Maine’s Citizen Initiative Question 2, which seeks to impose a 3 percent income tax surcharge on the affluent to fund public education, may be the most consequential issue to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Maine’s public primary and secondary educational systems could use additional funds. The question is whether it’s good public policy to pay for education with a Robin Hood tax that takes from the “rich” and gives to the “poor,” many of whom are far from being poor.

Though I applaud the objective of Question 2 — getting more money into the public school pipeline — the surcharge is a misguided way to achieve it. In my view, it unfairly targets a single economic class and may, in any event, prove ineffective in funneling more dollars into education.

Question 2 asks: “Do you want to add a 3 percent tax on individual Maine taxable income above $200,000 to create a state fund that would provide direct support for student learning in kindergarten through 12th grade public education?”

It’s estimated the surcharge would yield $157 million in the first year. Proposed legislation to govern use of the special fund it produces would limit the proceeds solely to “direct support for student learning” and exclude administrative and clerical salaries or benefits.

Not surprisingly the pro-Initiative campaign is heavily financed by the National Education Association and supported by its local affiliate, the Maine Teachers Association, which have an economic stake in its outcome.

The state currently funds only about 47.5 percent of the total cost of local education instead of the as-yet unattained 55 percent level mandated by state law to commence in 2008- 2009. The underfunding has resulted in a current annual shortfall of over $150 million and a cumulative one of some $1.2 billion. The tax surcharge is designed to supplement General Fund spending in order to reach the 55 percent mark starting in tax year 2017.

Maine already has a progressive income tax to help pay for education and other public services through the state’s General Fund, though its current rate structure appears inadequate to meet its obligation towards schools. An alternative to taxing a relatively small number of high-income payers an additional 3 percent would be to impose a smaller increase in the rate for all upper bracket payers. That top rate kicks in, not at $200,000, but at $75,000 for married couples and $37,500 for single people. Thus a lower general tax hike could be spread more broadly across the taxpaying population.

Gov.Paul LePage, who has made income tax reduction a centerpiece of his program, would surely veto any such legislation, but voters could circumvent LePage by approving another citizen initiative (one that has not been proposed) to raise the rate of the top income bracket. This might entail a repeal of the current round of income tax cuts slated to go into effect this year — which lowers the top marginal income tax bracket from 7.95 percent to 7.15 percent — or even restoration of some part of the top marginal tax rate of 8.5 percent in effect prior to 2013.

Why is a broader-based tax increase preferable to a narrower surcharge? There are two reasons. First, the surcharge increases the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Second, it’s unfair to shift the entire burden of increased funding onto a tiny group, especially one that’s least likely to benefit from it.

Maine’s top bracket is already high compared to the rest of New England. Only Vermont’s, at 8.95 percent, is higher. The surcharge would boost the aggregate top rate to 10.15 percent for those with reported taxable incomes over $200,000 — a level above that of any state except California (13.3 percent).

“Money talks,” but does it also walk? In other words, would a 3 percent surcharge result in an exodus of high-earning business owners and professionals from Maine?

There’s some evidence it would not. A recent national study by researchers from Stanford University and the U.S. Treasury Department concluded that only about 2.4 percent of those reporting incomes of $1 million or more and 2.7 percent of those reporting incomes of $5 million or more moved from one state to another for any reason. The researchers were struck by how little elites, presumably anchored by work and family, were “willing to move to exploit tax advantages across state lines.” (Migrating to Florida, whose climate is as much a magnet as no income tax, seemed to be the one exception).

Despite these research findings, I’d be wary about testing the stay-put hypothesis with a surcharge of the magnitude contemplated by the Initiative. More importantly, the surcharge would let 98 percent of filing taxpayers off the hook, leaving only 2 percent to pay the tab. Worse, the latter group would likely be in the mid- to late-stage of their careers (the average age of a millionaire in the U.S. is 63) and, therefore, to have children who’ve already aged out of the school system.

It’s also important to bear in mind that the purpose of a special fund generated by the surcharge could be frustrated by the Legislature and governor, which retain the power to appropriate money from the General Fund to the Department of Education budget. If hostile to the surcharge, they could reduce educational appropriations from the General Fund and use moneys from the special fund to offset those reductions, thereby leaving public schools no better off.

In this political season, it’s common for many politicians to use populist rhetoric to proclaim that the rich “should pay their fair share.” Perhaps it’s wiser to advocate that all taxpayers pay their “fair” share.

In an increasingly fractured society, a soak-the-rich tax scheme that promotes more class warfare is the last thing we need.

Elliott Epstein is a trial lawyer with Andrucki & King in Lewiston. His Rearview Mirror column, which has appeared in the Sun Journal for 10 years, analyzes current events in an historical context. He is also the author of “Lucifer’s Child,” a book about the notorious 1984 child murder of Angela Palmer.