Lehighton Area School District is considering eliminating its occupational assessment tax, a levy pegged to job titles on a Carbon County list last updated in January 1994. The district could replace the revenue with a small increase to the earned income tax.

If it happens, about 12,000 residents would pay less, according to figures Superintendent Jason Moser presented to the school board Monday night.

The change would require approval from voters. Under Act 24 of 2001, now folded into the state’s Local Tax Enabling Act, a district may raise its earned income tax rate only if it eliminates the occupational assessment tax, and only by enough to replace what that tax would have brought in during the first year.

“You can’t have a windfall,” Moser said.

The occupational assessment tax generates $795,045 a year for Lehighton, according to the district’s most recent budget projections. Offsetting that would require taking the overall earned income tax rate from 1% to 1.16%.

District figures show what the swap would mean for six sample workers. An electrician earning $65,000 now pays $400 in occupational assessment tax plus $650 in earned income tax, a total of $1,050. Under the change, that worker would pay $754. A registered nurse earning $85,000 would go from $1,350 to $986. A custodian earning $40,000 would go from $650 to $464. A server earning $30,000 would go from $500 to $348. An attorney earning $125,000 would drop from $1,950 to $1,450, and a doctor earning $200,000 from $2,800 to $2,320.

The district estimates the break-even point at an average income of $321,725.

Moser’s argument for the change rested largely on how the current tax is calculated. An assessed value is assigned by the county based on a person’s job and then taxed at 25 mills. The resulting bill bears no necessary relationship to what anyone actually earns.

“There is no guaranteed direct relationship to actual income earned by individuals,” Moser said. “It’s rather antiquated. It’s like a perceived value.”

He displayed the county list during the meeting. An attorney and a pilot for a major national airline are each assessed at $700. A bank cashier pays $600. A law enforcement agent with the FBI or the Justice Department pays $500. A brewer is assessed $1,200. The list still includes an entry for “huckster.”

Moser pointed to a second benefit. Retirees currently have to apply to have the occupational assessment tax removed, a process the district has struggled to communicate.

“That, in my mind, is a big win right there,” he said.

He also noted that the earned income tax is withheld as people are paid, which removes the once-a-year bill that gives the occupational tax its reputation as a nuisance.

Director David Bradley wants the tax gone entirely, with no replacement.

“I say just remove it all. Don’t even replace it,” he said. “It’s obsolete. It’s archaic. It’s a nuisance tax. We don’t need it because we already have enough revenue.”

He argued the swap would cost residents more over time because earned income tax bills rise with wages while the occupational tax is fixed.

“People’s salaries will be increasing over their lifetime, and therefore the tax will be increasing over their lifetime,” Bradley said. “Every time someone earns better, you’re adding drag onto their system.”

Moser said a 3% annual wage increase, roughly the 10-year average, would generate $25,000 to $30,000 in additional revenue each year.

“You’re not looking at a huge windfall,” he said.

Moser also pushed back on eliminating the revenue outright.

“Our costs rise at a higher rate year over year than what our revenues do, even when we are most responsible,” he said. “Even if you cut down to bare bones and slash programs and positions and get to exactly only what state code says we have to offer, you can only do that once, and from that point on it’s more expensive every year.”

District costs rise between 3% and 6% annually, Moser said.

The time frame gives the board room. A referendum must appear on a general election ballot rather than a primary, and the question must reach the county election office 90 days beforehand. A measure on next November’s ballot would not take effect until the 2028-29 budget year. The board’s only vote would be a resolution putting the question to voters.

“We’re essentially a year out from when we would have to make this decision — well, really about nine months out,” Moser said. “The point of bringing it up tonight is for us to get ahead of that and start thinking about it.”

Bradley pressed for a direct survey of residents, suggesting numbered postcards mailed to taxpayers so the board could gauge opinion before committing to a ballot question. Moser was cool to the idea.

“I trust the democratic process of an election,” he said.

He suggested instead building a calculator on the district website so residents could see their own numbers.

“How is it going to impact me? Here’s where you go, find it,” Moser said. “And then think about if you earn an additional 3% next year — what will it look like?”

Resident Roy James said he would oppose any shift that places more tax burden on homeowners.

“If we eliminate the occupational tax, we are taking away taxation of workers, and maybe in the future we raise taxes again on real estate owners; placing it on people that are predominantly not workers,” James said. “I did some campaigning recently for the election and talked to a lot of people, and they’re complaining about a lot of these elderly retired people losing their homes. It’s a crying shame. They’ve done everything they can to try to pay their taxes, and they can’t do it.”

Replacing the occupational assessment tax revenue with additional earned income tax is “fairer,” director Denise Hartley said.

“It addresses a larger amount of taxpayers,” she said. “You’re addressing all taxpayers that work, as opposed to just property owners. The other good news is we have a bunch of more months to think and talk about this and hear what the public has to say before we have to make any decisions.”