March 26, 2008

Take a hike on sales tax increase, local officials tell Hartford

Though big city mayors in Connecticut are pushing lawmakers to give them the option of hiking sales taxes to cover rising municipal expenses, the idea doesn’t have much backing in Bristol.
State Sen. Tom Colapietro, a Bristol Democrat, called the idea “ridiculous,” but said he isn’t opposed to letting cities choose whether to add a penny to the sales tax rate.
However, Colapietro said, “I would definitely go to another town” to make purchases if Bristol opted to hike its sales tax rate to 7 percent. “I can't imagine a city wanting to do this,” he added.
Raising the 6 percent sales tax to 7 percent, with the extra money going to municipalities that choose to enact it, would bring in millions for many cities. Bristol would likely rake in more than $1 million in additional revenue annually, officials said.
But Mayor Art Ward said he is opposed to “this type of legislation” because it allows the state “to avoid their responsibility of addressing fiscal responsibility” and adds to the tax burden of hard-pressed city residents.
“If anything, it would create adverse competition amongst cities who choose to employ this method and those communities who opt not to follow this path thereby forcing shoppers to travel to the least expensive community for their goods and services, ultimately, short-changing their cities and towns,” Ward said.
State Rep. Frank Nicastro, a Bristol Democrat who represents the 79th District, said that if the bill comes out of committee, he will not vote for it.
“ People are leaving this great state, and for that matter our fine city, because they have had it up to here with taxes,” said Nicastro, who is also a city councilor and former mayor.
“ It's about time that government starting at the federal level and working its way down through the State to the municipalities did what they should be doing , simply providing tax relief,” Nicastro said.
“There are too many taxes in this state already and even a penny more is wrong,” he said.
City Councilor Craig Minor called the sales tax regressive – which means it hits lower income people harder than richer residents – “so I would be very reluctant to adopt one in Bristol.”
However, Minor said, another option in the bill before the finance committee does interest him: the possibility of enacting a local income tax.
“That would be worth having a community discussion over,” Minor said. “But let's wait and see if this bill even gets out of the finance committee before we get too excited about it.
Four mayors – from Stamford, New Haven, Bridgeport and New London - asked the General Assembly this week to give them the authority to raise local sales taxes in order to close looming budget deficits.
Bristol’s elected leaders said they’re more concerned with preserving the extra conveyance tax revenue, which is set to expire this year, than they are with adding new taxes.
Comptroller Glenn Klocko said that losing $430,000 or more in conveyance taxes when property is sold would be a big hit to the city’s bottom line as it begins a new budget year in July.
Legislators are weighing the impact of the tax and may decide to roll it back to traditional levels for the 18 cities that were given the chance to hike the tax five years ago. Bristol waited a year before adding the conveyance tax increase, but has come to rely on the revenues from it.

Update at 12:30 p.m., Wednesday --

State Rep. Bill Hamzy, a Plymouth Republican whose 78th District includes northwestern Bristol, weighed in with this:
"I'm not sure if these mayors realize this or not, but Connecticut already has the highest tax burden of any state in the country. People who live in our major cities already pay some of the highest property taxes in the country. How on earth could they think this will help those residents? If they put as much effort into focusing their attention on the expense side of their budget as opposed to the tax side, we could get a handle on this problem."

Update at 11:30 p.m, Wednesday --

State Rep. Ron Burns, a Bristol Republican whose 77th District includes northeastern Bristol, sent this along:

"I would not support this bill. As state legislators we should not abdicate the responsibility we have to the taxpayers of Bristol. Rather than allowing the city to add an additional penny to the sales tax to offset their expenditures, we should be taking a hard look at the mandates we, as state legislators, have placed on municipalities and take action to remove those that are unnecessary. We will only be chasing people out of town to purchase their goods. I highly doubt that our Mayor or city councilors and taxpayers would believe that by passing this bill we would be giving them a helping hand."

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do the words "cut spending" mean anything to any politicians? They are very creative on how to generate money. Let’s look at saving it.

Anonymous said...

Does Colapietro understand this? If the state raised the sales tax, how would "going to another town" enable one to avoid the tax increase?

It seems if Cities raise property taxes to cover their budgets (municipal salaries and bennies) that would be the reason to "go to another town".

I, unlike Colapietro am in favor of slowing down the growth of city and state spending.

Anonymous said...

Hold on let me retract that question! It's a city option? How ridiculous.

All the Assemblymen speaking (Colapietro, Nicastro), Coucilman Craig Minor and Mayor Ward are 100% correct. This is a bad idea for any city or town.

Anonymous said...

Oh you the jerk with the retraction are you saying the City should be mandated to tax ? Leave the City no choice in the matter? There go you tax and spend republicans again !!

Anonymous said...

It's such a silly proposal it's hard to imagine why anyone would have suggested it.

Colapietro is right that is would create bad feelings among consumers and would hurt the retail businesses(especially with people who shop from outside of the prospective cities).

Another point is that it would only raise $10 per a $1000 sale. It would be much easier to just raise property taxes. Who would administrate the distribution of the extra revenue?

It's silly. It sounds like this was some half-baked way of making the Democrats sound like they're helping the tax payer. I question the seriousness and the validity of this proposal.

Anonymous said...

March 26, 2008 12:31 PM;

What? You're the jerk. No the city would be foolish to raise the sales tax.

In my opinion the city should be mandated to freeze payrolls to the rate of inflation. That would result in the opposite of taxing and spending like the Democrats.

Anonymous said...

"However, Colapietro said, “I would definitely go to another town” to make purchases if Bristol opted to hike its sales tax rate to 7 percent."
Stop trying to put words in his mouth !

Anonymous said...

Hey ding dong paychecks don't even keep up with inflation . How can you freeze it ? You're just another trouble maker. Don't you folks feel stupid when people find out about your lying to make someone look bad ?

Anonymous said...

These folks are missing the point here. What we should be telling our elected representatives is that they need cut spending! I don't know about you but I feel taxed to death here. Spending is out of control on a city, state and federal level. The economy is in a recession and these folks what to raise more taxes? They have lost touch with reality!

Anonymous said...

I guess we better tell our representatives in hartford we need to cut out bailing businesses out of trouble too. I think it would be nice if the "Cry was to cut spending" And heres where to cut so people can get mad at you for cutting them.

Anonymous said...

Hey ..... We need to get the cashola from somewhere to pay for the free-loading ( municipal workers ) so that they will continue to provide the taxpayers with the magnificent work effort which they are sooooo very famous for .

Anonymous said...

Gee no comments about Hamzys statement ? Here we go again !

Anonymous said...

See what I mean ? No comments from the negative people on Hamzys statement. Now you know who the negatives are.

Anonymous said...

Hey !!!! We need the money so that Mr. Blumenthal can keep fighting all efforts by anyone attempting to improve connecticut .

It has been a constant struggle during the past decades to combat improvements to Connecticut and yet there are still people willing to try , and dick is our front line of defense and he needs that money to prevent lower fuel and electricity rates .

Anonymous said...

I'm more concerned about Mr. Minor's interest in having a conversation about a local income tax. Does that mean he would like to tax the more affluent residents of Bristol to subsidize the less afluent? Wouldn't that result in wealth flight?

Anonymous said...

March 26, 2008 1:34 PM:

Hey stupid: You were getting 3-4% raises when inflation was 1.5%.

Odin said...

"Connecticut already has the highest tax burden of any state in the country."

Rep. Hamzy, could you please cite the source of this statement? I keep hearing it, but other than my neighbor's bumper sticker, I don't know where it comes from. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hamzy's statement was "I'm not sure if these mayors realize this or not, but Connecticut already has the highest tax burden of any state in the country. People who live in our major cities already pay some of the highest property taxes in the country. How on earth could they think this will help those residents? If they put as much effort into focusing their attention on the expense side of their budget as opposed to the tax side, we could get a handle on this problem."

Do anyone really disagree with Hamzy on this statement that we are already taxed to much?

Anonymous said...

Would someone please help Councilman Minor extricate his head from his backside. Once again he opens his mouth and firmly plants his head where the sun doesn't shine.

A local income tax? Craig, who would administrate the tax process? How many people would need to be hired to create Bristol's version of DRS? What would be the rates and the thresholds? Remember the oh so simple 4.5% flat income tax this state adopted because it was going to be so easy to administer. NOT! The cost to operate DRS is one of the biggest sucking sounds on the tax revenues and the process is anything but easy.

I think the better question would be on how we could find a way to conduct a recall vote on Mr. Minor before he wreaks anymore havoc. Now that would be worth a few tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

Awwww how polite you guys are when it comes to a republican. How cute !!!!

Anonymous said...

How about over charged? You business folks don't think so ?

Anonymous said...

If Hamzy is so mad about us overtaxed CT folks, he should try cutting taxes for us average working stiffs instead of cutting taxes for the wealthy. The wealthy don't need any more help.

Odin said...

"Do anyone really disagree with Hamzy on this statement that we are already taxed to much?"

That's not an answer. Mr. Hamzy put forward that oft-quoted Republican mantra, "Connecticut already has the highest tax burden of any state in the country" and I just want to know if it's true or not. I repeat, Mr. Hamzy, please tell us the source of that claim.

Anonymous said...

Gee nobody has anything to say about Hamzy or Burns? The way I read it they all agree with Colapietro's statement. Only he said the same thing but in a lot less words. Funny the only whining and wrong interpretation was with Colapietros. Biased ?????

Anonymous said...

Odin: Hamzy doesn't listen to small time crack dealers like you.

Anonymous said...

"Below are the 10 states in which the state-local tax burden as a percentage of income is greatest"



In its annual report on state and local tax burdens, the Tax Foundation says that “state and local taxes will consume a record-setting 11% of the nation’s income in 2007.” Below are the 10 states in which the state-local tax burden as a percentage of income is greatest. The Tax Foundation compares state and local tax burdens by “combining the different levels of government, counting every tax and comparing those totals” to a measure of income. The entire report is available on the Tax Foundation Website.

1. Vermont—State-Local Tax Burden: 14.1%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $5,387
Per Capita Income: $38,306

2. Maine—State-Local Tax Burden: 14.0%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $5,045
Per Capita Income: $36,117

3. New York—State-Local Tax Burden: 13.8%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $6,522
Per Capita Income: $47,176

4. Rhode Island—State-Local Tax Burden: 12.7%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $5,291
Per Capita Income: $41,809

5. Ohio—State-Local Tax Burden: 12.4%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $4,597
Per Capita Income: $37,020

6. Hawaii—State-Local Tax Burden: 12.4%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $5,014
Per Capita Income: $40,455

7. Wisconsin—State-Local Tax Burden: 12.3%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $4,736
Per Capita Income: $38,639

8. Connecticut—State-Local Tax Burden: 12.2%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $6,756
Per Capita Income: $55,536

9. Nebraska—State-Local Tax Burden: 11.9%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $4,549
Per Capita Income: $38,373

10. New Jersey—State-Local Tax Burden: 11.6%
Per Capita Tax Burden: $5,991
Per Capita Income: $51,605


Now shut the f___ up

Anonymous said...

Minor said, another option in the bill before the finance committee does interest him: the possibility of enacting a local income tax.
“That would be worth having a community discussion over,”


A community discussion that would result in telling you what an idiot you are for even considering such a tax in this economy.

Anonymous said...

Connecticut's tax burden would be a greater percentage if calculated on median income level not per capita.

Per capita is skewed by the higher average income created by the extremely wealth individuals residing in Connecticut. That metric does not reflect the income of the typical Connecticut resident as the higher income brings up the average more than the lower income brings it down.

Example: Only 10 residents incomes 7k, 25k, 35k, 45k, 50k, 50k, 75k, 100k, 1 mil, 150 mil. Average = $15,100,038.70 This amount hardly is representive of the group. However, the median of 50k is a better representation.

Using the median income and comparing it to the tax burden would result in a higher effective tax burden on the typical Connecticut resident.

Anonymous said...

March 27, 2008 4:36 PM:

I posted the stats from the Tax Foundation. I'm on Hamzy's side. I think the stats basically prove Hamzy's point although there's a differnce of 1/2 a percent from 1 to 8.

I'll wager you're probably correct. Post some stats and shut this little punk "Odin" up.

Anonymous said...

I agreed with the bill also but the point I'm trying to make is that no matter what a republican on here comes up with it's OK. But if Colapietro says anything it's twisted all to h.....Even if it's a good thing.

Odin said...

The "Tax Foundation" is a rightwing anti-tax group that twists the facts and uses bogus "data". See below excerpt from the website of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

"...The Tax Foundation also issued on April 15 a list of the date that it says represent "Tax Freedom Day" for each state. These dates reflect the Foundation's estimate of the average tax rate in each state. The serious flaws that mar the Tax Foundation's estimates of tax burdens nationally, however, also render its state-by-state estimates invalid. About two-thirds of the tax burdens in the Tax Foundation calculations are federal tax burdens, which are substantially overstated in all of the Foundation's national and state-by-state calculations. In addition, as noted in this critique, the Tax Foundation's methodology for computing state and local tax burdens is seriously flawed and overstates those burdens as well...."

I hope Rep. Hamzy was not relying on the Tax Foundation when he made that claim.

Anonymous said...

This is a synopsis of the "founder of this organization "Odin" Praises. It's obviously a liberal pro social-welfare group.

"Greenstein is the founder and Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In 1994, he was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform.
Prior to founding the Center, Greenstein was Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture"

--So what did this bureaucrat know about taxes before Clinton appointed him?

This is how the Tax Foudation actually calculates the tax burden:

"State-local tax burdens measure the percentage of income that taxpayers in each state pay in state and local taxes. Every tax that is collected on both the state and local level is included in the calculation: income taxes on individuals and businesses; general sales taxes; product specific taxes such as those levied on gas, cigarettes and alcohol; property taxes on individuals and business; and a multitude of other taxes"

February 16, 2001
Why the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Is Wrong about the Cost of Bush's Tax Plan
by The Heritage Foundation
WebMemo #5
In a policy report published on February 6, 2001, Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) claimed that President Bush's tax cut plan would "cost" the federal Treasury $2.5 trillion over the 11-year period 2001 through 2011. That sum is $1.2 trillion more than Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the plan will save taxpayers and $900 billion more than the tax relief estimated by the President's own economists.1

The problem is that the CBPP analysis assumed features of the Bush plan that are not in it and assumed also that the economy would not respond to the largest tax cut in 20 years. Table 1 shows what the CBPP included to arrive at its cost of President Bush's tax proposal. It also compares those costs to estimates of taxpayer savings made by the Center for Data Analysis (CDA) of The Heritage Foundation.

Anonymous said...

Analysis Shows Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Criticism of Tax Freedom Day Flawed and Inaccurate

For immediate release
Media contact: William Ahern (202) 464-5101

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new analysis shows criticisms of Tax Freedom Day® made by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) are based on factual errors and misinterpretations of Tax Foundation figures, potentially misleading reporters and policymakers about the usefulness of Tax Freedom Day® as a popular gauge of the nation’s tax burden. (Click here for full analysis.)

“Tax Freedom Day® is based directly on official government data, and does not over-state the nation’s total tax burden as the CBPP claims,” said Scott A. Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation. “The CBPP’s criticisms of Tax Freedom Day® are flawed and are not serious economic critiques of the Tax Freedom Day® methodology.”

The analysis responds to three of the CBPP’s claims:

• That Tax Freedom Day® should report only taxes of the middle one-fifth of earners, ignoring all other Americans;

• That the Tax Foundation should use the CBPP’s unofficial tallies of income and taxes rather than the official reports of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis; and

• That the Tax Foundation’s state-local tax burden estimates are supposedly unreliable because—like all statistical estimates based on government data—initial figures are revised when better data become available later.

“The CBPP’s criticisms are designed to distract attention from the nation’s tax burden. That does not promote good tax policy in a democratic society,” said Hodge. “Tax Freedom Day® will continue to serve as a respected and useful concept that helps educate millions of Americans each year about the nation’s tax burden.”

The Tax Foundation completes its calculation of Tax Freedom Day® in early April each year. The 2006 report is scheduled for release shortly before the IRS filing deadline.

The Tax Foundation has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Best known for its annual calculation of Tax Freedom Day®, the Tax Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization.

Anonymous said...

A special interest group? I thought the Republicans were against them? Oh I keep forgetting If Hamzy does it it's OK.Hmmph

Anonymous said...

These Republicans prefer to remain anonymous. Can't say that I blame them . If I were them I wouldn't want anyone to know them either.

Anonymous said...

They will find other ways to get our money.

Anonymous said...

5:40 pm Sounds like your M.O. Doesn't it ? Try to figure out how to get other peoples money? That's the only way you know how to make money. Cry if you will but you use other peoples money.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't everybodys money once someone elses money?

Yours too???

Anonymous said...

Nope I earned my money ! Did you ??

Anonymous said...

Every bit of it!

Anonymous said...

By screwing other people out of theirs ?
That's not earning it !