Car Tax
I've heard from several knowledgable sources (with opposing views) and I'm still trying to get my hands around this, but in the meantime... does anyone have any opinions on this proposal? So far I've heard from a few people in town, basically opposed to its elimination. I haven't done much research on this yet (and intend to do so), but thought that these links may prove useful in understanding how this proposal could (in its current form) impact Cheshire: http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=3884
http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2005-2006/022306-legupdate.html
8 comments:
When we moved here nearly five years ago, we were dismayed to receive from the Town of Cheshire a letter saying that we owed several hundred dollars in taxes on our cars. It was a true WTF moment. Grudgingly we paid and now think of the car tax as one of the indiosyncracies of Connecticut, like calling shopping carts carriages. So when the governor announced her intention to eliminate the car tax, I was initially supportive. However, I now think her proposal is a poor idea.
Cheshire should be wary about promises that the state will compensate for the loss in revenue. Many people have pointed out that the state will likely not cover the full cost of eliminating the car tax, but my concern is what happens when the state runs short on funds. As an example, let me tell you a story about the state where I use to live, California.
In California, car owners pay a vehicle license fee (VLF) to the state that is based on the value of the car. By law, all proceeds from the VLF go to local goverments. So the fee is similar to the car tax in CT, but the money first passes through the state. In the late 1990s, when California was brimming with tax revenue, lawmakers, as way to cut taxes, decided to reduce the VLF and compensate local governments for the loss of money with revenue from the state general fund. The VLF was eventually reduced by 75% and everyone was happy. Then the dot-com bubble burst, tax revenues fell and the state lacked the money to compensate local governments. A provisional in the law that reduced the VLF said if the state ever lacked the money to pay local governments, the VLF could be raised to cover the shortfall. Unfortunately, it was unclear whether the VLF could be raised simply by administrative action or whether it required an act from the legislature. Finally, the governor by fiat raised the VLF to its orginal, pre-reduction level. His name was Grey Davis. He was promptly recalled and replaced with an Austrian body builder, one of the indiosyncracies of California. In one of his first acts as governor, Arnold restored the reduction of the VLF and cut revenue to local governments. The loss of revenue not only hurt schools, parks and libraries, but there were also reductions in police and fire departments.
I think the lesson of California is that as Cheshire becomes more beholded to the state for its revenue, Cheshire subjects itself to the fortunes and whims of the state. Although the state is running a surplus now and can afford to be generous, the day will come when money is scarce and local governments will likely receive lower payments from the state. Without the means to tax cars, the value of which more accurately represent one's ability to pay taxes, local governments will have no choice but to raise taxes on homes.
Wow. Interesting story. I had never heard the recall of Davis and election of “The Governator” framed in those terms.
I'll be short and sweet.
My wife and I own older cars. Our taxes will go up because we will lose the income tax credit.
Punishing the frugal seems like an odd way to "cut" taxes
Here is the problem I have with the vehicle property tax. SImply put, its double taxation. When youy purchase a vehicle in the state of CT you pay a sales tax, Each year you own or lease that vehicle you continually pay property tax. Its redundant in my mind.
Further, we are being taxed to death in this state, the sales tax, income tax, property taxes, and we recieve very little in return. Go to other states and see what they get back for their tax dollars. Goodness, in Cheshire we now have bulky waste pickup one every other year.Quite franjly, they do a loisy job plowing roads in the town, the pool is a disaster, our parks are second rate, our elementary schools are old with aging heating and cooling systems, dare I go on.
Fact is, of the towns I have lived in trhoughtout my life, the return on our tax dollar isnt very good in this town.
Personally, eliminating the car tax will benefit me. Since I do not qualify for the state income tax credit, I lose nothing there. But I will pick up a substantial gain with the elimination of the car tax. Truth is, this proposal primarily benefits the upper income brackets, while it punishes the lower income brackets. As importantly, ask yourself where the state is going to get the money to fund this program, year in and year out? The elimination of the income tax credit will only partially pay for this program. What will happen when the state uses up it's "surplus"? Ultimately, if enacted, this will increase Cheshire's dependency on state funding. And we all know how reliable that is.
The Tax "cut" is only a political ploy for the gov. because it is an election. If the state cuts taxes then the town's have to make it up somewhere. If you don't pay taxes to the town of Cheshire for your vehicle then the town loses money. If the town loses money, then the mill rate increases, which ultimately increases your property taxes. Simple as that.
Gov. Rell proposed this so when elections are in full swing she can say, well, I proposed a tax cut and look like a person "for the people". It's smoke in mirrors.
I agree with just about everything here. The state will never continue to fund the lost revenue at 100%. More local control over our tax dollars as opposed to more state control is desirable. The state should take whatever money it has (including money earmarked for turf fields) and use it to pay down the debt. And while I think the teachers' pension fund needs to be amended, until it is, the state should add to that fund. It is like the ridiculous year that the state spent $1 million to send everyone a $75 refund. Just put it back in and pay down the debt.
..just like the state promised local towns near the casinos that they would benefit from the slot revenues....they do, but they dont get what they should as the state slowly is spreading more of this money around and frankly stiffing the local towns being directly impacted by the casinos...you cant count on the state to make up any short comings
Post a Comment