Variety of Solutions to County Bankruptcy Preferred

I am a new resident of Orange County, having arrived from the East Coast after the county had declared bankruptcy. Since I by choice elect to remain here, even though I was not part of the problem, I must be part of the solution.

I certainly agree that a tax increase to Orange County residents is called for, since the county’s elected representatives caused and presided over its financial downfall, and I have no problem with the idea of paying a tax increase.

My problem is with the nature of such an increase. I oppose an increase in the rate of sales tax on three separate grounds.

Reason one is that a sales tax is a regressive tax. While it taxes every one at the same rate, it results in having the poor pay out larger percentages of their income than the rich.

Reason two is that the sales tax is not a deduction for federal income taxes, as are income or property taxes, and they therefore do my not have the built-in rebate feature that the other taxes have.

Reason three deals with the way sales taxes are collected. We pay them to the vendors as we make purchases, and we rely on the vendors to remit their collection to the government. Happily, this takes place in most cases, but there are sufficient instances where sales taxes are not remitted by the collector to make me wary of the entire system.

I propose a state income tax surcharge to Orange County residents, or non-residents who are employed in Orange County, similar to the plan in New York State for New York City and Yonkers, after these municipalities got into financial difficulties. It has the advantage of simplicity, in that it is a once-a-year add-on to the state income tax return, and it is the fairest tax yet devised, in that it taxes people based upon their relative abilities to pay the tax.

JACOB J. HEILPERN

Laguna Hills

* The Orange County supervisors made the responsible decision to let the public vote on a proposed half-cent sales tax increase, yet both Tom Steele of the We the People group and the members of the Committees of Correspondence threaten recall efforts for their doing this. Why don’t these groups want the public to vote on this issue? The names they have chosen for their groups imply that they should be in favor of it.

The original Committees of Correspondence fought against “taxation without representation.” The supervisors are offering the public a chance to vote on the issue, so the Committees of Correspondence should be pleased. And shouldn’t We the People want people to vote? Or does it just mean We the People who think only like we do?

Why is it that representatives of the far right always seem to want to limit the spread of information by censoring the press, and why don’t they want people to make decisions unless the people agree with them? I guess they know they are “right” regardless of how few agree with them.

STEPHEN P. TESCHKE

Huntington Beach

* Why must the Board of Supervisors and Chief Executive Officer William J. Popejoy look beyond Orange County for loans bearing low interest to alleviate the bankruptcy debacle?

Popejoy’s appointments of a distinguished group of millionaires, Lincoln Club members and friends, former associates in the defunct American Savings and the clique hovering in the background are in the position to give back to the community that has been the source of their success.

Conspicuously absent from the committee are genuine community representatives. I suggest Mr. Popejoy appoint Amin David and Jean Forbath.

GRACE STEINER

San Juan Capistrano

* Supervisor Roger R. Stanton’s intention to divert funds approved by the voters specifically for improving the county’s transportation system to compensate for the county’s deficit is absolutely unacceptable. Not only will it sour the voters for any future bond issues, it will also violate the truth-in-advertising laws.

One can only accuse our elected officials of negligence when they failed us miserably in managing our hard-earned tax dollars, but stealing away funds intended for other purposes amounts to embezzlement. I urge Supervisor Stanton to get his faulty chip replaced immediately before he gets the recall notice.

JOHN T. CHIU

Corona del Mar

* Let’s see if I have this right. Orange County owes large amounts of money in tax-free bonds. The holders of such bonds usually are people who have high taxable incomes, and therefore want tax-free bonds. These are rich people, and it is safe to say that a great many holders of Orange County bonds are rich people.

And who is being asked to pay for the extra money needed to pay off these Orange County bonds? Employees laid off by the county and those who receive help because they are poor will pay. The schools of Orange County have to cut back services to the children of Orange County because of their losses. And now the voters of Orange County are being asked to vote for a sales tax increase--the most regressive form of taxation--to help pay off these bonds.

What terrible thing will happen if the voters reject the sales tax? The bonds will go into default. Rich people will be left holding defaulted bonds that will have lost value. The credit of Orange County will be seriously impaired. The supervisors of Orange County will be punished by having their salaries cut and their powers greatly diminished. The rich of Orange County will realize that the value of their real estate in Orange County is being affected, as well as their pride in living in Orange County. Maybe then rich people will be willing to participate in paying off the defaulted bonds in ways that reflect their wealth.

An increased admissions tax to sports events, concerts, yes, even to Disneyland, is one way to tax rich people more than poor people. Of course, the true way to tax rich people more than poor people is through an income tax. But it would take more than merely defaulting on some bonds to get an income tax passed in Orange County. Or would it?

ARTHUR SMITH

Laguna Beach

* One more suggestion for helping Orange County to climb out of its hole.

Everyone knows that Californians are generous. Whenever there is some tragedy, someone opens a bank account where donations can be sent to help out. Why don’t you start a fund for donations to Orange County with the proceeds restricted to paying off the schools?

A foundation set up for corporate donations to schools is a step in the right direction, but ordinary citizens need a place to contribute. I am a senior citizen with grown children and grandchildren who attend private schools, but I would contribute. Besides, a donation would be tax deductible while taxes are not.

NAOMI R. MOORE

Orange

* You may try to use your newspaper to promote a tax increase, but let me assure you, it would be ill advised until every other step has been taken or it will be dead on arrival in the hands of the electorate and, once turned down, where will they turn?

KENNETH A. LEHNER

Laguna Beach

* I hope you will reconsider the endorsement The Times gave to the idea of attacking Orange County’s fiscal problem with a half-cent increase in the sales tax. A county income tax would spread the pain much more equitably and would minimize the amount of pain.

The federal government collected something over $5.5 billion in income taxes last year from Orange County citizens. A county income tax rate of only 2% of the federal tax would bring in $110 million per year. A tax rate of 4% of the federal tax would enable the county to provide a decent level of public services--something a wealthy county should insist on. Of course, such a county income tax would have a limited term so that it would have little lasting impact on the Orange County economy.

ALEXANDER M. MOOD

Irvine