This letter is addressed to Contempt of Court regarding the jailing of deadbeat dads that was read in Tuesday's Royal Gazette .

It seems that Contempt of Court is angry because someone she loves is incarcerated for whatever reason. I find it interesting that she took notice of the dejected looks on these men's faces on her weekly visits. But she doesn't seem as concerned about the dejection, rejection and lack of affection that most of their children feel having fathers that are not a part of their lives financially or emotionally.

Yes, it is costly to maintain someone in prison, but hopefully prison will be a deterrent and others will learn by example. I'm sure that those men that she described in her letter are real, but, for every man that she described there are at least five others who are non-paying fathers that have the best clothes, best cars, are able to catch that charter flight, hang in the same bars as those mothers that she described, pay for their girlfriend's children, you name it.

I have sat in court and watched men pleading with Mr. Greaves for leniency claiming to be unable to pay what is owed to their children, I repeat ... to their children and then at the mere mention of prison they run to their new car that sits out front or call a friend "with the clues to the treasure hunt'' and the money is quickly produced. What message are these men sending to their children? That they will only pay when they have no other choice. And yes, there are some women who abuse the system, but far more struggle to put their children first and the little $75 that they are hoping for is just a drop in the bucket.

Contempt of Court also states that she would not have felt the way she does had the situation not hit close to home. I can only surmise that what she was really saying was that had not this situation affected her in some way she would not have cared one way or another. That I find sad! She then said that she found it appalling that these men are in prison, well, I find it appalling that they are not paying for children that they helped to create. Garnishing wages is not the answer either as most men leave a job just for that reason. If you can't track them you can't charge, them, right? Maybe the menial pay that they receive from work release while in prison will teach them that they were better off having their wages garnished after all.

Believe me Contempt of Court, Mr. Greaves does not make his decisions hastily.

These men are given ample opportunity to get it right before they spend their first night at Westgate, to me it is just a matter of choice. Maybe people should avoid unprotected sex; after all they do provide free condoms at our Government's clinics. So it's really all about choice.

PAY UP OR STAY UP TOP Warwick Tax system needs reform July 16, 2000 Dear Sir, In light of new geo-political realities imposed by the OECD that compel us to significantly relax or even abolish the 60/40 provisions under Bermuda law, it is incumbent upon our Government to implement a substantial reforming of the current tax structure.

From my vantage point the reasons are obvious. Simply put, in order for Bermudian businesses to be able to prepare themselves for the new competitive environment, they must be given an opportunity to shed themselves of those features of Bermuda's rather unique tax regime that are currently hindering their ability to grow and operate efficiently and profitably.

In addition these measures will in my opinion contribute significantly in reducing the overall tax burden of lower and middle income Bermudians and contribute to the overall reduction in the almost ruinous cost of living.

And this new direction must occur in my opinion over the course of the next three to five years, in tandem with the OECD inspired measures that have been adopted, as mentioned, by our Government.

Here are a few proposals that I have put forth, which were published some weeks ago. Let's start by abolishing the following: Land Tax, Employment Tax and Occupancy Tax (David Allen should love this one). Along with that I would significantly reduce most Customs Duties (tariffs) by 90 to 95 percent across the board and reduce the size of Government (civil service) by seven to ten percent over the next five to seven years.

In return and without having to impose taxes on corporate or business profits I would implement an income tax-based system that would include both divided and rental income for purposes of taxation.

Studies suggest that most Bermudians regardless of income currently pay approximately 18 percent of their income in taxes, per annum. The 18 percent principally represents employment tax along with the "hidden tax'' of Duty.

The proposal that I, along with Sir John Plowman, advocate is one based upon the Jersey model.

Jersey, an offshore centre off the coast of Europe has an income tax system that offers a flat rate of 20 percent but with certain threshold deductions that address, somewhat, the inherent regressive nature of most flat tax proposals. In essence, once the threshold deductions are calculated most people will find that their tax liability will only represent between 9 to 12 percent of their yearly income. Far better than the estimated 18 percent cited above.

For example: For a single person, the first $16,000 is tax-free.

For a married couple, the first 25,000 is tax-free.

For a married couple with a child, the first $32,000 is tax- free.

For a married couple with two children the first $38,000 is tax-free.

A married couple earning $40,000 per annum would actually pay tax on $15,000 after deductions. The typical tax bill for individuals in this bracket with a flat rate of 20 percent would be $3,000 per annum.

Jersey with a population of 60,000 and with a relatively similar per capita income collected $390 million via income tax in fiscal year 1996 with the cost of collection being $2.9 million. A cost of collection figure, low by anyone's standard.

In closing I firmly believe that we must address the glaring iniquities in Bermuda's current tax regime. It is not only absurd but perverse in extremes that a chambermaid at one of our hotels earning $18,000 per annum should proportionately carry a far higher share of the tax burden than individuals such as David Ezekiel and John Deuss. It is no secret that individuals earning more than $250,000 dollars per annum in Bermuda currently pay nothing in income by way of employment tax for example.

To examine more closely my proposals I encourage readers to refer to my columns on the subject published on the 16th and 30th of June 2000.

ROLFE PATTON COMMISSIONG City of Hamilton A sign of things to come? July 13, 2000 Dear Sir, Has anyone noticed the similarity between the new Payroll Tax Return, the US 1040 and the British Inland Revenue Income Tax form? Can Income Tax be that far away....? TAX BRACKET-EER Warwick Outlaw this racket July 18, 2000 Dear Sir, I and my wife, Ellen, have recently moved to Bermuda, permanently (we have been here before), and are enjoying the beauty and peace of the Island. When I say "peace'' I must, however, make one qualification: I refer to the deafening racket made by many of the mopeds and motorcycles.

Most of the drivers of these vehicles are young men who take delight in gunning up their cycles and making as loud a racket as possible. This constitutes a noise nuisance and should be outlawed. All drivers of these vehicles should be required by law to install mufflers, out of consideration for the rest of us.

COMAN LEAVENWORTH Flatts Village