From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
December 6, 2005
WELCOME TO THE 59TH EDITION OF
TAX TALK
The following statement was presented by me on
December 1, 2005 at the hearing held in Groton, Connecticut before the State’s
Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee on Connecticut’s
Property Tax System . Their report can be found
at the following website: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pridata/Studies/CT_Tax_System_Briefing.htm
. Other reports by this Committee can be found at this website: http://www.cga.ct.gov/pri/year2005studies.htm
I thank those who came to this hearing and spoke
so eloquently for property tax reform in Connecticut
with a focus on establishing assessments based upon the actual sale of real
estate as opposed to the current practice of taxing real estate as unrealized
capital gains. My comments follow. Susan Kniep,
President of FCTO
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you this
evening. I am Susan Kniep,
President of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. Property owners throughout Connecticut are struggling to maintain
ownership of their most prized possession, their homes. With annual property tax increases exceeding
their income growth, many property owners are forced to choose between the
basic necessities of life or their property taxes to keep from losing their
homes.
There is a correlation between the property tax structure in
our State, and the Eminent Domain issue in Connecticut where private interests can
usurp the rights of private property owners if the price is right. If someone cannot afford to pay their property
taxes, a lien by the municipality is placed on their home or business. Ultimately a municipality can force the sale
of that property to a private party.
The injustice in Connecticut’s
property tax structure is that we are being taxed on unrealized capital
gains. Unlike our stocks or bonds
wherein we are taxed upon the cash we receive as a result of sale or any
interest or dividends actually received, the value of our home is something
simply written on paper by Revaluation companies. We do not realize the actual value of our
home until it is sold. Therefore, we do
not have the cash in hand to pay for the steady property tax increases year
after year.
State Statutes governing Revaluation place a cost burden on
taxpayers not only through the significant increases of our properties as
documented on a piece of paper but also on municipalities which must budget to
facilitate the process. In essence, the
State is keeping those within the Revaluation industry in business, while
taxpayers become poor.
I am in real estate.
I have heard from seniors who had been forced to go on Medicaid because
they had no health insurance, they continue to live in their homes, the state
has liens on their homes, they cannot afford to pay the property taxes that continue
to increase on the value of their homes, and yet they cannot sell their
homes.
Some homes have been passed down from generation to
generation. Yet, the current generation
cannot sustain ownership of the property due to Revaluation and annual property
tax increases.
The property tax system in Connecticut is in crisis. Yet, we cannot address this issue without
concurrently looking at the issue of State Mandates. Those laws which the State
imposes upon municipalities which carry a financial burden upon local property taxpayers. Two mandates which are bankrupting
municipalities are Binding Arbitration and Prevailing
Wage. Our laws must be changed to
prevent the driving costs of wage and healthcare benefits in union contracts due
to Binding Arbitration and the high cost of construction born by local
taxpayers due to the existing Prevailing Wage mandates. Approximately, 75% to 85% of municipal
budgets support municipal personnel related expenses. While those who work in the private sector “At
Will” are losing their jobs, or taking a cut in pay and/or paying more for
healthcare benefits for themselves, they are also picking up the tab to pay for
high healthcare, pensions and wage costs for town employees which are factored
into municipal budgets and which are driving up property taxes.
Municipalities, unlike the State, have only two primary
means of raising revenue, property taxes and fees. In contrast, the State of Connecticut has placed a tax on nearly every
facet of our life, from the tax on a movie to the conveyance tax on the sale of
our homes.
I emphasize that property owners can no longer sustain
continued property tax increases. The
solution to this crisis is to tax real estate on its value established at the
time of sale, reform our state mandates, and think out of the box.
Recently, I had written to Governor Rell
and our local legislators proposing that municipalities be allowed to retain 1%
of the 6% sales tax generated from new businesses established within Enterprise
zones. As you are aware Enterprise
zones allow for tax breaks for new businesses thereby affecting the amount of
tax a municipality receives, while taxpayers pay for services to sustain these
businesses. I ask that your Committee
consider such a proposal. Further, there
should be a mandatory audit of municipalities which receive at least thirty per
cent of their revenues in any fiscal year from the state. This was a proposal made this year by the
legislature and should be approved, along with laws governing campaign finance
reform and ethics.
It has become apparent within the past few months, that our
taxes have been driven by corrupt business practices at the state and in some
municipal governments. It is also
apparent that we have an urgent need for campaign finance reform to prevent
influence peddling usurping sound business practices. The State and the 169 individual towns must
put their finances in order. There must
be accountability of government expenses while concurrently providing accountability
of those who have a fiduciary responsibility over the money taxpayers give them
to finance State and local budgets.
Thank you for your time.
In summary, I ask that you allow municipalities to retain 1% of the 6%
sales tax generated from new businesses in enterprise zones, implement a tax
structure which establishes the true assessed value of a home upon its actual
sale, reform state mandates and give local governments greater control over
their costs, require audits and provide accountability of how our money is
being spent, and most importantly, implement sound business practices by
instilling strong ethical standards and end the corruption which has permeated
our state and some of our municipalities.
*******
From: Theresa
McGrath, Executive Director, FACE,
Family Alliance
for Children in Education
(860) 570-1203
FACE0203@comcast.net
December 6, 2005
Hello Susan, I thought you would be interested in this
article. Wouldn't it be nice to do something like this in our state?
A tiny little tidbit of totalitarianism
By Paul Jacob
Dec 4, 2005
Do you want to
make politics illegal? Should our opponents be blocked from democratic
participation? Must those who agitate for ideas that we disagree with be
silenced?
Surely, most
Americans are blurting out, "No! Of course not!"
Yet, that's the
growing trend in today's politics: the totalitarian impulse. Quietly, behind
the scenes, it's rearing its ugly head again, this time in Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Education
Association is not demanding its political opponents be thrown into gulags. The
state's largest education labor union would do nothing that extreme.
Don't be silly. The OEA just wants to silence citizens petitioning to place an
initiative on the ballot.
This isn't
rampant, chest-beating totalitarianism. There is nuance. Only
a smidgen of despotism.
At issue is a
measure called Stop Over Spending, which is similar to
Colorado's
Taxpayer Bill of Rights. A group of citizens filed the initiative and formed a
campaign committee called Oklahomans
in Action. The goal of the measure is simply to put the people in
charge of state government spending.
The Stop Over Spending (SOS) initiative places a cap on how much politicians can increase government
spending. From year to year, the increases cannot be greater than
inflation plus population growth. No cuts in spending are mandated, but the
increases are capped. That is, unless the people of Oklahoma vote to let their state government
spend more money, which they can do. The SOS Amendment thus puts government on
a citizen-controlled diet. The article is continued at the following website: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/pauljacob/2005/12/04/177703.html
*******
Again, I extend our appreciation to Pat Snyder
for keeping us current on the news.
Please continue to visit Pat’s very informative website: http://www.watchdog4pop.blogspot.com/
Gov. Sanford to Push for Private Property Protections
PRESS RELEASE,
December 5, 2005, Contact: Joel
Sawyer
803-734-2100, jsawyer@gov.sc.gov
Aiken, S.C., December 5, 2005 - Gov. Mark Sanford was in Aiken today to emphasize the
need for strengthening the state's eminent domain laws in the wake of a
recently-defeated local TIF proposal. Earlier this year, the governor vetoed S.97
because of his concern that it expanded eminent domain powers at the expense of
private property rights. That same bill was almost used to create a TIF
district that gave benefits to private developers. Gov. Sanford said that
issue, combined with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, have illustrated
the need for stronger eminent domain protections in our state, and that he will
work with leaders in the General Assembly to promote that legislation in the
coming year. The article is continued at the
following website: http://www.scheadlines.com/release.asp?relID=502
*******
From: Fred Standt , FStndt@aol.com
Brookfield Taxpayers
Association
RE: Slashing
the Budget by U. S. Rep Ron Paul
November 21, 2005
SLASHING THE BUDGET By
Ron Paul, U. S. Rep: http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml,
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
Only in Washington DC
can a spending increase be called a spending cut-- but that’s exactly what
happened last week. Congress passed a budget bill that merely slows the
rate at which some federal spending grows by a tiny percentage,
and both parties acted as though a revolution had taken place.
Republicans trumpeted the
measure as a huge victory for fiscal conservatism, while Democrats were enraged
by the supposed “slashing” of government programs. The uproar shows just
how entrenched the spending culture has become on Capitol Hill-- even
insignificant reductions in the rate of growth in federal spending are seen as
earth-shattering. But if we’re really serious about cutting federal
spending, why not simply cut 10% from the 2006 budget?
Remember, the same Republicans
claiming victory for slowing spending next year also passed the Medicare prescription
drug bill, which will add over $50 billion to the federal budget in 2006
alone! In just one year the Medicare bill adds ten times in new spending
what the budget bill purportedly cuts. So nobody who voted for the
Medicare drug bill has any business talking about government spending.
Neither do those who refuse to consider cutting one penny from the military and
foreign aid budgets. You cannot conduct a foreign policy based on
remaking whole nations using military force and pretend to operate a frugal
government.
The Democrats, by contrast,
never want to cut spending on anything, no matter how much the federal budget
grows-- and it’s doubled in 15 years. A $2.4 trillion federal budget is
woefully inadequate in their eyes, and ten years from now they’ll say the same
thing about a $5 trillion budget. No amount of spending will ever satisfy
those who believe government should address every human problem and involve
itself in every aspect of our lives.
The budget bill fails to
address the root of the spending problem--this belief that Congress continually
must create new federal programs and agencies. However, with the federal
government’s unfunded liabilities-- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--
projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no
longer can avoid serious efforts to rein in spending.
Instead of a smoke-and-mirrors approach, Congress should begin the journey
toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real
spending, followed by a renewed commitment to fund only those government
functions that are consistent with the Constitution.
*******
Doug Schwartz, thedougschwartz@gmail.com
New London
Subject: The Coalition
to Sue State Over School Funding
November 24, 2005
It is clear this effort to tax individuals and corporations
to death has been years in the making and is well-organized. Their web
site is full of interesting stuff, see especially
their list of members: http://www.ccjef.org/member.htm
September 29, 2005
Coalition to sue state over school funding
By: Matthew J. Malone
Reprinted from The Stamford Advocate
STAMFORD - A coalition of municipalities, labor unions and interest
groups plans to file a lawsuit charging that state funding of education is
unconstitutional because it fails to provide all students with an adequate
education. Continued at the following website: http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2004-2005/092905c.html
*******
November 23, 2005
State sued over school
funding -- issue for governor's race
By Mark Pazniokas
and Robert A. Frahm
Reprinted from The Hartford Courant
A school-funding
lawsuit filed Tuesday aims to increase state aid to municipalities by as much
as $2 billion annually, creating an instant issue for the 2006 campaign for
governor.
Nearly 30 years
after Horton vs. Meskill, a landmark lawsuit that
opened the state coffers for school aid, the courts once again are being asked
to force political leaders to redefine the state's role in local education.
The lawsuit claims
there are vast disparities in opportunities and levels of achievement among Connecticut's public
schools. Continued at the following website: http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2004-2005/112305.html
*******
New school
funding lawsuit pursues only greed, not equality
Editorial By Chris Powell,
Journal Inquirer,
November 28, 2005
Education, Robert Frost remarked,
is mainly a matter of hanging around until you've caught on. Having just been
slapped with another class-action lawsuit claiming that its system of financing
education is unconstitutional, 30 years and billions of dollars in new
education spending after the last such lawsuit, Connecticut should be catching on. Continued at the following website: http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15652726&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=8
*******
No trial means
no details; Construction company the big winner in Ellef/Tomasso
plea deal, by Don Michak,
Journal Inquirer, Oct 31, 2005
The criminal convictions this
week of former Gov. John G. Rowland's co-chief of staff and one of Rowland's
biggest benefactors mean there will be no trial at which federal prosecutors
detail the racketeering enterprise they alleged was run out of Rowland's
office. Continued at the following website: http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15476928&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=8
*******
CL&P seeks
21.5 percent rate hike,
Electricity users, get ready to shell out approximately 21.5
percent more every month for power. Journal Inquirer, Dec 3, 2005
Late Friday afternoon, Connecticut Light & Power finalized its
proposal for a 21.5 percent rate hike for next year and filed it with state
regulators, Mitch Gross, CL&P spokesman, said. It is now up to the state
Department of Public Utility Control to review CL&P's
proposal, hold a public hearing, and act upon it this month, Gross said.
"We anticipate an increase being approved," Gross said Friday.
"The DPUC will make the final decision as to how much it will be." DPUC spokeswoman Beryl Lyons said Friday that
the department "will review the filing to make sure it is correct, and
we'll issue a decision sometime this month, giving the company enough time to
be able to program their computers so the rate can go into effect Jan. 1." Continued at
the following website:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15685878&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6