Ben Barnes, Governor Dannel Malloy’s state budget director, shares some insight into how the governor’s proposal to eliminate taxes on vehicles would impact taxpayers and municipalities trying to make up the revenue loss. He wrote to OIB on Sunday “on the subject of cars taxes, I did a little homework” following a chorus of concern from residents and city officials about this provision in Malloy’s budget proposal now before the state legislature. He writes on the whole most residents would benefit, but nods seniors and businesses would receive the brunt, adding steps could be made to protect seniors.
The data I used came from two sources. First, the CT OPM website (www.ct.gov/opm) that has a spreadsheet of all the components of each town’s grand list. The data is a couple of years old, but these things change slowly, and I can’t get into the office to track down more current information because they haven’t plowed my street. The second is the Vision Appraisal website that shows current assessments on all Bridgeport real estate.
Motor vehicles make up $375 million out of Bridgeport’s $7.2 billion grand list. Today, the mil rate is 41.11. If I remove 95% of the motor vehicle assessments (because some cars and trucks are worth more than $28,500), and recalculate the mil rate to generate the same amount of money, the mil rate goes to 43.25, an increase of 5.2%.
Next, I looked up the assessments on three houses. First, on Hallock Street in the North End. At $136,300, the tax is $5,603. With the mil rate at 43.25, the tax will be $292 higher. If I calculate correctly, if the owner of that house also owns a car (or more than one) worth more than $10,150 (market value) then she will come out ahead.
The next house I looked up is in Black Rock on Lake Ave, assessed at $248,700 and taxed at $10,224. The owner will see a tax increase of $532, still well below the single car exemption of $822.
Third, I looked up a very fancy home on Brooklawn. Assessment: $386,500; tax: $15899; potential increase: $827. Even that taxpayer, if she owns more than one car, or has a new car, would break about even or come out ahead.
I appreciate a homeowner on a fixed income and no car would struggle a little more under this change. I also understand the businesses and non-resident property owners who would make up the taxes are stressed already. In balance, I think this change will help places like Bridgeport, and most of its residents. Maybe we need to consider other steps to protect seniors, for instance. In any event, that’s why we have a legislative session every year–to debate policies and proposals, and sometimes to improve them and pass them into law. This proposal deserves such debate.
On another note, the Governor’s combination of PILOT into ECS does NOT trigger increases in education spending because the Minimum Budget Requirement language in the proposal exempts that funding. Nothing in the governor’s budget does anything new with respect to making Bridgeport spend money on education. It’s the same formula as last year in that respect.
You know what they say, “figures never lie but liars figure.” I honestly don’t know what’s worse, a cynical public official who puts out this nonsense or a foolish one who actually believes it.
This mathematical genius Barnes’s logic for this proposal is utterly ridiculous. There is no long-term benefit to homeowners and businesses who will suffer immensely. The only persons who will benefit from this is a renter with a car, who will obviously get a free pass from paying any type of property tax! Then he has the audacity to state “he appreciates that a homeowner on a fixed income will suffer a bit” from this. What about, for example, a senior citizen who owns a home but no longer drives? Let’s say that person with the $136,000 home will get a permanent tax increase, yet the car valued at $10,500 this year will be untaxed. That car won’t be valued at that dollar amount forever, so three years from now that same car will be valued at $6000 and the tax on it would have gone down due to depreciation, yet the tax on the home remains the same. It’s unlikely the home will depreciate, so over a period of a few short years that same homeowner will still be carrying the burden of the tax increase. Anyone with any common sense can see that again, it’s the businesses and the homeowners who will suffer indefinitely.
Renters pay property tax–it is priced into monthly rent, unless of course your landlord is operating a charity.
Mark my words.
Malloy will be challenged severely for this car tax canard. He may even lose the forthcoming election; rightfully so.
Shifting the tax burden from one pocket to another is an ignorant attempt at voter mollification.
Those without cars will have to pay the freight as will those with lesser-valued cars while those with resources sufficient to own higher-valued cars will actually see a decrease in their total tax. Someone please tell Malloy he is not a Republican but a very incompetent Democrat and a shithead.
The old adage about robbing Peter to pay Paul certainly applies to this absurd proposal. Barnes’s proposal is completely illogical, not to mention unfair, and I hope this gets squashed. Given the opportunity, I would consider giving Malloy a piece of my mind, and I certainly hope the mayors and first selectmen of every city in CT do likewise.
“Change Will Help Most Residents.”
Ben Barnes sounds like Obama five years ago. Ben Barnes has been wrong about budget numbers for two years in a row and counting. I’m just saying!
Albeit helpful to residents who own no property other than a vehicle, the bottom line is the homeowners and businesses will get a royal screwing.
Residents who rent homes and own cars will see the cost passed on to them in increased rents. This will make Bridgeport an even more desirable place to move.
Yes, that indeed is a fact but not every homeowner has a multi-family house. If Malloy even thinks this is feasible, he’s out of his mind. All it will result in is a mass exodus from CT, although who would even consider buying a home here?
By the way Barnes, good job:
money.msn.com/taxes/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-taxes#scptifs
Note to Malloy: Does this brainstorm of Barnes have your blessing? If so, you can count on being a one-term governor.
Well, if it is only a 5.2% increase that is OK. If Ben’s next raise is 5.2% or less I am guessing he will say ‘That is so little just keep it. I am good with what I make now.’ Or is it ‘only 5.2%’ when it is our money?
It would seem if 20% of the people in CT are not paying their car taxes it would be cheaper for everyone to move that tax to real property. Health insurance seems to work the same way.
*** EXTRA MONEY IN ONE POCKET ONLY TO PULL OUT TWICE AS MUCH MONEY FROM THE OTHER POCKET! *** WHAT SAVINGS? ***