I disagree with Jon Spinner’s view that the Legislature should have kept the original property tax freeze (“Letter to the editor: Legislators should have kept senior tax program,” July 23, Page D3). Here are some of the reasons it needs to go:
• It came out of committee with an “ought not to pass” recommendation.
• The bill could cost up to $14 million by 2025.
• There is no guarantee that the state will be able to reimburse the costs to the municipalities.
• If municipalities aren’t reimbursed for the total taxes lost, how do they make up the difference: higher taxes, slashed services?
• With no income requirement, the wealthy benefit the most.
• Tax bills, once capped, can’t be adjusted for improvements, additions or totally new buildings.
• Processing an application can take around 10 minutes – a great financial and administrative burden on municipalities.
• Applications are required annually, an administrative burden on both the homeowner and the municipality.
• Software used by municipalities doesn’t allow for this type of manipulation, thereby requiring separate, manual tracking, which is prone to errors.
• If left in place, the burden to younger taxpayers will increase substantially.
I do agree with Jon Spinner that much more thought should have gone into this process. I also feel that what they have passed is a far more equitable, less costly to the municipalities and gives the greatest benefit to those who need it most.
Gail Eaton
Topsham
Send questions/comments to the editors.
