Dear Editor,  Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro, wants to tax second homes at a higher rate to pay for education.  First of all, nonhomesteads already pay a higher education rate. I’m a retired Vermont homeowner who pays ridiculously high property taxes on my home and camp.  READ MORE Rather than spend money on an RV, cruise or elaborate trip, we decided to buy a small camp as our way to recreate and vacation.  Why should camp owners be singled out every year to make up the ever-increasing burden of education costs, while others who enjoy different leisure activities are untouched?  Taxes have risen at unprecedented levels, and increasing them even more on our so-called second home—which we can only use about three months a year—may force us to sell and move out of state. I think people believe second-home taxation is going after wealthy out-of-state families, but many camps are owned by Vermonters. Camps are nonhomesteads and thus treated like second homes and pay higher rates already. When considering the bill for education, legislators should first look at reducing expenses. These expenses have risen dramatically while the number of students has decreased significantly.  Expenses need to decrease, not rise. We also need to transition from using property taxes to pay for education toward income-based sources. Property taxes should only fund one’s city or town services, not education. If you want to know why retirees are moving out of Vermont, in my mind, a major factor is taxes. There needs to be a philosophical shift to deal with the costs of education, not the same old approach, which is not solving the problem.  We need innovation to solve the education crisis, and taxing second homes is not the answer; it’s a bad idea. Dan Petherbridge, Essex, Vt. Read the story on VTDigger here: Dan Petherbridge: Stop treating camps like a cash cow. ...read more read less