Regressive property tax should not fund education
It’s about time our elected officials in the state Senate and Assembly look around at their constituents and recognize that many of them are struggling to pay their bills.
Many taxpayers have become ill, some have been laid off from their jobs, and many more are living on fixed incomes. All of them are attempting to live in dignity, while facing ever-increasing taxes. At the same time, many of the constituents are prospering.
A compassionate government would see to it that taxes are levied according to one’s ability to pay. That is not the case with the property tax. This tax is regressive and hurts many people. It’s very disturbing to hear some elected officials state that if some people can’t afford to pay their property taxes, then maybe they should move away.
The problem with the property tax is that approximately 60 percent of it goes to funding primary and secondary education. It is understood that educational costs will rise year after year and that the cost must be funded through some form of tax. It makes good sense to use the property tax dedicated for municipal and county costs — roads, police, garbage pickup, water and sewer utilities, fire protection.
These services are attendant with home ownership, and the costs for these services rise very slowly. Funding for primary and secondary education should be from a dedicated fixed-income tax that represents a person’s family income.
Test it yourself. Imagine if your property tax were dedicated for only municipal and county costs. Your property tax would be reduced by 60 percent.
How much did you save? If primary and secondary education were funded by a dedicated 5-percent state income tax, you would be taxed 5 percent on your income. How much would you have to pay? Consider now how much you would be paying when you retire if your income were reduced by sickness or job layoff.
If the state collected the income tax and paid it back to the individual school board on a determined formulae over a three-year period; all school districts would know how much money they would receive over that period. They could plan ahead. All school districts would be able to provide an equitable education, regardless of location.
To provide assurance that funds would be available by this system, I submit the information that the total income for all workers in New Jersey in 1968 was $35 billion, while the cost for primary and secondary education was $1.1 billion.
Approximately 5 percent of the income was more than enough to fund education. In 2004 the total income for all residents in the state was $398 billion, while the cost for primary and secondary education was $17.76 billion. Again, 5 percent would be enough to fund education.
Imagine what the cost for education will be 10-20 years from now.
Will you be capable of paying the taxes when you retire if education funding will be dependent upon property taxes?
I suggest that our state Assembly members and state senators provide a detailed report as to how they think primary and secondary education should be funded.
Frank J. Coury
East Brunswick
Benefit of rail line outweighs inconvenience to homeowners
Dawn Bittner’s letter to the editor (“Find Alternatives to Proposed MOM Rail Line,” Suburban, April 21) gives a compelling argument why a light rail line may not benefit her.
My sister has a commuter rail line in back of her house in Connecticut, and we hardly notice passing trains. And the benefit of the line to riders, as well as to nonriders, because of reduced road traffic far outweigh the possible inconvenience of living near a rail line.
Bittner acknowledges that her area is becoming more crowded and that something must be done. But her proposal for more park-and-ride areas (along already-crowded Route 9) and putting pressure on new developers to donate land makes less sense than using existing rails that were there before she bought her house. Moreover, the price of her house undoubtedly reflected the existence of a nearby rail line.
Many decades ago we had more rail lines in New Jersey than we have today although the population was more sparse.
Unfortunately, nearsighted planners at the time eliminated many of those lines, and we are paying for that in reduced rail service and additional road congestion today.
Adding lines is expensive. But not adding them might have a far greater long-term negative impact that future generations will have to live with.
It’s time that we change our “What’s in it for me?” attitude to a “What’s best for the future of New Jersey?” attitude.
One need only look at the light rail lines between Bayonne and Weehawken, and between Trenton and Camden, to see a significant rider improvement.
Scott Ahlers
East Brunswick