H&R Block, the guys that help bewildered taxpayers send
their “fair share” in tax receipts to federal and state governments, reported
that Bridgeport, Connecticut was the highest taxed city in the country, and
news outlets across the country ran with the item.
This brought out the beast in Bridgeport Mayor Bill Fitch,
who issued a carefully calibrated response that appeared, among other places,
in Lennie Grimaldi’s “Only in Bridgeport” blog.
The blockheads at Block simply got their figures wrong, said
Mr. Finch. The Block study relied on an incorrect income-to-home valuation: “This
study is based on a hypothetical family of three making $50,000 owning a home
valued at $369,609.” However, “Median income of a Bridgeport resident is
$38,000. The average home is valued at $170,000.”
While taxes in Bridgeport are high, Mr. Fitch announced, they
are NOT the highest in the nation.
And even if one assumes the computations in the study are
fair, there are mitigating circumstances: “I don’t dispute that our residents
pay a lot of taxes–the state of Connecticut bases its revenues on an over reliance on property taxes, making it one of the more highly taxed states
in the U.S. For cities like Bridgeport, which is one of the smallest
municipalities in the country and the hub of nonprofit services such as
hospitals, colleges, courts and jails, it means that we depend on state
reimbursements to make up for lost revenues.”
The same mitigating circumstances apply to other large one-party
cities in the state. Connecticut’s Capitol City, Hartford, is also small in
area and, like Bridgeport, it is located in “one of the more highly taxed
states in the U.S.” That would be Connecticut, which now may be accurately
described as a one-party state. Democrats in Connecticut now control the
governor’s office, both chambers of the General Assembly, all the state’s
constitutional offices and Connecticut’s entire U.S. Congressional delegation.
Sourpuss conservatives sometimes allege that Democrats also unduly influence
Connecticut’s media and courts; such is the gravitational pull of the
Democratic Party hegemon.
If Bridgeport were located in, say, South Carolina rather
than high tax Connecticut, the tax burden falling on the shoulders of Bridgeportites
would be considerably reduced. Mr. Fitch stopped short of recommending that
Bridgeport should be moved to the Carolinas, or that its jails and nonprofit
services such as hospitals, colleges and courts should be re-located to
Greenwich, Connecticut. But there is more than a hint in Mr. Finch’s heartfelt
plea that the state, one of the highest taxed states in the nation, should be a
little more generous in sending tax relief to tax battered Bridgeport.
Democrats in the Capitol city of Hartford generally make the same case: Our tax
needs are increasing at the same time that our tax resources are diminishing.
Is there any connection between these diminishing tax
resources and the tax burden in Bridgeport or other large Democrat dominated
cities in Connecticut? If so, Mr. Fitch breathes not a word of it in his ardent
defense of the ruling Democratic Party in his city. Could it be – is it
possible? – that reductions in spending might provide the city of Bridgeport
with tax resources that can no longer be drawn from the city’s overburdened
taxpayers? If your taxes remain constant but you spend less, do you not realize
an increase in disposable tax receipts? That is how people outside the
political bubble save money, which they may then use to buy necessities – and
only necessities: We are, after all, living in one of the top ten highest taxed states in the nation; why quibble over first place?
If there is a connection in Bridgeport and throughout
Connecticut between spending and infinitely expanding budgets, the ruling party
in the state is keeping that connection hidden behind mountains of smarmy
equivocations.
Has Bridgeport at long last reached the end of its tax
receipts rope? Not to worry. The Democratic mayors of cash strapped cities can
always urge the one-party Democratic state, also cash strapped, to pay cities
for their inability to collect taxes from hospitals and social service
agencies. No need to put a break on spending. Happy times are just around the
corner. One of the chief political benefits of the unitary city and state is
that its administrators need never fear correction from an aroused citizenry
determined to vote into office an alternative political party that, for all practical
purposes, is invisible.
Comments
-----------
the city continues to overborrow to pay its debts and responsibilities. Makes future dream contract deals with the unions which will be unpayable when the time comes which also leads the city to be slow in funding hazard duty pensions as well. Overpaid political jobs and benefits without city council input; assumed proposed city budgets with State and Federal dependance and unrealistic incoming revenue that leads to budget flat-lining for education, libraries and city social services.