ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Special interests sabotage tax reform

| Sunday, April 17, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the recent letter from Julius Green (“Tax reform's prohibitive cost,” April 7 and TribLIVE): The writer is both a lawyer and a CPA and is the president of the Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs, a special-interest lobbying organization that opposes legislation eliminating school property taxes because it imposes sales tax on CPA services. His negative comments have nothing to do with the worthiness of the legislation but rather with the greed of these people as they protect their interests. They are participating in a massive, coordinated campaign to discredit the bill and deny homeowners the relief they deserve.

Green noted that homeowners would continue to pay property taxes but failed to mention the tax would be limited to only the amount necessary to service outstanding debt, typically about 10 percent of a homeowner's current property tax bill. A 90 percent reduction in property taxes is a far cry from what he infers with his statement.

Green also claimed the legislation will result in a $1 billion deficit. The bill was designed to slow the growth of education taxation to the rate of inflation rather than continuing the current growth rate of three times inflation. Only opponents of the bill would call a smaller increase a deficit.

Telling the truth wouldn't have served this man's purpose of trying to discredit the legislation and frighten homeowners.

David Baldinger

Reading

The writer is spokesman for the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me