Within the inherently unpopular overall subject of taxation, the local property tax appears to be the most publicly criticized. However, for most individuals, the amount of property tax they pay is often substantially less than the amount of either their state income taxes, or sales and other excise taxes. Instead, the property tax's negative image simply may arise from the far more direct and abrupt manner in which it is collected.

Unlike the income tax, which is incrementally withheld from a worker's bi-weekly or semi-monthly paycheck, or the sales and excise taxes that are built into each purchase of goods and services, property taxes on real estate and vehicles are, by law, collected in semi-annual installments.

That means writing a check once or twice a year to the county sheriff in amounts ranging from several hundred to more than $1,000. For most households, having to cover an expenditure of that magnitude outside of their normal monthly budget is a challenge. This likely also explains why the debate about reform of our property tax system often is encumbered with much emotion but little rational analysis.

For example, there are those who passionately decry the impact of rising taxes on elderly homeowners -- implicitly arguing that financial capacity is inherently inverse to age. To the contrary, by virtue of our constitution's property tax rate discrimination, young families who cannot afford their own homes pay twice the rate of property taxes through their rent than those homeowners pay.

Then, there are those who, given the perceived role of the property tax in funding local schools, complain about paying it because they have no children in those schools. They would be even more upset if they realized that, through the state's centralized school funding mechanism, the school portion of their property tax payments actually displaces state-level funds that would otherwise be spent on their local schools. In effect, the empty-nesters' taxes go to subsidize not only schools in other counties, but other functions as well -- particularly in those counties where elected county officials perpetuate their own tenure by keeping the taxes on their voters as low as possible.

That same displacement effect has many homeowners in places like the Eastern Panhandle particularly upset about all their property taxes "going to Charleston." Their frustration at this circumstance is exacerbated by combination of rising tax bills on their homes and the growing shortage of public school teachers.

Ironically, those tax increases are, in part, due to West Virginia's nationally low residential property tax rates, which, in turn, drive up home prices and tax values. Concurrently, any local teacher shortages simply reflect the fact that the centralization of this state's revenue-generating system for schools is mirrored by the centralization of its decision-making process for spending that revenue.

Meanwhile, with all the super-heated rhetoric about a property tax crisis for individual homeowners, the voice of the business community goes largely unheard when it legitimately complains that our relatively heavy burden of taxation on business equipment, machinery and inventory discourages investment of new, job-generating capital. That, in turn, condemns West Virginia to struggle with a narrow tax base from which to generate adequate revenues for teachers' pay, etc.

Certainly, none of these concerns lack legitimacy. However, if we are to find real solutions, it is imperative that these matters be approached with far more rational thought and far less visceral rhetoric than has characterized the debate so far.

For example, we simply could "means test" a larger homestead exemption so the elderly, long-time owners of family homes whose incomes are fixed below a certain level, get relief from rising assessments, but millionaires who recently purchased a "McMansion" do not. At the same time, the Legislature finally could exercise its constitutional authority to take the highly regressive property tax pressure off low-income occupants of rental housing. That could be done either by eliminating the tax rate discrimination against those who would invest in affordable rental housing or by reforming the methods by which such housing is appraised for tax purposes.

Next, we could give businesses a credit against state taxes for local property taxes paid on machinery, equipment and inventory.

That would remove a lot of the financial penalty for investing in capital and creating jobs here but without interfering with local property tax revenues.

After achieving those relatively easier fixes, we can turn our attention to the more challenging tasks of: (1) decentralizing our public education spending decisions and (2) eliminating the incentive and opportunity for elected officials in some counties to "get over on" the rest of us.

First, however, we all need to take a collective deep breath to calm the property tax passions and to start thinking more clearly about the entire subject.

Michael E. Caryl is a partner with Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP in Martinsburg and was vice chairman of the Governor's Commission on Fair Taxation. He also served as West Virginia tax commissioner from 1985 to 1988.