Comment on real property tax rates
I am commenting on the piece in the Jan. 12 edition of The Daily Star on real property tax rates. On an elementary level, the equalization rate is the state's determination of the overall level of assessment for all property types in the town.
In the town of Burlington last year, a home valued at $100,000, given that the rate was .56, had an assessed value of $56,000. If the rate is now .50, it indicates that the state has determined that the market value of the property has increased to $112,000, while the assessed value remained unchanged at $56,000.
Equalization rate is full market value divided by assessed value. If the value of the real property in a town, in the judgment of the state, increases proportionately over other towns in the county, the proportion of the tax obligation increases.
Perhaps the real property owners in the towns whose rates have increased can take solace in the fact that their properties, the state believes, have increased in value.
Dennis Kelleher
Mount Vision
Froma Harrop just doesn't understand
Froma Harrop's Jan. 10 column, 'From the Left,' about the new Consumer Federal Protection Bureau is more evidence that the left in this country just doesn't get it.
The new agency, Harrop believes, will prevent the financial services industry from taking advantage of consumers and investors. Of course, the federal government currently has seven different agencies that regulate banks and financial institutions.
Each of the 50 states also has bank and financial regulatory agencies. If the current financial crisis was caused by excesses in the financial service industry, where were all the existing state and federal regulators? Obviously, not regulating effectively.
Let's take a look at one of the biggest of those regulatory agencies, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, charged with protecting public investors against fraud.
You'll recall that protector of the public good is the one that turned a blind eye to Bernie Madoff's fraud to the tune of billions of dollars of investors monies. One might ask what the taxpayer gets from the SEC for its nearly billion-dollar annual funding.
Not a bad question. Since its beginning in 1935 as a protector of public investors, the investment returns of those investors have not improved a whit and the agency has cost taxpayers roughly $152 billion over that ineffective lifetime.
So, congratulations, Ms. Harrop. You got your Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but why, pray tell, do you believe it will work any more than the 100 or more state and federal regulatory agencies supervising financial services currently in existence? Why does the left believe that regulatory failure can be cured by more of the same?
Robert J. Poulson Jr.
Cooperstown
