Originally Posted by btvski
This is sorta true...Gold Towns generally have lower tax rates than receiving towns. BUT, folks in Gold Towns end up paying more monitarily because their property values are higher. A house in say, Wallingford, may be worth $200K but if it were up in Killington it may be worth double that. Take Killington for example:
In 2005 Killington residential tax rate was: $1.62/$100. Rutland City, just down the road, was $2.14/$100.
Another example...Stowe was $1.58/$100 while Morristown, next door was $1.80/$100.
Here's the table in case anyone is interested:http://www.vermontproperty.com/newsl...vetaxrates.pdf
Anywho....I was born and raised here and don't even quaff at the taxes. We have a wonderful state and if paying higher taxes will keep it this way, then I'm all for it.
Thanks for the link. Act 60 was a very contensous issue although not quite as polorizing as the the "cival union thing". The signs(Take Back Vermont), although few and far between now, are still around.
Like all mandates Act 60 is not always consistant. The whole goal was to equalize school funding, give every town a level playing field, financwise. BTW my wife is a Rutland City native. I am from the Brattleboro area.
The good part of Act 60 is that the towns can control the school costs therefore have some control over their property taxes. If you spent way above the state average per student cause your town might be more affluent, pre Act 60, life was good. Your school has the best and newest facilities and staff while another town did not. Post Act 60 you can still spend the money but you have to share a big chunk of the extra bounty.
Denyadog's suggestion "Make sure you check out the tax situation carefully when you find a house" is probably the best advice on this matter.