As President of the Pennsylvania Earned Income Tax Officers, Administrators and Collectors Association I would like to respond to the article "State Eyes Wage Tax Changes," Jan. 27.

There are legitimate questions regarding the validity of the $237 million figure being used to support the consolidation legislation. The Pennsylvania Economy League was unaware of several important factors while conducting its study.

When comparing state income figures to local collections it did not know that local districts must allow self employment losses to offset compensation when calculating earned income tax.

The PEL study only included the four counties surrounding Philadelphia when adjusting for the taxpayers working in Philadelphia but residing elsewhere.

All districts within Pennsylvania are required to allow these credits.

Also, adjustments made for net profits that are included when filing with the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue but that are not taxable on the local level were inadequate.

In short, the figures used in the PEL study need further scrutiny.

Existing tax collection bureaus were formed by the voluntary participation of each municipality or school district involved.

SB 1063 is a bill of no return and gives local districts no options other than the countywide bureau.

We believe that taxes would be delayed reaching the proper districts as employers would be given the option of remitting taxes for all employees to one bureau regardless of where the employees might be employed or reside.

Any delay in funds reaching their proper districts will result in a loss of investment revenue for municipalities and school districts.

There is no provision that funding will be available to properly establish effective and efficient county bureaus that will meet the needs of member districts.

Without these funds municipalities and school districts will have to budget for startup costs while at the same time paying to maintain their current collection systems.

We agree with many of the uniformity issues addressed in SB 1063. Our organization has also promoted the provisions contained in the bill for any tax collector who does not collect and distribute tax dollars as mandated by state law. PEITOAC would gladly support any bill that promotes these uniformity issues while at the same time keeps local control over local tax dollars.

MARY ABBOTT
PEITOAC President
Mt. Lebanon Tax Office Manager

Spare us the "retail and residential development" of Mount Washington proposed by your article ("Primed for Development and Already a Popular Destination, Mount Washington Sits at a Crossroads," Jan. 23). Condominiums! Tourists from Station Square!

Station Square's tourists don't want objects ("South Side Shopping Area Rethinks its Image," Nov. 26).

They won't drive to still another restaurant. And widening roads on Mount Washington would bring more traffic problems.

We can't widen the ramp from the Liberty Bridge, and we can't lift cars from the bridge during rush hour.

Let's work with the Mount's assets. On a hot, sunny day, it's good to have tall trees shading the houses.

Successful colonists of the area have proven to be people seeking out a neighborhood, rather than a mall: as with the Mexican community.

Please increase the number of buses and trolleys, and improve the streetlights and stop lights. And for businesses, work with the extant incubators, and expedite local, new entrepreneurs who would take over old business sites.

I'd bet this would cost less than the changes proposed by the article. It would certainly employ more people than bringing in chain stores.

It would bring in new residents interested in the community for itself, rather than a bedroom with a view of Downtown.

ELIZABETH PENROSE
Mount Washington