This should bring Greenwich real estate values roaring back

Greenwich Town Committee chairman rests after saving the poor

Noted Greenwich Democrat rests up after round I of tax hikes and prepares for more

Connecticut Democrats preparing massive, widespread confiscation of wealth from Fairfield County residents and businesses.

Leery of the governor’s plans to raid special programs, … Democratic lawmakers are proposing increases in income, estate, corporation, sales and cigarette taxes.

Rich vs. poor

“We will, I think, need some additional revenues to have a balanced budget, and I’ve always believed we should have more progressivity in our income tax,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven.

Looney has proposed boosting the income tax’s top marginal rate from 6.7 to 6.9 percent. That would apply to earnings above $250,000 for individuals and above $500,000 for couples.

Seeking more from big corporations

With fiscal analysts projecting a 6 percent gap, about $1.2 billion, in next year’s finances based on current trends, Malloy was hard pressed to avoid tax hikes, and is seeking more from businesses.

But Malloy argues the $139 million extra from the corporation, electricity generation and insurance premiums taxes comes only from extending existing rates or credit limits otherwise set to expire — and therefore doesn’t count as a tax hike.

“I think he had to look at every option to deal with a difficult situation,” said Flexer. “But now it is our responsibility to do the same.”

Flexer is one of several lawmakers who has proposed a “combined reporting” measure to ensure that Connecticut corporations pay more in taxes.

The “combined reporting” concept holds that any corporate group with at least one affiliate here should owe taxes that reflect the entire group’s net income.

Rep. Betsy Ritter, a Waterford Democrat, not only has sponsored a “combined reporting” bill, but she has also proposed a hoarder’s tax. This would place a levy on liquid assets — companies with a lot of money in the bank — and dedicate the proceeds to job creation programs.

While Malloy has said repeatedly this is not the time to raise taxes, that line already has been crossed, Ritter said.

“It sounds to me like the legislature is respectfully saying (tax increases) are something we have to have on the table to have a balanced discussion about the budget,” she said.

Other proposals offered recently would repeal a 2009 tax cut on wealthy estates, increase sales tax on food served at restaurants, add 95 cents per pack to the cigarette tax and preserve the towns’ share of state sales and real estate conveyance taxes — worth just under $100 million per year.

The finance committee did raise a concept bill — a measure with a title, but no specific language drafted to date — regarding the real estate conveyance tax. Such measures typically are drafted in anticipation that members may discuss the topic during the legislative session.

Rep. Sean Williams of Watertown, ranking GOP representative on the finance committee, said he doesn’t think Democrats will find the spending cuts needed to support tax hikes and said he fears it will be hard enough to eliminate the other revenue gimmicks in the budget. “There is never enough money for these folks to spend.”


Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “This should bring Greenwich real estate values roaring back

  1. D

    Is TX an ok place to live? I hear a lot of people are moving there these days…

  2. Balzac

    Anyone feeling like a cup of tea about now?

  3. Peg

    I read this an hour ago, and couldn’t believe my eyes. As a child, my dad taught me – over and over – the value of saving and investing. I am so thankful that he did. I see so many of my fellow baby boomers just one step away from financial ruin – and – I have what I have saved – OOPS, I mean HOARDED over the years.

    No wonder we’re in such deep doo doo. This MORON wants to take people who are doing what everyone ought to do – save and be self- sufficient – and PENALIZE ’em for it! Yeah – let’s get everyone on the dole! That oughta be good for America!

  4. Tawm

    This has got be a satire…from the name “Looney” onwards?!

  5. Cos Cobber

    Cue FF for infrastructure guilt speech and commentary that all that job growth and lower tax burden in other states is shameful and guilt ridden.

  6. CatoRenasci

    It’s crap like this that led the Founders to insist the population had the right to be armed to the teeth – confiscation of wealth is tyranny, whether it’s the tyranny of a majority (who either don’t pay taxes or are the beneficiaries of the exactions) or the tyranny of a single despot or an oligarchy. Our republic was founded to shield the people from unjust confiscation of property by the English crown, What the hell makes this twit from Waterford think she’s got the right to simply confiscate a portion of one’s property every year because it’s “too much”? A century ago, she’d have been tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

  7. Mickster

    Parasites, every one of them…It’s no wonder that more and more of our corporations are making their profits and keeping their trillions in cash overseas subsidiaries now.

  8. Anonymous

    Didn’t we just have the largest tax hike in Connecticut history? And wasn’t that supposed to have solved Connecticut’s fiscal problems?

    I’d really like to see some honest, fact based reporting in the Greenwich Time comparing what Mr. Malloy and the Democrats promised not too long ago with what actually has happened. But I’m not holding my breath.

  9. Publius

    The fiscal situation is worse than reported because the state does not use GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) accounting for its books and records. There is a structural deficit of over $1 billion that most tax payers are clearly unaware of and are under the impression that the most recent massive tax hike “solved” our budget issues. Deficits generated under the creative accounting now used is IN ADDITION TO the structural deficit.

    It is clear to me that the state has entered the next phase of the fiscal death spiral whereby taxes are increased, realized tax revenues are less than forecast, spending continues to increase and the most productive “mysteriously” leave the state tax rolls. No mystery to the logical person of course but to elected officials a truly stunning unwelcome outcome.

    Also consider that the pensions are grossly underfunded and that surpluses that were supposed to be generated by the tax increase was supposed to go to better annual funding to improve their sustainability. Surpluses were also supposed to be used as a transition mechanism to GAAP accounting. Not happening.

    The State seems to fly below the fiscal radar, perhaps because the state itself has become irrelevant: reliably Blue/Liberal with a large contingent of feckless and grossly ignorant (really stupid) elected officials. At some point people will realize the music has stopped (happened 20 years ago in CT) and at that point there will be no one left to tax.

  10. FlyAngler

    Hey, let’s not forget the role a very restrictive gun control bill could have on the spending choices of law-abidiing gun owners. Assuming a ban on 10-round magazines with no grandfathering can pass (and I hear it is at least 50/50 this week), what will be the cost to those who own such mags? If they are forced to replace mags that are suddenly illegal, will they have to divert funds from other discretionary expenditures to make sure their mags are in compliance. Absent any sort of State buy-back program (which is NOT in the Dems current plans), the full cost of such a replacement will be borne by the gun owners. For me, I have over 30 10+ round mags for my various pistols and rifles. At a pre-panic cost of $25 each ($15 rifle, $35 pistol), that is $750 replacement cost. At current prices, that is likely $2,000 or more. And I know folks with many more such mags among the 150,000 owners of such mags across CT.

    According to the state report linked below, the total costs to Connecticut and/or its citizens could be tens of millions if not $100mm or more. I wonder if our brilliant public servants in Hartford are thinking about this? OR, the costs of enforcement of something that will likely meet with significant civil disobedience?