The current times may be presenting unprecedented burdens to taxpayers all over, especially in New York state. The state itself, rocked by a unique loss of revenue from a Wall Street crisis (unique because Wall Street is in New York -- no other state must endure the same loss of income), is facing a deficit of billions of dollars over the next few years. In turn, localities are going to have to live with less state aid.

As a reaction to that and other economic pressures, the Press-Republican suggested in recent editorials that Clinton County was smart to institute a 3-percent bed tax and Essex County would be smart to raise its share of the state sales tax from 33„4 percent to 41„4 percent. The entire sales tax, then, including the state's 4-percent share, would be 81„4 percent. (An inexplicable glitch in our computer system had the tax showing up in Wednesday's editorial as 81.4 percent, which, of course, would send even the most ardent tax advocate into apoplexy.)

Because of our support for the two taxes, some readers wondered whether we'd suddenly adopted an unusually liberal attachment to relieving the hard-pressed of their money. Actually, the truth is just the opposite: We felt that, since these were times of unparalleled urgency for revenue, those two taxes would engage more people, and many from outside our home counties, in contributing to our bill paying. A bed tax assesses mostly outsiders, and a sales tax assesses at least some.

One reader, however, has what he views as a better idea than either of those. His idea, which he broached to the Essex County Board of Supervisors several years ago but was rebuffed, is to institute a room-and-meals tax of 1 percent. That revenue would flow directly into the general fund, from which operational bills are paid. The payers of property taxes would be relieved by whatever that take would be the first year.

The second year, the tax would be increased to 2 percent; the third year, to 3 percent. There it would stay.

The reasoning behind this notion is that the room tax would feed the general fund, which the "bed tax" does not. All bed-tax revenue goes toward promoting tourism.

The meals tax, the architect of the plan argues, would be small enough not to discourage anyone from eating at a local restaurant. Even 3 percent on a $100 bill is only $3.

While the plan has its advantages, one disadvantage it does have is that it is a new tax, which supervisors, legislators and members of the State Assembly and Senate seem to hate.

Nevertheless, the current predicament calls for a thorough discussion of all ideas.