Letters
Dedicated state income tax is good choice for education funding

Frank Coury, in his letter to the editor (“Regressive Property Tax Should Not Continue to Fund Education”) in the May 12 issue of the Suburban, stated that a dedicated state income tax is the way to fund primary and secondary education. He also stated that property taxes should be dedicated to only municipal and county costs. I put this to a test by applying this approach to my situation. I found that if this approach were put into law, I would benefit greatly.

Think about it. Everyone’s property taxes would be reduced by approximately 60 percent and, regardless of income, everyone would pay a flat 5-percent state income tax on gross income. I, for one, see this method of funding education as a practical and viable alternative to the present tax system.

No one would be hurt by this method of funding. Granted, some will pay less in taxes, and others will pay more. The ones who will pay more will be able to afford the increase. The present system requires people without children in school, regardless of income, to subsidize those people with children in school. This is, unquestionably, unfair.

The present system is disgraceful, forcing people out of their homes and even adding to the homeless population. Many homeless people are working at modest incomes and cannot afford to rent a room or an apartment. A reduction of 60 percent in property taxes could result in lower rents.

As Mr. Coury stated, taxes should be “levied according to one’s ability to pay.” How could our elected representatives let our present property tax continue to exist as it is presently structured? The present use of our property tax is regressive and abusive to many.

I would like to have our East Brunswick mayor and Township Council send a resolution to Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes (D-18) and Sen. Barbara Buono (D-18) to eliminate the present system of funding education with the property tax and to tell us how they think education should be funded.

I’m led to believe that if a viable method of funding education is agreed upon, then all that is required to have it become a reality is to have a legislator introduce this method in a bill and have it enacted by the Legislature, without the delay and cost of a constitutional convention.

Ruth Merson

East Brunswick

Benefit of rail line outweighs inconvenience

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