money for public schools, not necessarily a different revenue source.

Diversity is a buzzword in the financial world for a good reason. Governments must guard against depending too heavily on the sales tax, or any other single source of revenue, including local property taxes.

A good debate on the school-funding proposal will be healthy, but it should begin with some assurance that this is not another knee-jerk tax plan from a body that has a poor track record of long-term thinking.