Flat-tax method best to fund education

T alk to any elected official, and he or she will agree that the method of funding primary and secondary education is regressive. I'm sure these same officials understand that regression, as defined in the dictionary, is a movement backward to a previous and, especially, a worse or more primitive state or condition.

So why in the world do we continue with a method of taxation that hurts so many people when there are other ways to fund education without hurting anyone? Presently, people of all ages who are on a fixed income due to retirement, sickness, layoff from work, death of a breadwinner, etc., are hurt.

The present tax is such that people on the high end of the income scale are paying a lesser percent of their income than those on a lower earning scale. This, in a sense, is a progressive tax in reverse. People earning $200,000 and more are paying approximately 1 percent of their income, while widows living on $18,000 are paying 20 percent of their income toward funding education. This is unfair and should be stopped now.

A recommended method of funding education is to remove entirely from the property tax that portion that funds education. This would reduce property taxes for all by approximately 60 percent. Education should be funded by a flat 5-percent state income tax dedicated to only primary and secondary education. This approach would help all those previously mentioned who are hurt by the present method of funding. No one would get hurt, and everyone would be paying their fair share.

It would be interesting to hear from the following legislators regarding the advantages and disadvantages of such a suggestion: Rep. Peter Barnes III (D-18), Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-19), Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan Jr. (D-18), Assemblyman Sam Thompson (R-13) and Assemblyman Joseph Egan (D- 17). It would be great to get comments on the subject from Gov. Jon Corzine.
Frank Coury
East Brunswick