Ideal community
As I've said before, guest posts are not only welcome... they are appreciated. Here's the latest guest post... this one is from Diane Visconti:
In an ideal community no one would complain about taxes because everyone would value gov’t services and believe their tax burden was fair. The accepted view would be that everything works out in the end; some families pay more now but may very well need for more services later. There would be comfort in knowing that no one would be hungry or cold or suffer from lack of medicine.
There is no such thing as an ideal community but it is worth while to aim for one. We’ve heard objections from some seniors that the taxes are too high and that they want their taxes frozen without a need to pay back. We also have a request for an increase in eligible tax brackets. The arguments for these, while compelling on personal levels, I don’t think, rise to the level needed to have others pay more in their taxes. In an ideal world seniors could be given the recognition and reward they deserve by freezing taxes. But in our real world to do this would take money from young families who are saving for their retirement as well as college and health care and energy costs. In Cheshire we have less numbers of seniors applying for energy assistance than we do families applying. In Cheshire we have full time employees in almost every town department making less than the proposed new bracket.
Cheshire already strives to take care of those who most need help…we have one of the most generous senior tax breaks in the State.
I know that the proposed freeze with no lien and higher income bracket won’t cost much now and we also currently have a hefty surplus. But what about in 5 or 10 years? I believe setting precedents now will hurt taxpayers later.
And I want to take this opportunity to urge people in my generation to do a better job in convincing their parents NOT to worry about leaving us as much as you can. I’m certain I speak on behalf of my generation in saying we want you to live as comfortably as possible now… if that means deferring taxes for us to pay later…well that is ok!
Diane Visconti
Town Council, 3rd District
29 comments:
very well said
Ms. Visconti says she doesn't think it's fair to have taxpayers (especially young couples) pay an increase in their taxes to cover the additional credits/freeze given to the seniors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this latest change to the ETR program amounts to an additional $80,000 cost to the town. Isn't that really only about equal to, as the dems like to say, one medium cup of coffee per day? Maybe not even.
How is it that she thinks it's ok to spend near to a million a year on the pool, hand over $275,000 to the BoE for smart boards, spend money on consultants, yet she doesn't want to give the seniors a little bit more of a break. It's only a one year tax freeze, correct? She voted to eliminate a second bulky trash pick up which I believe amounted to more than $80,000 in savings to the town. And I don't understand how she can say that those who pay more now, may be in need of more services later. That makes no sense.
She worries what may happen in 5 to 10 years by setting a precedent. She thinks the northend development is a great idea and some say it will bring 1 to 1 1/2 million in add'l tax revenue, so if that's true, what is she worried about?
I agree with Ms. Visconti. I understand that there are senbiors who feel the ever increasing burden of rising taxes, but those of us with young families do as well. To say that becuase they have "paid their dues" and paid for their kids to go through the shcools already and deserve a break, is to ignore the fact that seniors before them endured the same burdern.
It is wrong to offer tax breaks to one group at the expense of another facing similar circumstances. If I were on the counci I would vote against a tax freeze. What is needed in this state is a progressive tax policy, which removes the burden from homeowners. Shifting the tax burden from the collective groups to middle and lower income families in town will do nothing to provide long term tax relief to all.
Ms. Visconti said that the $80,000 cost to the town would hurt young families saving for their retirement. Per family cost for this additional money is not even $10 per year. This is really going to make a big difference in someones retirement account. Ms. Visconti should think about what she's saying before she says it.
There may very well be some young families struggling, but I wonder if any of these families that Diane refers to are truly struggling, or are they not just living within their means.
I lived in this town all my life, raised my kids, but always made sure I lived within a budget. We didn't go on expensive vacations, didn't buy fancy expensive clothes, didn't go out to eat a lot, didn't get manicures, didn't belong to pool clubs, etc, etc. We bought things only when we saved up the money. Too many young people want it all and they want it now.
50 yr resident, not a senior yet, hope I'll get a decent elderly tax credit if I need it.
Anon 11:21...
My family lives within its means, we do not take vacations, we do not spend recklessly. Neither do the families we associate with. Fact is middle income families are barely getting by today. The cost of living is killing us. My father now 72, commented the other day that raising a family today is much more of a financial burden than the one his generation faced.
Please dont try and tell those of us who are struggling that ours is not real and we are somehow financially irresponsible. We are not. Fact is, all middle and lower income residents in this state need tax relief, but it is unfair to provde one to only one segment of the population at the expense of others.
10:58 So are you saying we should totally eliminate any credit for the elderly?
The first issue with Diane's comments is she thinks because we give a break to the Sebiors, the othes have to pay for it. The approach should be that when we give one group a break the costs or lost revenue needs to be made up from reducing spending. Stoppoing Public Work overtime on Saturday mornings will cover the cost of the senior tax break. The idea is to drive to a zero sum budget. If you want an increse in something, find something to help pay for.
In simple terms, the tax revenue from the proposed North End will not be sufficient to cover the annual operating and maintenance costs of the North End. So the Town will see additional costs to all taxpayers, is this fair?
George - Dd you have firm numbers that will prove that the North End development will be a net tax loss to the town? And if so what is the source?
Do we have firm numbers showing that the northend development would bring one to one and a half million in tax revenue to the town?
Ms. Visconti as a member of the town council should realize we give tax breaks for many reasons. Farmers, new businesses moving into Cheshire, people buying environmentally friendly cars all get tax breaks and everyone shares the cost. These are given because they are a benefit to the town or to everyone as a whole. Giving seniors a tax break is a benefit to the town. Seniors pay taxes but require very little in services. Most low income seniors live in small starter homes, these are the homes most affordable to young families. When they leave and a family moves in it costs the town additional money to educate the children that will occupy these homes($10,000 per child). For this reason keeping seniors in their homes is a tax savings to the town.
As a taxpayer I share the cost of educating all the children in Cheshire. If I felt as Ms. Visconti does about the seniors then I should be telling all the parents in Cheshire that it's unfair and I should not have to share that expense. People in town share the cost of everything whether it be pool, library, police, fire.
Let's help all the residents of Cheshire, including young families, by keeping spending within reason.
Our seniors have and continue to do a great deal for our town. As a taxpayer (non-senior) I support all the programs that benefit Cheshire including Senior Tax Relief.
Diane is right, no has the guts to say it except her. Oh yes, David Schrumm has been heard saying it. But with all his great leadership skills he would never say it in public. Give her credit she more of a man than David.
If she's more of a man than David Schrumm, then she has more problems than we thought!
schrumm isn't a CAVE man.
he’s a GIRLIE man.
You cant give the seniors tax breaks simply because as many of them say, they no longer have kids in school and should not support the education budget. They too had kids in school once and seniors before them suppported the schools with tax breaks.
The tax problem cant be solved locally. If you want to complain, then blame the previous democratic President, Bill Clinton, who authorized taxing social security benefits. Fact is social secruity payments should not be taxable. Its double taxaxation. The american people need to scream at the top of their lungs about this nonsense. If we stop taxing social security benefist it will have a much greater impact on seniors than a local property tax freeze or credit will.
Great idea and you are right property tax changes have to come at the state level. All a community can do is change who pays and how much. Not a good system.
Tim white listens, but does he hear us?
I have never heard any seniors say they do not want to help pay for education. The problem is the education system has become so costly they can no longer afford the tax increases demanded of them. Seniors pay taxes now and will continue to do so in the future. Their tax dollars go to the BOE just like everyone else. All their asking for is consideration of the fact that they must live on fixed incomes.
What do we do for a family of four with two incomes when they lose one of the incomes? If both are earning $40,000 and they can live on $80,000 but now must live on $40,000 what? Should there be relief or should they leave town? What is the difference with the seniors?
When the income of a young family is cut in half, due to the lose of a job, it usually is a temporary situation. Seniors do not have the capability of changing their income levels, many live entirely on their life savings and social security.
3:36 Let's get real. Seniors simply do not have the employment opportunities that you and I have. If I lose my job, I cut expenses to the bone, work where and whenever I have to, while I search for another. Seniors don't have those options.
3:36 5:09 and 8:06 are right - seniors don't have the same options as younger wage earners. If a young couple combined make $80,000 and one loses their job, hopefully they were wise enough to save some of that $80,000 for exactly that reason - possible job loss. They have the ability to search out new jobs - seniors do not have that ability. They live on fixed incomes with increasing expenses. Not a fair comparison.
There's a rumour going around town about a company that wants to open a manufacturing plant in the north end. I'm not sure what they make, but they've promised to bring relief to all seniors who cannot afford their property taxes. I think the company is called Soylent Green, Inc.
Maybe not fair but life is not always fair, a real life comparison. Sorry if you don't like the facts.
Anon 1:26
The developer has stated he expects the tax revenue to be 1 to 1.5 mil per year. A requirement of the due diligence for this project is a net fiscal economic study to be done by the developer. This study will provide the Town with the developers position on whether or not the development will be either fiscally positive or negative. The Town should do its' own study to validate the numbers. The question is: will the tax revenue from the development 1- 1.5 mil be sufficient to pay for the annual operating costs of Town services for the development? The most likely case is no. The cost of the Town to provide additional new services for that development are likely to be more than the 1 -1.5 mil tax received. If it costs more than we get why would do it? The arguement that the development will reduce our taxes is not valid. If it is net cash positive then we should build it.
9:54PM - For those of us who have seen the movie Soylent Green. I have only one thing to say - you are one sick individual and should be ashamed of yourself. Tim please remove 9:54PM as soon as you can. Thanks
Tim,
Please remove 12:32 PM, as they clearly have no sense of humor and worse, completely misunderstand the significance of my oeuvre.
George - What facts do you have that this project will cost the town more that $1 million a year? What are you adding to come up with such a high number? Canton says that their project is a net gain in revenue.
The per family cost of increasing the ETR program is only $10/yr. Shame on Ms Visconti for not voting in favor of it.
Post a Comment