Dear Editor,
Tom Pelham cites my commentary, but then doesn’t really address it.
His main thrust concerns potential savings in Vermont’s public education system. This issue has been discussed and debated for as long as I can remember, but despite Pelham’s remarks, I still see no realistic possibility that any politically achievable savings would change the need for the kind of tax reform I’ve proposed. I’m more than willing to be proven wrong, but that was not and is not the thrust of my commentary.
Pelham also cites the blue ribbon commission’s conclusion that “high income is often a one-time event.” I am familiar with the report, but I do not see how it impacts my suggestion in any way, especially given that Pelham and the commission appear to agree that this minimizes even further the realistic threat of high-income individuals fleeing the state if they are taxed too much.
So my proposal remains, which is simply to charge Vermont’s highest earners more — either as a surcharge or a permanent new income tax bracket. For those individuals who enter the top bracket for only one year, they’ll pay the extra tax once. They’ll then revert to the brackets of those for whom I’ve proposed actual tax reductions. For those lucky enough to remain in the top bracket for longer, they’ll continue to pay as long as, but only as long as, they remain in the appropriate bracket.
And for everyone else, a hopefully permanent tax break.
I continue to stand behind my proposal.
John Greenberg
Marlboro
Read the story on VTDigger here: John Greenberg: Tom Pelham cites but does not address my tax proposal.