[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

No, she isn't, IMHO.

Because if we are going to follow that logic, well then, we'll have to charge this couple in their SFH more than the single person next door living in a SFH. And the couple with a child that lives in their SFH between those other 2 SFH will have to be charged more than the childless couple. And the family with......yada..yada......yada.......

Uh no. The UNIT would have a value. The primary lease-signer of that unit would be responsible for paying the fee. The individual occupant wouldn't be charged based on his existence. One fee per unit, no matter how many people are living in it. But the value of the unit would depend on how many bedrooms it has, or the square footage, or some combination of the two. Or perhaps a luxury apartment would have a higher fee than a 1-room walkup with a shared bathroom in the hallway.

I'm not trying to work out the details. I'm summarizing a concept, to replace the car tax, which is the topic of this thread, because people are concerned about WHO is going to cover the expenses that the car tax covered, now that the car tax will cease to exist.

[Stylo]

Is it definitely being eliminated though? I thought it was just a proposal at this stage.

[jaydez]

I live in New Britain. There is a very high percentage of people who rent here and have cars well under the $20k threshold. I am not looking forward to my taxed going up to pay for someone down the street who rents.

Maybe we should eliminate the property tax as it stands now (based to assessed value) and tax by square footage. If you tax between $2-3 per square foot of living space then homeowners, in general will pay about the same, but now landlords will pay more for massive apartment complexes and be able to fairly pass that cost on to their renters.

I do no want to pay for someone to get a free ride on city services. I would rather pay car taxes every year than pay twice that in property tax.

[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by jaydez

I live in New Britain. There is a very high percentage of people who rent here and have cars well under the $20k threshold. I am not looking forward to my taxed going up to pay for someone down the street who rents.

Maybe we should eliminate the property tax as it stands now (based to assessed value) and tax by square footage. If you tax between $2-3 per square foot of living space then homeowners, in general will pay about the same, but now landlords will pay more for massive apartment complexes and be able to fairly pass that cost on to their renters.

I do no want to pay for someone to get a free ride on city services. I would rather pay car taxes every year than pay twice that in property tax.

As a homeowner, you already are paying for someone to get a free ride on city services. Every tenant who doesn't own a vehicle, is getting city services that they're not paying for, but you are. Every legal adult child (meaning, their parents can no longer claim them as dependents) living at home and using their parents' vehicle - is using city services for free that you're paying for. Since parents aren't responsible for paying extra tax to cover the expenses of their children, every adult tax-payer who does -not- have children, is paying for the childrens' use of city services, that those children aren't paying for, and their parents aren't exclusively responsible for.

Anyone who is on welfare, or section 8 housing, is making use of city services and not paying for it. But you, the homeowner, are covering their share of the bill. As an employed person, you are also paying for those services in the form of income tax. Even people collecting unemployment (which is insurance, not a dole), are responsible for income tax on those unemployment checks, so even those unemployed persons are paying for those who are taking government handouts, or who are renting with no vehicle, or are children who aren't eligible for paying taxes, etc. etc. etc.

Car taxes only take a bite out of the income of people who own cars. People who own property AND cars, are already paying twice, to cover themselves, and to cover everyone who doesn't pay at all.

[S2000]

New Britain is already doing this - The New Britain Herald : New Britain, Conn., and surrounding areas (newbritainherald.com)

As a landlord myself I can see both sides of the issue at hand here. There are Pros and Cons. Like others mentioned its the details that need to be worked out. Also it would have to be instituted across the state. Else you will have many renters leaving one city for another and not helping anything in the end.

Then think about if this does come into affect statewide. Many renters these days can barely afford their rents. Many landlords over the past 5 or so years have had to increase rents due to taxes and insurance. I am seeing many renters basically give up and leave for lower cost states down south. A $10-12 an hour job just doesn't pay the rent. Many that do stay are subsidized by the state.

I'd rather see this all go away and just institute a flat tax or consumption tax. But CT is not going that way. I just got back from the Accountants office yesterday. CT is looking to follow the feds. We will have itemized deductions and AMT on a smaller scale here in CT. Don't believe me??? Look at the extra forms this year for filing your 2012 taxes.

[gtmo]

We have a spending issue, not a taxing issue. The solution to our problems should not be to institute a "renters" tax or to modify the car tax. The solution to our problem should be to reduce spending. If they reduce spending, then our taxes will naturally decrease.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by gtmo

We have a spending issue, not a taxing issue. The solution to our problems should not be to institute a "renters" tax or to modify the car tax. The solution to our problem should be to reduce spending. If they reduce spending, then our taxes will naturally decrease.

That is absolutely true, but putting more burden on homeowners is certainly no runner-up.