Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintMr. Dixon, are you downsizing any time soon?
I found the June 3 Forum piece by Mark E. Dixon regarding seniors who wish to keep real estate to be the most repulsive commentary I have ever read ("In Praise of Property Taxes: Why Should Pennsylvania Subsidize Seniors to Stay in Their Family Homes When They Ought to Downsize?").
In case he isn't aware, my calculations estimate that with parents at the age of 84, he might be legally considered a "senior." Maybe he should give up his home so that a senior can purchase his residence and find pleasure in reading a book, listening to music, writing letters to friends ... or talking to his or her children with a rotary phone.
Mr. Dixon, I am a seniors' advocate and my career has been in the real estate industry. Most recently I encouraged my 80-year-old mother to purchase a home, and I advocated her getting a small mortgage so that her remaining money could be invested. Yes, she received a "30-year loan." In my career I have promoted that everyone has the right to have their dream home ... whether they are 40, 50, 80 or older.
Shame on you, Mr. Dixon; most seniors have paid school taxes for more than 30 years. Why should they have to worry about paying for the new football field, a new school when the old one is less than 20 years old or the education of children who don't even know the benefits of their grandparents' history?
DIANE DiDONATO-BLANARIK
Moon
Insult to seniors
In regard to Mark E. Dixon's June 3 Forum piece ("In Praise of Property Taxes"): Mr. Dixon, the only downsizing I would recommend to you is for you to downsize your seeming antagonism toward the elderly. A majority of today's seniors worked for one company their whole lives and lived in the same house since the day they married. How cruel and insensitive you are.
As the boomers age, their children must, and should, do everything possible to ensure that their parents are afforded the peace of mind that they can stay in their home for as long as possible. I am a baby boomer, widowed and retired and live in a modest three-bedroom ranch.
Believe me, I have no interest in any type of subsidized perks. I priced smaller two-bedroom condos; there is no way I can afford to pay $275,000; my home is assessed at $107,000. I have no problem paying my school and local taxes to live in my home. Yes, I do need help, and I am fortunate to have a son who devotes a lot of time and energy helping me maintain my home and, more important, my independence.
Perhaps you could consider making time to help out your father a little more or give him the gift of a grass cutter for the seasons. Many baby boomers spend countless hours assisting their parents. The tone of your message was condescending to seniors.
We ask nothing from Gov. Ed Rendell. Other countries honor the elderly; you show nothing but disrespect. Send me your parents' address, and I will stop over and give them a helping hand.
MAUREEN R. MARINELLI
Baldwin Borough
A taxing problem
Mark E. Dixon's family troubles aside ("In Praise of Property Taxes"), the idea of property tax reform has been very much on the minds of many Pennsylvanians of late. How do we go about funding the education of our children? A few thoughts:
1) Property taxes will always be subjective. Desirability of neighborhoods fluctuate, markets rise and fall. Land, however, is unchanging and should be the only criteria for basing property taxes. The more of the earth you occupy, the more you pay.
2) The remainder of the tax dollars for schools should come from a statewide tax, equally funded from income and sales taxes. The money can be distributed equally based on student population. No child should have to receive an inferior education simply because he or she lives in an area that is economically disadvantaged.
As for Mr. Dixon's parents, they should be able to choose where and how they live. There are social services available to help seniors stay in their own homes. And perhaps Mr. Dixon will remember that, like his parents, he too will be old one day.
SHARON DOWNEY
Ross
Carson's legacy
The May 27 Next Page ("Rachel Carson, 100 Years Young"), praising Rachael Carson for her pioneering role in the environmental movement of the 20th century, ignores the journalistic adage that there's always more than one side to every story.
In the early 1960s, Carson demonized the use of the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), which led to a widespread ban on its use by the U.S. government. Though she did not advocate a total ban on its use, her alarming writings precipitated it.
But there was an irrefutable downside and incalculable human cost attached to the ban.
Untold tens of thousands of people have died of malaria and other infections contracted from legions of disease-carrying mosquitoes, which the judicious use of DDT could have eradicated.
JOE LaROCCA
North East, Pa.
Up to individuals
As a nonsmoker, I shouldn't care whether local government institutes a smoking ban or not; however, as a staunch supporter of individual rights, I do.
The Post-Gazette recently said, "Harrisburg can't see which way the tide of public opinion is running" in regard to the smoking ban ("Pass the Ban," June 5 editorial). However, the hounding mob has no business trampling the rights of the individual, regardless of how big the majority is.
It's up to business owners to decide whether to allow smoking, and it's up to the individual patrons to decide whether to frequent a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, period.
I find the notion that catching a whiff of secondhand walking to a table in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant being a serious risk to my health as comical. If I did, however, it's up to me to stay away from that restaurant, just as it's up to an employee there to find employment elsewhere if his or her evaluation of the risk of secondhand smoke is the same. Also, if I had a nickel for every time I went to an establishment in Pittsburgh and saw the bartenders smoking or waitresses huddled around a waitress station on a break smoking, I'd be a millionaire.
To nonsmokers who are raising such a fuss with pronouncements about boycotting establishments with smoking: Let's see if you're truly disciplined in petitioning them, instead of having government forcibly imposing your will on business owners and smokers, which it has no right to do.
BART DONNELLY
Mount Washington
Dropping out isn't the way to go
Bill Gifford advocates a dangerous position in his May 27 Forum commentary ("The First College Dropout"). He trivializes a vital stage of education, drawing attention to a select few examples of successful college dropouts and exhorting students to "get out, hopefully with that one killer idea." Unfortunately, Mr. Gifford's argument does not agree with the published data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the median weekly income of bachelor degree holders ages 25 to 60 is more than $300 greater than those with simply a high school diploma.
The contention that a college education isn't worth the price tag just is not true. Mr. Gifford states that the "list of great American dropouts is long and super-rich." Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the examples that Mr. Gifford supplies are minuscule in number compared to the quantity of college dropouts: Of a pool of more than 3 million college dropouts (that increases by 600,000 each year), he cites 15 people.
Questioning the completion of college undervalues both the collective and individual economic benefits of college education. The myriad advantages of a college-educated populace profit everyone, including a more productive work force and the stronger families correlated with degree holders. Finally, Mr. Gifford places no value on education itself. His analysis denigrates the rich world opened by higher education.
As Americans in the modern era, we should be promoting and embracing the cultural education and perspectives available in college, not advocating the so-called "benefits" of dropping out.
J. RANDALL McAULEY
Swarthmore, Pa.
Sheer folly
Does Bill Gifford ("The First College Dropout," May 27) suggest that only dropouts can become successful? Or is it possible that only geniuses can afford to drop out? And are not most of us better off to graduate? Is it not irresponsible to encourage students to quit at a time when most jobs demand a degree? And what is the ratio of successful graduates vs. genius dropouts?
RUDOLPH FELLNER
Squirrel Hill
