[BPt111]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

That's what I have been saying. Why live in CT outside of family. Our neighbors offer more amenities and tax burdens are less.

CT needs to adopt Counties and displace more responsibility on Counties. For four years the State would also allocate funds to help Cities in these Counties so doesn't become overwhelming financially for those in the County.

In switching to Counties the State replaces income tax with two flat Taxes. First flat tax is 2% tax to create an open healthcare market in the State, fund Medicare replacement adjustable health insurance, and universal health insurance for those 65 & older in the State. Second flat tax of 2% would be for tuition free community colleges. 50% for those taking 4 to 8 credits. 100% for those taking more than 8 credits. To be guaranteed 100% tuition have to be actively pursuing a major with collehe attending and agree to live/work in the State for 2 year's. In addition to, must complete the program unless warranted circumstance. If unable to complete the program or agree to stay in the State for 2 year's have to repay the State.

Legalize and tax marijuanna to help fund DMHAS. Provide universal mental health insurance for CT residebts at non-profit or Stats facilities.

Daycare vouchers that offer financial assistance for CT parents.

For CT bussineses a flat 2.5% Health tax, 2% Education Tax, and a .5% Environmental Tax. In addition to, a general 2% tax on businesses with more than 100 employees in the State.

Towns and Cities finance their own police/EMS/Fire service's. Counties finance the rest.

Make reforms to State wages and pensions.

Raise sales tax to 8%. Do away car tax for home owners. Do away with sales tax on boats and motor vehicles.

CT need get rid of car taxes and find new income source. County goverment won't work out for CT too small

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by BPt111

CT need get rid of car taxes and find new income source

There's nothing wrong with a property tax on cars. The problem is the tax rate and how it's calculated. The Mass one that's 2.5% of MSRP the first year and quickly declines to 2.5% on 10% of MSRP for year 5 and beyond isn't too bad. It's not like it's tough to find 3 to 5-year-old low mileage used cars coming off lease if you want low excise taxes on your car. A 5+ year old car that was originally $30K is a $75.00 tax bill. KBB assuming 12,000 miles per year and average condition on many 5 year old cars looks nothing like what those cars are actually worth.

[RunD1987]

We are talking about before the cap was close to a 60 mill rate and paying over $1K on a $20K car. Capping the car taxed really hurt the Cities. Need to create a level playing field of property tax and that's why Counties would be beneficial. Then with State funding money and controlling spending in Cities over next 4 year's would help ensure that Counties are not just paying for the City in their County.

A 40 Mill Rate county wide isn't a bad thing. Home owners would be exempt on paying car taxes.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

We are talking about before the cap was close to a 60 mill rate and paying over $1K on a $20K car. Capping the car taxed really hurt the Cities. Need to create a level playing field of property tax and that's why Counties would be beneficial. Then with State funding money and controlling spending in Cities over next 4 year's would help ensure that Counties are not just paying for the City in their County.

A 40 Mill Rate county wide isn't a bad thing. Home owners would be exempt on paying car taxes.

You keep missing the point that regardless of how much we concentrate the Govt, politicians will just invent bigger programs to fund, and still be in the red.

Those of you that think concentrating Govt will result in cost savings - you are dreaming. Because nothing will be done to fix the underlining overspend behavior.

They will just dig a deeper hole for the taxpayer to lay in. Sometimes I wonder who is more irresponsible -- CT politicians or voters who entrust them with even more power.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Nobody is moving for $ 200 a year. However to pretend that I know better than e senior couple their own finances -- that's pretty delusional and condescending. And idiotic.

What senior couple?

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by Raider111

We also hear the "then open the checkbook and voluntarily pay more taxes" line too.

If you don't think it's a big deal to pay extra above and beyond your tax bill then have at it. I'm sure your local municipality would be very grateful for your donation.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Raider111

What senior couple?

The stereotype of who's moving to FL.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by Henry10

You keep missing the point that regardless of how much we concentrate the Govt, politicians will just invent bigger programs to fund, and still be in the red.

Those of you that think concentrating Govt will result in cost savings - you are dreaming. Because nothing will be done to fix the underlining overspend behavior.

They will just dig a deeper hole for the taxpayer to lay in. Sometimes I wonder who is more irresponsible -- CT politicians or voters who entrust them with even more power.

Giving the weak procurement laws, of course, it's going to cost more. Put some reform in like Mass did in the early 1980's and you get better prices.

The area needs more governance but less politics.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Giving the weak procurement laws, of course, it's going to cost more. Put some reform in like Mass did in the early 1980's and you get better prices.

The area needs more governance but less politics.

This is CT forum and we're talking about CT politicians. Procurement laws are the last thing in CT politicians' mind.

[BPt111]

No budget after July 1 ?

https://ctmirror.org/2017/06/15/with...s-are-all-bad/