Yesterday, 2/12/07, the Cafe had 263 visitors and 667 page turns.
Jodi Rell surprised Republicans and Democrats by announcing her tax plan for the coming fiscal year 2007/2008. She proposed to increase the state income tax by 10% for the coming year followed by similar increases over the next 5 years. As this affects Woodstock taxpayers, the plan is intended to increase state funding of our education system and provide property tax relief. In theory, if this plan is implemented, our property taxes should be held in check while our state income tax should rise. In presenting this plan, Rell restated her belief that our education system is an investment in not only our children, but also in the future economic well-being of our state (I could not agree more). Her plan also provides funding for healthcare coverage for low income families through the Charter Oak healthcare plan that provides medical coverage for state employees. To implement her entire plan, Rell will have to raise the funding cap that currently limits increases in state spending.
‘a taxpayer’ has a very good point below. Property tax money stays in town; some or most income tax money may go elsewhere. Also, see Lucida’s comment about the impact of eliminating the car tax.
The political response to this plan was perhaps predictable. Joe De Stefano’s office (Rell’s Democratic opposition for governor in the recent election) stated succinctly that Rell “deserves an A.� The office further stated something to the effect that they did not know that Rell had the courage to do this. Senate minority leader, DeLuca (Republican from Woodbury) said that he doubted that a single Republican would support this proposal. The Democrats (the majority) were surprised, perplexed, and perhaps jealous of Rell’s plan.
Is DeLuca speaking for Mike Alberts, our Republican State Representative, who is fully aware of Woodstock taxpayers concern about high property taxes in relation to our school system funding? I’m sure Woodstock citizens would like to hear Mike Alberts’ response to Governor Rell’s proposal.
Last summer the Café published a virtual debate between Mike and his opponent, Sherri Vogt. Of course, Mike defeated Sherri in the recent election by a little over 200 votes. This virtual debate was based upon a political questionnaire from the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) filled out by the two candidates. Here is a snap-shot of that debate:
1) What do you think is the most important issue facing the state of Connecticut?
Mike: Improving the state’s business environment is our most critical issue.
Sherri: The most important issue facing the voters in the 50th district is the high property taxes and our over reliance to support schools with this tax.
2) Do you support strict adherence to the existing constitutional cap on the growth in state spending? Why or why not?
Mike: Yes. It’s the will of the people.
Sherri: I would like to see the legislature revisit the issue and redefine the spending cap.
4) The state of Connecticut has a budget surplus; how would you use it?
Mike: I would use the budget surplus as an opportunity to reduce taxation.
Sherri: Schools, environment, roads.
13) Would you support a state-run and state-supplied health insurance plan for all citizens?
Mike: No!
Sherri: Yes!
It seems from these answers and the others in the questionnaire that Sherri Vogt would have been enthralled with Rell’s plan.
I thought that it would be interesting to consider the financial impact of this tax proposal on Woodstock taxpayers. I encourage readers to fill in gaps or correct me where I am wrong.
Overall the Rell plan will generate $617.5 million in new revenue for 2007-2008, and $650 million for 2008-2009. A proposed raise in the cigarette tax will generate $86.4 and $82.8 million, respectively for those fiscal years also. It is proposed that $1.1 billion will go to education over the next 5 years.
The purpose of Rell’s funding initiative is “To ensure that every child in Connecticut has equal opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational experiences. To ensure that the state’s public schools offer a planned, ongoing and systematic program of instruction that guarantees a breadth and depth of curriculum provided by competent professionals in a safe and supportive school setting� (page 445 of the detailed budget plan, Governor Rells’ website). With this goal in mind, Rell proposes an increase in funding of basic grants to public schools of $265.2 million (increase) for 2007-2008 which is higher than the original projected annual increase of $183.4 million over this year. Funding of special education programs will increase by $14 million over this year.
The state block grant to the Woodstock public school system increased approximately 0.5% in 2006-2007 (to an estimated $4.6 million). It has been stated that under Rell’s new tax plan every school system will receive, at minimum, an increase of 3% in funding from the state which would be approximately $161,000 in additional funding (3.5%) for Woodstock schools (anyone who has a different figure, please comment). I do not know if this increased funding can be negotiated by the Board of Education but I assume that Representative Mike Alberts could be helpful if negotiation was possible. To what extent special education would receive extra funding from the state is a mystery to me but excess costs for special education (funded by Woodstock property taxpayers) were $120,000 for the 2006-2007 school year.
In Woodstock for the 2006-2007 fiscal year tax revenues were estimated at $12.35 million, up 6% or $702,000 from the previous year. Total income for the Town was estimated at $19.2 million. The Board of Education ended up with approximately $14.14 million ($4.6 million coming from the state) for 2006-2007 – an increase of 4.35% over the previous year. If the support of the Woodstock education system increased another 4.35% for the 2007-2008 budget, this would be a budget of $14.76 million increased by $620,000 from the 2006-2007 budget. I presume that if the school system were to receive an additional $161,000 from the state for school funding, then this money would reduce the additional $620,000 funded by taxpayers to $459,000 (again any mistake I have made should be pointed out with comments). Does this mean that Rell’s plan is going to save Woodstock taxpayers $161,000? This is 1.3% of our property tax revenues. Does this mean that my property tax bill of about $3000 this last year will be diminished by $39? Governor Rell also proposes to eliminate the car tax that in my case was about $200. So in my case I may be $239 in the black this year. But what impact does elimination of the car tax have on the Woodstock’s tax revenues? I always felt that the car tax was okay because of the need to maintain our roads. One more thing …If income taxes are to be increased by 10%, then my state income tax will go up by $508. If I subtract the $239 that I may make locally from the new tax plan, I end up $269 in the red. I think Woodstock needs more than $161,000 from the state to off-set education costs and the $120,000 in excess special education costs. I hope someone can come up with more favorable math.
I wonder if Rell has figured out thath this ‘increased’ funding of education can be handled in two different ways by towns. Towns can chose either to increase education funding by that amount or they can chose to reduce the tax burden by that amount. What do you think our Board of Finance and Board of Selectmen will do? Also the elimination of the car tax will reduce town tax revenues by a significant amount causing a deficit rather than increased funding. I find myself wondering if Rell understands any of this. Hopefully she does understand this and is not just another Marge Wholean.
I think that no matter how much money we get, and no matter how strapped the BOE is to keep our school system intact, our Board of Finance will “keep” a part of it for the Town budget (wether it has a designated use , or not). I want the Board of Finance to stop shorting the school budget and stop blaming it on the constraints of 46, and I want the Town budget to stop with the superfluous amenities and just start getting quotes to fix the Bennet’s/Town Garage.
I am totally for increasing State funding for education. However, not by increasing taxes and not by increasing those funds equally amongst all the towns and cities. Those who pay the most taxes should get the most funding. The above interview with Mike and Sherri was a reminder of why I voted for Mike and I hope he’s out there working on behalf of the taxpayer to fight this travesty. Sherri is a knee jerk liberal and I fear that Rell is following her footsteps by pandering to the liberal educrats in the democrat majority legislature. Instead of getting to the root of the problem which is to give back to property tax payers what is rightly their own, she is proposing a further increase in taxation that continues to spread the funds socialistically. In other words, Bridgeport who have low income tax payers get the same increase as Wesport who are paying more income taxes. My taxes will go up by about $1000 annually and I will become extremely beligerant about wanting to spend more at the local level. In other words, kiss my vote goodbye to any measure to increase property taxes whether for education or capital improvement. Too bad, I was always a supporter for the repeal of Prop 46 and always a supporter of capital improvement, but with a 10% increase in my income tax, I will have to change my allegiances. And this does NOT mean I don’t support education funding….but rather I support fair education funding. While my income taxes go up, those low wage earners in town who have their property under PA490 will continue to pay little but receive the same services as I do. My money is going to the state now … thanks to Jodi Rell. My vote this year will go to the most fiscally conservative candidate.
Let me just add: To those of us who work for a living, a 10% increase in income tax will result in us paying about 3 times more a year in taxes than if we had repealed Prop 46. And at least with the repeal of Prop 46, the taxes generated would come from across the board and would be used to fund our town’s education, not Bridgeport’s and also not to fund healthcare for low income earners (which will include by the way, illegal immigrants).
Here’s another wish. “CLASSES FOR THE CLUELESS”. Thats right. I want Town Hall to hold classes- they can be sponsored by the PTO for all I care, but knowlegeable folks with a curriculum set should offer to explain 46, assessment and taxes in general to those who need the education. The level of ignorance is at a shocking high in this Town, and its the only excuse for anyone buying the garbage put forth by the five or six CPS loudmouths. Am I crazy?
Taxpayer – You are high on indignation but low on information. Your property taxes are about the lowest in the entire state, which means you are being subsidized by almost all the other communities. I don’t hear people in Darien or Avon screaming about the fact that they are subsidiozing you!
Your argument is a basis for a progresive income tax – which your fellow Repubicans abhor!
The only people not screaming about the unfair taxation in this state are the democrats and their constituents. It is sad when integrity is seen as indignation, success is seen as greed, opinion as intolerance, and upholding traditional values as fascism. A progressive income tax is against everything that our founding fathers stood for and certainly not what I expected from Jodi Rell-R.
DRWB, What exactly are the folks in Darien and Avon subsidizing? Long before my kids started school and long after they finish, I will be paying property taxes that will most certainly have covered the cost of their education and then some. No one is subsidizing me. The folks we are all subsidizing are the ones who do not pay property taxes. Wake up or move to France and find out how great socialism is working there.
Tax – You are wrong – your childrens’ education is being subsidized by the State of Connecticut with revenues from income taxes from all over the state. Higher income communiteis are subsidizing you as well as families in Hartford, Bridgeport, etc. Who are you to complain about subsidizing others?
I am not a knee jerk liberal. I am a wife, a mother, a concerned citizen of the state and the world. I want our region to get it’s due and I want our state to educate all our students. I agree that those who work hard deserve the fruits of their labor, however, this does not mean that people should go hungry, without medical care or without an education to pull them out of a sad situation. When I was at Mass today, the readings were clear, we are here to help one another and those that finish first here finish last at the gates. I don’t just talk the talk, I walk the walk. Woodstock and Brooklyn, where I live, are blessed with so much. We want our families to blossom here and stay here to work and raise their families. How can we do that if they can’t get a good start, a solid foundation? The taxes we pay are a small fee for the freedoms we enjoy. Those taxes are necessary for the common good to progress. The diffference between me and you might be that my goal is to raise society for all.
I keep checking in on Woodstock because I feel we have a lot at stake here. Keeping our farms working, our merchants want to offer healthcare to their employees, we want open space, clean water, bio-desiel, safe school buses, property tax reform.
Realistically, how much does Greenwich et. al. get from the State of Connecticut for education? I have heard from members of those “Gold Coast” communities that they take less than 1% in State funding for their school systems. You know why? Because they pay for it in property taxes. Those wealthy communities don’t really care how much the State gives them for funding education, because they are paying high taxes to support their schools. Those poorer communites and large cities are the ones who have to pay, what is felt, a disproportionate amount to support education. Large cities ie. Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, are the ones who are getting the “grease” because they have a louder and larger voice in Hartford when it comes to spending the taxpayer dime. Of course our legislators will tell us that we are getting a good amount of money to help support education and that we are the beneficiaries of the largess of the other parts of the State who take little money for education. So what does Gov. Rell’s budget really mean to Woodstock and the small communities of Northeast Connecticut? Pay more in income tax? Pay no car tax? Pay less property taxes? Who knows for sure? It’s a big “crap shoot” on the part of Gov. Rell to box the Democrats into a corner and let them sort it out. You know she will come out of this politically unscathed because the Democrats are darned if they do and really darned if they don’t.
Sherri, by your very statements you come across as a knee- jerk, feel-good, appeal to the emotions, over exxagerating, preachy, liberal. No one wants to see people starve or not get medical attention or not get a good education. No one. Not even Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld. You have wonderful intentions and a very generous soul, but I think you care more about these things than the people you are trying to save do. The problem is, you can’t save someone from themselves. Many sad situations are self-created and the weight of the world cannot fall on the tax payer. You cannot raise society for all by taking money from one and giving it to another. People have to want to raise themselves through hardwork and determination. This is what America is all about. Rags to riches stories abound in this country. Its not as though I don’t care, but the reality is I am already paying a lot of taxes to support the very things you desire and I give substantial amounts to charity as well: Looking at my paycheck, I see a monthly Federal Income tax $ 528, Medicare $64, State income tax $191, Social Security tax $281, Medical/Dental $78. . This is a total of $1142 a month plus property taxes of $325/mo. equals $1467 month. College tuition rises by 3-5% yearly, I need to save for retirement, pay a mortgage, blah, blah blah.. I am not complaining. Through my hard work I am successful. But these taxes are not a small fee we pay for freedom. They are a substantial fee and they keep getting bigger and they are becoming a larger price being paid for other people’s freedom (ie. illegal immigrants, Iraqui’s, welfare recipients). The middle class is getting crunched. No matter how much we raise taxes, no matter how many social programs we create there will always be need for more and in the process of raising taxes, you pull the rug out from under the economy and the middle class working folks. The failure of social democracies in Europe are a perfect depiction of why these policies just don’t work. Lastly, I truly resent your use of scripture in trying to make me feel guilty. It might work on some people, but not on me. Life is not a race Sherri. If I come in first it is because of hard, honest work while making smart decisions, not because of greed or for power or because I have stepped on others to climb up. Socialism and your religion are two very dangerous combinations that have led to much supression, hardship, and suffering. You are walking the walk Sherri…its just down the wrong path. Regardless, I commend your honesty, your compassion, your time, and your courage for coming to this website which many other leaders have failed to do. For that, you are one step higher in my book. Thank you.
I am concerned that if Rell’s car tax elimination becomes a reality, it will mean even bigger cuts to our budget. Prop 46 restricts the amount we spend based on the grand list. Eliminating the car tax will reduce the grand list. Even if the state increases its aid to towns to make up for the loss in tax revenues from the car tax, the restrictions of Prop 46 will be based on the lower grand list figure – regardless of the increased revenue. So, the budget quagmire will increase even though our taxes may not.
Proposition 46 states “Resolved, the town shall limit the increase in the town’s combined annual budget to revenue generated by growth in the Grand List, in State and Federal assistance, and in other income, except for increases, voted upon by town meeting, necessary to cover debt service on legal obligations, court judgments against the town, State mandated programs and emergency expenditures.�
If the car tax is eliminated, what is the impact on the town budget? My car tax was about $200 last year. If there are 2500 residences averaging $200 in car taxes, then this would amount to loss of $500,000 in revenues for the town (does anyone know the revenues from the car tax?). If the grand list increases by 5% due to residential improvements, then this would amount to $600,000 in new revenues (of course I could be off here too). This suggests that the total town budget could increase by a sum total of $100,000 for 2007/2008. The total revenues for the town last year were about $19.2 million equal to the total town budget. If inflation is 3% then presumably with no new services or purchases the cost to the town for maintaining status quo would be about $576,000 increased funding (annual pay raises, commodities, etc.), or if inflation is only 2% then maintaining status quo would require $384,000 in increased funding. Yet, under prop 46, the town can only increase expenditures by $100,000. This means that the town will have to eliminate programs and services to the tune of $284,000-476,000. Am I right or wrong about this?
I doubt that the CPS genius’s can understand ANY of this.
Yes author, it sounds right. I am siding with Lucinda in my fears that I will be paying more in income tax and despite increased funding from the state, our education funding will be offset by decreased property taxes. The winners here will be low income property owners(retirees/farmers). The losers will be higher income earners (families). I would be better off with a repeal of Prop 46. I would ultimately pay less than the income tax increase and the money would go to our schools.
Author,
As long as the increase in State and Federal assistance that we are supposed to get equals the lost revenue from automobile property tax we will end up no better or worse off than we are now. Of course we have no idea if that will happen.
Thanks.
Just read this little article this morning on the internet.
The state that pays the most in combined state, local , and federal taxes per capita is…..drum roll…
Connecticut at 35.9%!!!!!
Followed by:
New York: 35.1%
NJ 34.3%
Just a little price for freedom, right Sherri??
A Taxpayer:
I assume the article that you speak of is this one (or one like it):
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/TheBestAndWorstStatesForTaxes.aspx?page=1
While there is no doubt that CT pays high taxes there is a problem if you want to go on to say that this is mostly due to high taxes on the state and local level. If you turn to page two of the article you can see the whole story.
What we are absolutely highest in paying is federal income tax, a progressive tax. So the more you make the higher percentage you pay. What state do you think also has the highest per capita income? You got it, CT. Since a large part of the taxes we pay are federal income taxes it is not surprising that the state with the highest per capita income is going to also be a state with a very high ranking in overall taxation.
Now if you look at the percentage we pay for state and local taxes we are not the highest (11.3%). Granted we still are pretty high on the list but not number one. Our number one position is due to the fact that we have the highest per capita income combined with a progressive federal income tax.
Thanks.
Darn it Bowman, you beat me to it! It occurred to me immediatety to point this out to TAXMAN! CT has had the highest per capita incomes in the U.S. for several decades! This leads to another pOint – which is the weaLthy millionaires in Greenwich are subsidizing – guess who – TAXMAN!! They’re probably sitting down there in Greenwich right now complaining about all the taxes they pay to support the school systems in northeast CT for people like – TAXMAN!!
Because, he’s the TAXMAN, oh yeah, he’s the TAXMAN . . ..
Sorry, just came to me
Oh please. I don’t need another bad visual. Anna Nicole’s refridgerator was enough for one week. Picturing you singing that Taxman song brings a middle aged hippie to mind. Yuck. Note that our real estate costs and gas taxes are amongst the highest in the country as well and with $100 per student from the state I hardly think we are being subsidized. We pay a dollar in taxes and get a penny back for education. Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes… Ok, sorry.
To A Taxpayer,
$78/ mo for medical and dental, sounds like a good plan to me, you might even make twice what my hard-working husband makes and our plan through Stanly Tools is $250/ mo with a high RX co-pay. Are you on a municipal, state or federal pay roll? If not, where can I send his resume’?
I agree that some people in some situations are self-inflicted. Our response should be one we can afford in the short and long term. People with addictions and mental illness with a good education, healthcare plan and job skills cost us more in the long run. Our state jails are 30% more people with mental illness than 15 years ago. Seems if we don’t treat it, we pay later at a huge cost. What is the cost to keep one person in jail? $35,000/year…. maybe $50,000. Whatever it is it is far more than the social programs to combat the problems.
As for the comment posted tongue-in-cheek to develop a power plant at the fairgrounds, my sister-in-law lives outside of Chicago in a McMansion town, awesome schools, no property taxes raised for the schools because you can see the 3 nuclear silos 20 miles away. They love the trade off, we would never stand for it in our region but it is done.
Sherri, My suggestion was not completely in jest about installing a nuclear power plant in Woodstock, but I don’t think we will win any elections for proposing it. The fact of the matter is that it has pretty much become a problem-free, pollution-free source of energy in a time of global warming due to greenhouse gasses. Just imagine those silos with “Go Centaurs� on them…or we could have a foe painting with billowy clouds and blue sky. Here are just a few bullet points from an article I found on the Internet about nuclear power plant safety. There have been approximately 8000 cumulative reactor years without event after Chernoble.
• From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials.
• There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained without harm to anyone and the other involved an intense fire without provision for containment.
• These are the only major accidents to have occurred in more than 12,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries.
• The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust. (see http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm )
Having a nuclear reactor would certainly be more exciting than a super-max prison.