Dedicated state income tax should fund education

We need tax reform now, not two years from now. After reading the newspaper reports regarding Gov. Jon Corzine’s approach to the high, regressive property tax problem, I frankly got the impression the problem won’t be studied for another two years. It appears that Gov. Corzine will rely on a people’s constitutional convention.

As I see it, a $4 million convention of the people will not bring the best information to the table. I would rather have the 80 Assembly representatives get together next month and hammer out a solution to the problem. Certainly our representatives with all of the information at hand could do better than a people’s convention.

Presently many retired seniors, laid-off breadwinners and unemployed workers – due to illness, etc. – are suffering under the present property tax system. It will get worse every continuing year. Compassionate legislators should want to stop the suffering now, not next year or the year after. At the present time, there are people at the lower income scale paying as much as 20 percent of their income toward education, while at the same time, people at the higher income scale are paying only approximately 1 percent of their income toward education. Is that fair? Of course not. So let’s see something done about it. Let’s establish a fair method of taxation.

I personally like the idea of funding education as suggested by Frank Coury in his failed election attempt for the Assembly. He wanted to establish a method of taxation that would be levied according to one’s ability to pay. He suggested to have our property taxes dedicated to only municipal and county costs. This would reduce our property taxes by 55 to 65 percent depending on location. That means a home assessed for $500,000 would have a tax saving of approximately $3,000. I call that a real benefit to many who are in need.

Education would be paid by a flat 5 percent state income tax. No one gets hurt by that tax. Coury stated the total income for all residents in New Jersey is approximately $389 million, while the total cost for primary and secondary education is approximately $18 million. So you see, 5 percent is more than enough to fund education. This method of funding would provide equal education to all throughout the state and we would be able to discontinue the term Abbott districts.

If you like the idea of the dedicated state income tax to fund education, speak up. Write letters to the editor, call your elected representatives and ask them what they plan to do to stop the use of the regressive and painful property tax to fund education.

John Soueid

North Brunswick