State Senate Leader Proposes Extra Tax On High-End Homes To Finance Poor Cities

News and Events26 Comments

Senate leader Martin Looney says the way to provide tax relief to needy cities is an extra assessment on wealthy homes, a proposal Governor Ned Lamont argues isn’t necessary. Will they find common ground?

From Keith Phaneuf, CT Mirror:

Connecticut’s tax fairness debate took another leap forward recently when the Senate’s highest-ranking Democrat proposed new taxes on high-value homes and on the capital gains of the state’s highest earners.

Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, also said his caucus hopes to channel about $130 million in additional state aid annually into poor cities and working class suburbs.

“Municipal property taxes are as high as they are primarily because the state has not been able to raise enough revenue to provide municipal aid,” Looney added. “We are, after all, one state, and we need to look at [taxes] on a statewide basis, and not a hyper-local basis.”

Looney wants to create a new statewide tax on residential and commercial property. The rate would be one mill–or $1 for every $1,000 of assessed value–with one big qualifier.

The first $300,000 of assessed value would be exempt. And because Connecticut assesses property at 70% of its market value, the proposed levy would target houses, commercial buildings and lots marketable at about $430,000 or more.

Full story here.

0
Share

26 comments

  3. We already have a statewide income tax — we don’t need a statewide property to go with it.
    I just closed the books on my side hustle for last year, http://www.LocalEyes.mobi .
    Do you have an active tax ID number with the state?
    What’s next?
    Connecticut has a spending problem. Looney proposes a revenue solution.
    Axe the tax to prevent depopulation!
    I don’t like Looney’s tune.

    4+

  6. Looney is an idiot who has spent far too long in office.
    $430,00 is just a mid range home in many Connecticut towns, not “High End.”

    I have no problem with taxes on capital gains, money made without labor. But to tax the value of a home, that is subject not inly to the whims of the market, BUT inflation (something we haven’t seen in recent years) is ludicrous.
    Prices went sky high in 1979, then interest rates hit 19 and 20% and values nose dived because no one could afford a mortgage to purchase a home. But property tax bills don’t get adjusted every year, only after revaluation every 5 years (10 back then). New developments went bust all over CT. It took more than a decade to recover.

    3+

  7. ……… and to think Connecticut used to be at the top of the list of states to live and work etc.! That was before the state had an income tax! Think about all the extra money that Connecticut has collected over the past decades. Where did all that money go? Were needy cities improved? Did the lives of the “underserved” get better? Where’s the “new” proposed tax money going to go? It’s difficult to not be sarcastic and facetious when speaking about monies that cities and states need when they’ve been taxing the crap out if it’s residents without anything to show for it.
    Good luck!!!!
    Cheers!!!

    6+

  8. So Cities in CT needs all the small towns to raise taxes because New Haven,Bridgeport and Hartford won’t live within there budgets. Blue state mayors need bailouts again.

    3+

    1. Barry,
      Did you hear Ken Flatto admit that he was unable to live within his budget? Or the leaders of other cities? Where did you find that fact? Not in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) , otherwise known as the “audit”.
      Perhaps you are talking about departments within the City who exceeded their planned and approved department budget last year. In that case you can refer to page 35 of the CAFR where 12 department/categories are listed as spending more than appropriated in the year. That includes COVID-19 where $1,154,645 is reported as spent without any offsetting revenue.
      Among departments the greatest excess is with the City Attorney office where $5,295,246 was appropriated, they are charged with spending $6,245,723. more that $950,000 in excess. Has City Attorney Meyer talked to this point? What caused the overspending actually? Unpredictable court decisions? Too generous settlements? Too many settlements as a poor manager of City employee administration issues? Answering requests for info in cases of former CHief Perez and Acting Director Dunn?
      Do we need more OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE, TRANSPARENT, and HONEST reporting of our City fiscal story? Time will tell.

      3+

      1. I’m an investigative blogger. Bridgeport has legacy bankruptcy costs that are never explained or discussed here. They’re in the budget. Taxes are high. That’s one reason brands consider Bridgeport a high-cost market. The Taco Bell one dollar menu costs $1.39 in Bridgeport.

        1+

  9. Without the services and infrastructure of the cities, the small towns would be barely-livable (by modern standards) “hick”-holes…

    The desirable lifestyles of the small towns/burbs wouldn’t be possible without the availability of their central, “host” cities… Without the cities serving as a source of services and a location in which to “hide” the obtrusive, obnoxious, property-devaluing infrastructure necessary to the modern suburban/small-town lifestyle, the affluent suburbs/small towns wouldn’t exist, as such. Suburban/small-town property values derive, n no small way, from their proximity to city resources. Period.

    The burbs/small towns owe the cities, big-time, in many, very real way$…

    Now, with large numbers of wealthy New Yorkers seeking refuge in Connecticut and causing excessive Connecticut housing inflation, it only makes sense for the state to gird the health of its necessary urban centers through the proposed Looney, value-added tax…

    Actually, in the context of the urban-suburban/small-town relationship presented above, it is only sensible and just for the cities to be apportioned a percentage of all property taxes collected by the suburbs/small towns of their catchment areas (say 40%, or so…).

    3+

  10. All highly taxed areas eventually need more money. Maybe they should have a “five-year plan”, (like the Soviets had), for future taxes so that they can continue to squander the monies that they receive without worrying about running out of cash. It worked out well for the Russians didn’t it?!!
    Cheers!!!

    1+

    1. Joel,
      According to our list of Boards and Commissions, there is (was) a Fair Rent Commission but it was not Martin Looney who last sang at one of their meetings. Why not ask what happened in Bridgeport to repair the misfunction in the Ganim2 years? Focus your energies, as we know you can, on the City response to housing issues for those who rent as a New Year action? Time will tell.

      0

  12. Joel,
    According to our list of Boards and Commissions, there is (was) a Fair Rent Commission but it was not Martin Looney who last sang at one of their meetings. Why not ask what happened in Bridgeport to repair the misfunction in the Ganim2 years? Focus your energies, as we know you can, on the City response to housing issues for those who rent as a New Year action? Time will tell.

    0

Leave a Reply