Property tax reform

The state Senate Republicans are calling for a reform of the property tax system with which I agree. They want to hand over control of tax policy to municipalities and end the tax policy monopoly controlled by Hartford. I agree with them and have been calling for this change for a while. (I also believe a Massachusetts-style Prop 2 1/2 could benefit our state.)

However, based on comments from legislative Democrats (see the MRJ, NHR & WRA), I'm convinced that nothing will happen with this. And my experience with this topic is deeper than today's news articles.

In December 2005, I attended a meeting of the Legislature's Program Review & Investigation Committee. At that meeting I both listened and testified. It was at that meeting where I was given the documents that, to varying extents, "proved" this sort of reform was wrong. The proof showed that for a town to offer a "municipal" income tax, there would be negative consequences because the state already has an income tax. And the state's theory held that it would be bad to compound the income tax at different levels of government. To this I ask, then isn't it bad for the state to have an income tax on top of the already existing federal income tax? (As usual, I hear crickets.)

Bottom line to me is that taxes should be linked to ability to pay. And untying the hands of municipalities, offering more options in tax policy, would be a good thing. So while I don't care for the income tax, I think there's a strong upside to the proposed reform.

I think a sales tax would be an improvement over the property tax. Why? Unlike the property tax or the income tax, you can very easily avoid the sales tax.

Tim White
Town Council, 4th District

I'd love to do more on this, but really wanted to do a quick post on this before I go to work. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this one... although I am convinced it's going nowhere in Hartford.