Last year, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, with the support of Gov. Ed Rendell, passed Act 1, which requires nearly all school boards across the state to put a referendum on this May's ballot asking voters to increase local income taxes by a large margin to replace revenue lost to property tax cuts.

Robert Speel is an associate professor of political science at Penn State Erie, The Behrend College (rws15@psu.edu).

There is a catch: The property tax cuts will be only for homeowners. Renters won't benefit. Contrary to what some people believe, renters also pay property taxes in their rent -- landlords calculate the amount of the tax into what they charge tenants each month -- but Act 1 savings are unlikely to be passed through to renters.

Act 1 required all school boards in Pennsylvania -- except those in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Scranton -- to establish tax study commissions to recommend the amount that local income taxes should increase. While some of the commissions have strongly criticized Act 1 and recommended that voters reject the shift in tax burden in the local referenda, others have recommended that school districts nearly triple their current local income tax rates, while cutting property taxes for homeowners.

In many Pennsylvania communities, the commissions and local politicians have focused on the impact the tax shift will have on homeowners, who will pay less in property tax but more in income tax. The huge impact on working renters often is understated or ignored.

Under Act 1, the taxes of all renters where referenda are approved will increase -- with the exception of senior citizens living only on pensions and Social Security, and those with extremely low incomes who pay no state income tax. Renters will receive no direct reductions in either property taxes or rent. Meanwhile, to replace revenue lost to property tax cuts for homeowners, most working renters would pay hundreds of dollars more each year in income tax.

The changes are basically a way to redistribute the tax burden from older residents who own their homes to younger, often poorer, residents who rent housing.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 28 percent of all occupied housing units in Pennsylvania were rented. Statewide, the median rent paid in 2000 was $531 for residential units, indicating that most renters likely are not very wealthy. Census data for the state also indicated that 39 percent of renters in Pennsylvania paid more than 30 percent of income on housing, compared to 22 percent of homeowners.

In addition, renters in Pennsylvania tend to be younger than homeowners, with renters having a median age of about 40 and homeowners having a median age in the low 50s. About 37 percent of renters in the state are under age 35, compared to only 12 percent of homeowners.

So, at a time when phrases like "brain drain" and "brain gain" are becoming commonplace, why are our political leaders supporting Act 1? It's simple: because older voters and homeowners are more likely to vote than younger voters and renters. While these political calculations may be correct, the consequences of such policies of discrimination against renters could be disastrous to the state's economic future.

Pennsylvania should be an affordable place to live for older residents, many of whom have worked, lived and contributed to the community for their entire lives. Yet local governments and the state cannot and should not enact policies that will cause younger residents to leave or never move here.

Younger residents, many of whom might move to Pennsylvania to get new jobs, add to the vitality and tax base of a community. Most of these younger residents will look for rental units when they first arrive and may continue to rent housing for years to follow. Local governments and the state of Pennsylvania must not discourage such residents from settling here by imposing the discriminatory and unfair tax burdens that Act 1 is designed to produce.