Skip to main content

Drilling For Taxes in Down And Out Connecticut

The city of Hartford, as well as other large cities in Connecticut, is tax poor, city fathers say, because it is home to so many non-taxable entities; hospitals are a prime example. Hartford cannot collect property taxes from hospitals, churches, schools and -- irony of ironies – the state Capitol, which houses the legislators who impose taxes on the rest of us.

In distributing tax funds to municipalities, the state attempts to level the playing field somewhat by giving more state taxes to poor cities, thus redressing a portion of the loss. However the state, as usual, has its thumb on the balance scales. Hartford Councilwoman Cynthia Jennings, a member of the Working Families Party, noting that the state has for years been shorting Hartford for the 52 percent of tax exempt land in the city, has proposed to levy a city tax on Hartford employees who do not live in the city, which usually receives less than half of what it is due from the state’s Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) program. The Working Families Party marches under state employee union banners. Under the Councilwoman’s program, Hartford's private employers would pick up the slack from the state’s under-financing of the PILOT program. In a state in which business is still mired in a recession, the notion that urban employers should suffer yet another tax went over like a lead balloon.
 
The federal government returns to Connecticut in benefits about fifty cents for every dollar it collects in taxes, a poor return on taxes paid out, which means that Connecticut is a net supplier of tax funds to poorer states. In 2013, the most recent year on record, federal money made up 30% of revenues collected by the 50 states according to figures supplied by State Smart. Connecticut received $6.1 billion dollars from the federal government, 23.4% of its total revenue. During the same period, Connecticut residents and businesses paid $50.2 billion in federal taxes, most of it paid by or on behalf of individuals in the form of income, self-employment and payroll taxes.

Likewise for Connecticut’s state government, the return of tax dollars collected is greater for poor municipalities. Of course, state handouts are never enough – because poor cities share with the state an indisposition to cut spending, much of which is devoted to “fixed costs,” spending items that statutorily cannot be reduced.

Most legislators are averse to spending cuts because any cut in spending disturbs special interests that have over the years used their clout to move themselves from the touchable to the untouchable side of the getting and spending ledger. As a policy decision that might be employed to balance budgets, spending cuts on teachers' salaries, for example, are exceedingly risky for a party whose political heft is due in large part to union participation in political campaigns. State union contracts, negotiated during the Malloy years by the Governor and SEBAC, a union conglomerate, are multi-year affairs that extend well beyond the fiscal year in which budgets are hammered out by tax hungry legislators. Mr. Malloy has seen to it that Republicans in the legislature would not influence any of his budgets, and the special interests in the untouchable zone now exert a life or death power over accommodating Democratic legislators.

Facing a tsunami of protests from belabored businesses and some defections within his own party, Mr. Malloy recently has made an exception to his inflexible rule. Both Republican and Democratic leaders in the General Assembly have been knocking their heads together in meetings that may result in a special session, but there is no assurance that the Democratic dominated General Assembly or the Governor will sign off on any measures that will permanently reduce long term spending. Connecticut has to wring about $2 billion in spending cuts from its continuing budgets, and this cannot be done without attacking untouchable spending, renegotiating union contracts and adopting prudent spending policies for the future.      

Connecticut’s Capitol city is running out of money. No big surprise there; state government also is running out of money. Governor Malloy's two massive tax increases – the largest and the second largest in state history – have pumped most of the tax water out of the revenue well. So then, what does a tax hungry legislator do when his well has run dry? Does he cut spending? Does he move some “fixed costs” into the reducible column? Does he confront union lions in their own dens and require them to reduce their salary and benefit demands?


Nothing of the sort; he drills another well, little realizing that the water table has been reduced over the years though excessive pumping.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p