5 Responses for "Thanks Connecticut, I Love You Too"

1. JR August 13th, 2008 at 6:47 pm 1

   I haven’t lived in CT for very long, so is it true that this tax was supposed to replace another one that (not shockingly) was never repealed?

2. LVTfan August 17th, 2008 at 8:36 am 2

   I’m of several minds about taxing cars. It seems to me that if we are going to tax them, we should be taxing them according to the damage they do to the roads and to the air, and so the tax should be a function of their weight and their fuel usage (and also, I suppose, in proportion to the number of miles driven). As things stand now, the next Grand List will probably devalue huge SUVs and upvalue Priuses, due to their fuel costs. This is perverse.

   But I know there are many cars garaged in Stamford which are not registered in Connecticut; most of them belong to people with vacation homes in other states, and the owners avoid both the local property tax on cars and the higher insurance costs associated with driving in a congested area — and they are the same people who may drive great distances every week to get to those vacation homes, so they shift their insurance costs onto those who only drive locally, since most auto insurance contracts don’t account for “personal” miles driven!

   I would prefer that we not tax vehicles, buildings or personal property (that is, business inventory and equipment — go figure!) of any kind. It seems to me that all those things are the result of one’s labor and commerce, and shouldn’t be taxed. I’d like to see us put our taxation squarely onto land value. Those who own large amounts of valuable land would pay heavily; those who occupy only a postage stamp lot in an off-the-beaten-track location with few services would only pay a small amount — all in proportion to how the market values each site, without regard to what sort of building is on it.

   Seems to me that would be far more just, far simpler, far easier to administer and more transparent — not to mention aligning our incentives with smart policy!

3. anon August 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pm 3

   I think they call it here in CT a “sales and use tax”…the “use” speaks for itself.

4. JP Cavagnani December 7th, 2008 at 8:19 pm 4

   It is really annoying, I have to say. Especially because it is just a mere
   payment, there’s no communal benefit attached to it. In NY, at least, there’s
   the annual mandatory emission inspection, it’s a pain, but it’s only $37 and it
   is meant to improve the car’s upkeep. I’m not sure that anyone would want this
   tax added to either income or real estate taxes, because it would be unjust:
   what if, and I know that it’s a rarity, one doesn’t own a car? Why would he or
   she have to pay? As for NJ, the reason they have all those toll roads is very
   simple: NJ is a cross road and has more traffic than California, so they believe
   that, as a partial compensation for the pain of having every single truck in the
   North-East pass through the State, they should charge a toll. It’s not a bad
   idea per se, but it adds traffic. A good system is that used in Switzerland: to
   use highways every car has to display a sticker, valid one solar year, which can
   be purchased online or at any gas station in the country. It costs SFR 30 (about
   $20) and it’s paid by everyone who uses a Swiss highway: if you apply it to
   Connecticut, it would bring billions of dollars without stiffing CT residents
   alone (and $20 are much better than the car property tax).

5. lisa11 December 20th, 2008 at 7:48 am 5

   I also love the connecticut tax scheme. I think it’s true that this tax was supposed to replace another one that was never repealed?

   Lisa
   connecticut drug rehab