N.J. accidentally reveals personal data of 28K unemployed residents (From NJ.com)
Nearly 30,000 unemployed New Jersey residents now have something else to do besides looking for work: They can worry about who may have their Social Security number.
The State decided to send a letter to everyone even though they believe only a small number may be affected.
"It's important to remember the information was not stolen, simply misdirected," reads the letter. "Nevertheless, you should be aware of the situation and alert for irregularities that may suggest your personal information may have fallen into the wrong hands."
The State sends reports to businesses listing the names of former employees receiving unemployment benefits. Apparently there are so many people laid off in NJ that the reports were longer than usual and employees had to stuff the envelopes by hand rather than letting the machines do it - which leads to human error.
17 comments:
Related privacy story (or technically lack thereof):
My husband got a speeding ticket on Garrison Avenue the other day and within 48 hours we received 12 letters from lawyers soliciting business related to the ticket.
Does the police department sell this data or is it posted in some public place?
insane
Esther,
I applied to become a notary and received advertisements for stamps, seals, etc... a full week before I even got my commission. If there's a way to advertize, they'll find you.
The lawyers pay for online access to the public records such as speeding tickets, etc. My wife had gotten a ticket in Bogota on Thursday morning, and on Friday we already had letters from two lawyers offering their services.
Over 5 percent increase in the municipal tax rate and we haven't even heard from the Board of Ed yet?
Anon 816
What do you want to hear from the BOE? They were told to cut 1 million dollars and they will have to. Who are they supposed to tell? Did you go to a meeting and ask?
I'd like to hear what the BOE tax rate will be compared to last year. A dollar amount for cuts means nothing when comparing the bottom line to last year. The Council put forth a tax rate that is over 5 percent higher than last year's.
The budget, which is right at the state-imposed maximum 4 percent increase in the tax levy, would result in a tax rate of $0.79 per $100 of assessed value, compared with last year’s rate of $0.75.
we have a very nice community with lots of services and TOP emergency responders . I think we get what we pay for.We are the Saks or Bloomingdales of towns. If its is to costily here for you shop(move) to walmart (garfield,etc)
For the life of me, I can not understand how Barbara Toffler voted in support for the BCIA last night after all the criticism and abuse she doled out at Rudy his former employer. PLEASE EXPLAIN
What don't you understand?
There is never much thought behind her actions. It is obvious.
Toffler attacks Gussen and Katz for meeting about the Bogota-Teaneck Police merger. She and all the other Council people had been invited along. She just can't give credit for leadership to the real leaders on the Council, Gussen and Katz.
The budget, which is right at the state-imposed maximum 4 percent increase in the tax levy, would result in a tax rate of $0.79 per $100 of assessed value, compared with last year’s rate of $0.75.This is a quote from an alternate online version of an article that appears in the Local section of today's Record with the title Teaneck introduces budget without layoffs which differs a bit from the printed version.
The problem with either version of the article, which appears in print under the headline "eaneck proposes 4% tax hike" is that the budget is not a 4% tax hike. Whether looking at a tax levy increase of $2,376,000 from last year's $45,471,000 levy or the change in the tax rate from 74.8 cents per $100 in assessed value in 2008 to 78.7 cents in 2009, the increase is 5.2%. If you use the rounded numbers that appear in the article, the increase is even higher.
There is something wrong when not a single member of Council can utter the reality that the budget submitted will hit taxpayers with a 5.2% increase and that we are not even down to the "only" 4% tax increase we were told was on the way.
Alan Sohn
Alan-
If the budget is not capped at the 4% that is mandated per the state of NJ and they try to pass it what will happen?
Also when I do the math 78.7cents-74.8cents is a difference of 3.9 cents (levy per $100 of assessed value). What numbers are you using to get a 5.2% tax increase?
I think Alan's math is:
74.8 + 5.2% = 78.7
This is a division problem, not subtraction. By massive coincidence, the increase is almost 4 cents on the municipal portion of the tax rate, but it is not 4%.
The percentage increase is the increased amount (this year minus last) divided by the base (last year's amount). Whether you use the tax levy increase of $2,376,000 divided by the $45,471,000 levy for 2008 or the 3.9 cent change in the tax rate divided by the 74.8 cents per $100 in assessed value in 2008, the actual tax increase hitting your pocketbook based on the budget submitted last night is 5.2%.
In previous years the increase in the tax levy had been cushioned by increases in ratables. Ratables were almost dead even to slightly lower and tax appeals may mean that we not only have to refund taxes this year, but that we will have an even smaller pie next year over which to spread any future tax increases.
While we can't make up for lost opportunities, the time to make meaningful cuts in spending is now.
Alan Sohn
You should worry about your own bills. Pay your tax bill to teaneck, that would help the town .
Post a Comment