U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-20-2012, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Branford
1,157 posts, read 1,009,133 times
Reputation: 297

Advertisements

Owners of cars registered in Greenwich and other towns with low vehicle tax rates could wind up paying more -- a lot more -- under a controversial proposal that is gaining traction in the General Assembly.

State Rep. Jeffrey Berger, D-Waterbury, is calling for the state to enact a uniform mill rate for motor vehicles, which threatens to pit wealthy municipalities where there is a tangible love affair for expensive imports against their less well-to-do neighbors.


Read more: Car tax rate proposal has some seeing red - Connecticut Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2012, 08:33 PM
 
2,890 posts, read 2,962,298 times
Reputation: 1419
Never going to pass. Silly conjecture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 05:51 AM
 
2,890 posts, read 2,962,298 times
Reputation: 1419
The more I think about this proposed legislation, the more it becomes apparent that this may be the worst bill in recent years. First off the revenue created by the property tax on autos stays in the municipality generated. So in essence, Greenwich would generate more revenue while high mill rate towns would actually receive less from the decline in mill rate. Epic fail.

Last edited by Wilton2ParkAve; 04-21-2012 at 06:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
14,715 posts, read 17,933,283 times
Reputation: 3333
Dumb idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 12:28 PM
 
1,656 posts, read 1,830,187 times
Reputation: 3716
Of course it's a dumb idea.

But it has the following advantages (from the standpoint of the CT pols): 1) A new agency will need to be stood up to provide "oversight" and "governance". Since there are so many cars in CT, and it would be unreasonable to ask one employee to monitor more than a couple of hundred cars, this bill will be used to justify the existence of a 2000 person agency, with the management slots reserved for cronies; 2) Any penny of the uniform tax that is collected will be first administered by the Town's tax collector, and then and sent to the new agency to re-administer and re-distribute according to an opaque formula. There will be provision in that passthrough for a percentage of that revenue to stay with the originating town.

See? it increases state employee headcount, and it creates opportunities for graft. It's all good! It'll pass.

Is it because of the century long tradition of corruption - embezzled town funds replaced by raising new debt, thus ensuring that every budget item is paid for a minimum of twice and three times - that the biggest h*llholes in CT have the highest mill rates and taxes? Or is there some other reason?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 09:44 PM
 
8,376 posts, read 7,362,552 times
Reputation: 18234
Just bringing the state in line with most of the rest of the nation, where auto fees are determined by the value and age of the vehicle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2015, 10:00 PM
 
684 posts, read 572,231 times
Reputation: 752
Sorry but the auto tax is the dumbest thing around , people pay enough in taxes already and pay a damn sales tax , no need to keep paying yearly for it . That's just legal robbery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 04:52 AM
 
Location: SW Corner of CT
1,729 posts, read 1,268,412 times
Reputation: 2073
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamia411 View Post
sorry but the auto tax is the dumbest thing around , people pay enough in taxes already and pay a damn sales tax , no need to keep paying yearly for it . That's just legal robbery.
+1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 06:04 AM
 
5,065 posts, read 13,268,624 times
Reputation: 3497
This thread is two years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
24,570 posts, read 40,120,453 times
Reputation: 6942
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiaMia411 View Post
Sorry but the auto tax is the dumbest thing around , people pay enough in taxes already and pay a damn sales tax , no need to keep paying yearly for it . That's just legal robbery.
Then how do you propose to pay for the roads we drive on each day? Without a viable and dependable source of money, our roads will just get worse. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top