[RunD1987]

Few States look at abolishing property tax: NY, PA, and TX. It's feasible and be a game changer to attract people/keep people to the State.

Could allow cities to choose to add a special sales tax to homes. Cities can enact a yearly shool/municipality service fee of $500 or less a year.

Can semi privatize some highways in the State.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Robert137

Nancy Wyman will not run for governor.

Nancy Wyman says she won't run for governor in 2018 | HartfordBusiness.com

I read that article, but what really stood out to me was this paragraph;

"Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, former state Sen. Jonathan Harris, and two political newcomers, former federal prosecutor Chris Mattei and former Wall Street executive Dita Bhargava, have been raising money for months in exploratory campaigns..."

Is it legal for a convicted felon to hold office of Governor? If a person is a convicted felon in most states that person can not even vote, so this is a misprint or a very weird quirk in law.

I think it would be hilarious if Ganim ran, just imagine the debate questions, but I for one would never vote for a convicted felon.

[JayCT]

Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin is now considering a run for Governor. Just a week or two back he said no but apparently has changed his mind. Jay

Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin Eyeing Run For Connecticut Governor - Courant Community

[HumpDay]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin is now considering a run for Governor. Just a week or two back he said no but apparently has changed his mind. Jay

Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin Eyeing Run For Connecticut Governor - Courant Community

Because the state of Connecticut is in better shape than Hartford. He's young and has potential but he should worry about this city first. It's a slap in the face to say you're committed to working with us, only to turn your back and focus on something else. At the end of the day, it's his decision though.

[ArmLizzie]

So far I haven't seen anyone consider rental fees for tenants. Why should renters get a free ride on the homeowner's tab? Renters have children who attend school. Renters drive on our state and municipal public roads. Renters use our subsidized transportation services, our public works department services, our state house services, our municipal services. But they don't have to pay for them. In most cases, the costs are *not* passed down from the landlord in the form of rent, because the landlord is deducting the property as a business expense and paying minimal taxes on it.

All rentals, whether apartment/condo, single/multi-family, or business use, should all have fees imposed by the state, and paid to the state either by the landlord, quarterly, or by the tenant, either quarterly or yearly, depending on the duration of the lease. Renting a room in a hotel comes with various fees paid to the state, same with renting a car. Renting a home should also involve some kind of "state and municipal service use" fee. It doesn't even have to be much. Just figure how much it costs for one child to be educated, spread out on a month-to-month basis. Now multiply that by the number of bedrooms in the apartment, or how many offices in the business unit. Make that the monthly fee.

Limit the rental fee for businesses, because they already have to pay special taxes that residential tenants don't have to pay. Maybe a minimum fee of $60, with a maximum of $500. Again - per year, with 100% of this specific fee going directly into the municipal/educational funds that get earmarked for munipalities and non-business-related state projects (like bridge replacement, for example).

Doesn't matter if the tenant has kids or not. I don't have kids but I pay taxes to educate our town's children. That is (and should be) a good thing. One of this generation of children will grow up to be our president some day. It's in our best interests to make sure they are ALL educated (so we don't end up with a generation of people who think Puerto Rico is a country). $4-10/month added to all units rented out, with 100% of that extra money going directly into the State coffers, should provide a sizeable sum that the state can use for education, our infrastructure, road repair, emergency road crews during weather emergencies, keeping our reservoirs clean, police, fire, and other first-responder "care and maintenance," and so on and so forth.

Over the course of a year, that'd only amount to between $50 and $200 per unit depending on the size of the unit. Per year. For the whole year. Affordable even if you and your spouse are both working minimum wage with your entire family all crammed into a 2-bedroom unit, and the older son with a paper route. But multiply that by the total number of occupied rentals in the state, and you're looking at several million dollars churned into revenue, every single month.

Find me a governor candidate who would consider working on this kind of project, and I'll be behind him or her. It's not to give homeowners a break, or to punish renters. It is to bring the two just *slightly* more in line with fulfilling their responsibilities as members of the community, with regards to taxes and answering the question of "who is paying for all these services?"

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by ArmLizzie

So far I haven't seen anyone consider rental fees for tenants. Why should renters get a free ride on the homeowner's tab? Renters have children who attend school. Renters drive on our state and municipal public roads. Renters use our subsidized transportation services, our public works department services, our state house services, our municipal services. But they don't have to pay for them. In most cases, the costs are *not* passed down from the landlord in the form of rent, because the landlord is deducting the property as a business expense and paying minimal taxes on it.

All rentals, whether apartment/condo, single/multi-family, or business use, should all have fees imposed by the state, and paid to the state either by the landlord, quarterly, or by the tenant, either quarterly or yearly, depending on the duration of the lease. Renting a room in a hotel comes with various fees paid to the state, same with renting a car. Renting a home should also involve some kind of "state and municipal service use" fee. It doesn't even have to be much. Just figure how much it costs for one child to be educated, spread out on a month-to-month basis. Now multiply that by the number of bedrooms in the apartment, or how many offices in the business unit. Make that the monthly fee.

Limit the rental fee for businesses, because they already have to pay special taxes that residential tenants don't have to pay. Maybe a minimum fee of $60, with a maximum of $500. Again - per year, with 100% of this specific fee going directly into the municipal/educational funds that get earmarked for munipalities and non-business-related state projects (like bridge replacement, for example).

Doesn't matter if the tenant has kids or not. I don't have kids but I pay taxes to educate our town's children. That is (and should be) a good thing. One of this generation of children will grow up to be our president some day. It's in our best interests to make sure they are ALL educated (so we don't end up with a generation of people who think Puerto Rico is a country). $4-10/month added to all units rented out, with 100% of that extra money going directly into the State coffers, should provide a sizeable sum that the state can use for education, our infrastructure, road repair, emergency road crews during weather emergencies, keeping our reservoirs clean, police, fire, and other first-responder "care and maintenance," and so on and so forth.

Over the course of a year, that'd only amount to between $50 and $200 per unit depending on the size of the unit. Per year. For the whole year. Affordable even if you and your spouse are both working minimum wage with your entire family all crammed into a 2-bedroom unit, and the older son with a paper route. But multiply that by the total number of occupied rentals in the state, and you're looking at several million dollars churned into revenue, every single month.

Find me a governor candidate who would consider working on this kind of project, and I'll be behind him or her. It's not to give homeowners a break, or to punish renters. It is to bring the two just *slightly* more in line with fulfilling their responsibilities as members of the community, with regards to taxes and answering the question of "who is paying for all these services?"

What are you talking about? Renters pay taxes. They pay state income and sales taxes just like you and me. They also pay vehicle taxes if they own a car. And they indirectly pay property taxes in the rent they pay. Property taxes are one of the expenses a landlord has to pay. I am not sure why you would think they should not have to or that renters do not pay their fair share. Jay

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by JayCT

What are you talking about? Renters pay taxes. They pay state income and sales taxes just like you and me. They also pay vehicle taxes if they own a car. And they indirectly pay property taxes in the rent they pay. Property taxes are one of the expenses a landlord has to pay. I am not sure why you would think they should not have to or that renters do not pay their fair share. Jay

Exactly. Renters effectively pay property taxes through their rent. And they don't get a tax deduction for that as homeowners do.

[ads94]

Bronin is the type of class act that I would like to see as Governor. I think he has been handed a terrible situation in Hartford, and he's done all he can. He has huge potential but the city would simply hang around his neck. At the same time, it's a horrible thing to do to the residents of Hartford to try and parachute out and leave them stranded.

[BPt111]

Ganim chances of running the state is getting slimmer

Judge denies public campaign money for Ganim - Connecticut Post

[NewBritainCT_native89]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Ganim chances of running the state is getting slimmer

Judge denies public campaign money for Ganim - Connecticut Post

Good. Don’t need another Rowland.