Use of regressive property tax to fund education defies logic

Ihave to question the kind of reasoning, if any, that was used by our state legislators when they enacted some laws.

If you were told that the funding of education was to be derived by taxing the poorest people at a higher percentage than the richest people, you would say that can't be done. But that is exactly what is being done today and has been going on for years. Why? It's because of the regressive property tax that provides approximately 60 percent of the tax to fund education.

At the present time, a widow who was left with a house upon her husband's death pays $6,000 in property tax. Her yearly income is approximately $18,000. Out of her property tax, $3,600 goes to funding primary and secondary education. That results in her paying 20 percent of her income to fund education. At the same time, a family earning $500,000 per year, living in a $1 million home, paying approximately $20,000 in property tax, of which 60 percent, or $12,000, goes to funding education, is only paying 2.4 percent of its income toward funding primary and secondary education. Is that fair? Is that democratic? Is that criminal? You be the judge.

A fair method of funding education and at the same time acquiring funding in a manner that hurts no one is to have a flat 5 percent income tax collected by the state and returned to all boards of education, with no strings attached, based upon a formula created by the state Board of Education.

This plan of funding education was presented in 1968 inAssembly Bill A330. The state Board of Taxation, the state convention of Freeholders and the Philadelphia Inquirer all gave the idea high marks. The main problem, in my opinion, was that there wasn't an income tax in New Jersey. The legislators at the time didn't have the courage to do the right thing and introduce a new tax by means of a constitutional convention. Bill A330 called for such a convention.

If the people wanting to remove the funding of education from property taxes would write to their legislators and express their feelings strongly, I'm sure Trenton would act to satisfy their request.

Another tax that should be questioned is the farmland-assessment tax that is granted to so many for questionable reasons. The farmland-assessment tax was created, I am led to believe, to help the struggling farmer. Why is it that so many industries that convert some of their property to growing soy beans, etc., get this support? Many wealthy individuals went into land banking and used this support for obvious reasons. I believe that the farmlandassessment tax should be applied to those individuals who obtain at least 30 percent of their taxable income from the land.

What do you think?
Frank J. Coury
East Brunswick