[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Excellent ideas. Diesel would somewhat reduce the worst tax-massive inflation. Our state income tax rates are far too high! The net/gross pay % lost is crushing on the lower middle and middle class. The meal surcharge tax should NEVER have existed IMO. Why punish those dining out and one industry-restaurants?

I would hardly call $2.6 billion in pension funding less than quite generous. Are we to become what the D3 automakers of Detroit were, when analysts correctly called them Insurance providers for millions of retirees who happened to make a car now and then? Does the Ct private sector exist solely to sustain Ct government employees, cradle to grave?

In short, if it takes $5 billion, I question our long-term ability to sustain that. We need to be questioning every expenditure, just as the productive private sector does. No sacred cows.

The more the state puts toward its pension funds now, the less it has to come up with in the future. Just like a person who comes into unexpected windfall and must decide if they should spend it or pay down their mortgage, the state needs to decide if it wants to use it for pension obligations. It may not be “sexy” but it is fiscally prudent. I would rather see that then unsustainable tax cuts now to look good in an election year. JMHO, Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The more the state puts toward its pension funds now, the less it has to come up with in the future. Just like a person who comes into unexpected windfall and must decide if they should spend it or pay down their mortgage, the state needs to decide if it wants to use it for pension obligations. It may not be “sexy” but it is fiscally prudent. I would rather see that then unsustainable tax cuts now to look good in an election year. JMHO, Jay

$2.6 bill is enough.

I am on board with the GOP plan 100%.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Connecticut Republicans have presented a proposal to cut state taxes by an additional $746 million! They are proposing to cut the state sales tax from 6.35% to 5.99%; permanently reduce state income tax by 1 percentage point, within certain income limits; Expand home energy assistance program for more middle class families; suspend diesel tax, with aim to provide 25-cent per gallon relief; repeal heavy truck mileage tax; and eliminate the 1 percent meal surcharge tax.

It sounds nice but I do have to wonder if this deep of a cut is sustainable. It seems more of an election year ploy to pander to voters than a workable realistic proposal. I’m concerned that they want to cut the advanced pension payments from over $5 billion to just $2.6 billion. Given the size of our pension obligations I’d feel much better if they were more modest in their tax cuts and retained the higher advanced payment. What do you think? Jay

Interesting!

My question is bolded. What does permanent mean? Will it be stuck at the new rate forever? It can never go higher than that?

I'd love to see more property tax deductions but I'll take a reduction in the income tax!

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo

Interesting!

My question is bolded. What does permanent mean? Will it be stuck at the new rate forever? It can never go higher than that?

I'd love to see more property tax deductions but I'll take a reduction in the income tax!

I believe they say that because the tax cuts already implemented are for a limited time only. They will have to be renewed by the legislature if they are to continue in the future. It’s kind of a sneaky way to raise taxes in the future without having to have a legislative vote to do so. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

$2.6 bill is enough.

I am on board with the GOP plan 100%.

I disagree. It is fiscally irresponsible to not pay your debts when you can. Would you not pay off your credit card debts if you came into money suddenly? Or would you go out and blow it on a new sports car?

It’s pretty telling that the Republicans are proposing such a ridiculous tax cut. They know it doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell so why not make an excessive proposal to win votes. They are pandering to the ignorant, much like Stefanowski’s proposal to eliminate the income tax. He knew it wasn’t possible but proposed it anyway to win votes. Fortunately voters saw through it and did not fall for his lies. I just hope that voters see through it.

Then again the Democrats are no better with their temporary tax cuts. Most of the tax cuts this year are limited to just this or next year. This way the legislature won’t have to vote to raise taxes. They just won’t propose to continue the cuts. Kind of sneaky really. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I believe they say that because the tax cuts already implemented are for a limited time only. They will have to be renewed by the legislature if they are to continue in the future. It’s kind of a sneaky way to raise taxes in the future without having to have a legislative vote to do so. Jay

Actually again that is how I wish any tax hikes or cuts would be. Sunset. Weicker called a 3 decade old income tax temporary, and it was a lie, as the legislation did not sunset.

As an example, the (W) Bush tax cuts btw were a sunset bill, which is why Boehner traded them for Obama's desired UI extension to extend each year, until making the tax cuts perm.

Sunset bills are awesome, as they require proactive decisions to extend, or one can let them expire. Voters who do not know when a bill sunsets or lasts forever are ignorant.

[BobNJ1960]

Lamont, interviewed on Channel 8, showed he is out of touch. He indicated he did not know the tax plan as is calls for raising the diesel tax in the period with record Ct Diesel costs already.

That translates to higher grocery prices, higher retail prices, higher restaurant prices, etc. Whether food arrives at Shop Rite, whether Sysco delivers to your favorite diner, whether a Wal Mart DC stocks your local store, it comes in vehicles using Diesel fuel.

[mdovell]

It's a bit hard for someone to say they aren't a career politican if they've ran four or so times for the same office. It's a bit hard to relate to people in eastern ct if you were in finance in FFC. Not saying the republican is any better but don't see the same debates I'd see in other areas.

The diesel thing is odd because it's hard for Lamont to blame state congress which is mostly democratic without looking like attacking the base. If CT approved tolls it would have another revenue source and be less dependent for this fund on fuel taxes. Truck avoid tolls all the time. I'm right by 32. A large amount of trucks try to bypass the mass tolls by going from Sturbridge to hartford and lower a few stops. We get TONS of trucks in residential areas. Heck a semi trailer parked in front of my house yesterday. So yes it is true that trucks are literally driving though suburbs to save some $$ all because we don't have tolls. You can hear them heck you can feel them. If tolls meant a lower gas price AND shifting truck traffic more to 84 and 91 I'm sure people would be for it.

personally I'm fine with the sales taxes but just put exemptions on the basics like food. I don't think we should have sales taxes on used items. If you can't afford new you buy used and taking that off could be a good help. It can help clear out current inventory without the seller lowering the price.

Income tax I wouldn't get rid of. Lower it and cap it. Say 6%

Start making things more competitive so the state and towns get more for their money. Even prevailing wages so smaller and minority firms can bid (but raise the bonding). Allow out of state S/MBE's to qualify for bids instead of mandating they incorporate in CT first. Some of these policies drive up prices and it's all government based.

here's an example of it on a local level. Say Hartford has a residency requirement. They want professionals to live in the city and spend money (frankly isn't true since the last study of that was in 1983 but anyway) ok fine. But if you do that the spending drives housing up as hartford is a small city by size and then you want affordable housing? How about taking the residency off before other mandates.

We need to see what policies are driving up costs. Sometimes little things add up. I know of exists in CT on the left, not right. The probably is to some out of state they still think the left is a passing lane and this creates a safety problem. Mass has it as well in some areas (braintree split).

[JGBigGreen]

The tax cuts seem very reasonable and particularly timely for the diesel tax. The income tax has relatively low income limits so it will benefit the middle class and lower income residents who need the relief right now. Yes, the state should pay its debts when it can but it needs to also make sure CT residents can pay their bills as well. Great plan by the GOP.

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

$2.6 bill is enough.

I am on board with the GOP plan 100%.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

The tax cuts seem very reasonable and particularly timely for the diesel tax. The income tax has relatively low income limits so it will benefit the middle class and lower income residents who need the relief right now. Yes, the state should pay its debts when it can but it needs to also make sure CT residents can pay their bills as well. Great plan by the GOP.

Bingo. This is precisely the time to reduce taxes.