Is Eliminating the Car Tax a Good Idea?

Writing those checks to the tax assessor is pretty annoying, isn't it? But here's why Patch Back's Lisa Bigelow suspects eliminating this tax may not be such a great idea after all.


Who wants to get rid of the car tax? 

If you’re like most Connecticut taxpayers, chances are you thought to yourself, I do! I do! But if you’re the leader of a municipality or a member of your town’s finance board, you probably broke out into a cold sweat.

Few would argue that the Connecticut state car tax is hugely regressive; it’s also unpopular and sending those checks every year is annoying, to be sure. But ask yourself: would you rather pay the car tax as it stands now or possibly face a steep increase in your property taxes?  

During last week’s budget address, Governor Dannel Malloy pointed to the elimination of the car tax as a centerpiece of his fiscal plan, along with some other political gimmickry that has legislators and watchdogs shaking their heads in confusion.

The problem is this: municipalities depend on the estimated $560 million the car tax raises to fund local budgets. As proposed, Malloy’s budget does not include a way for municipalities to recoup this lost tax revenue. Since money doesn’t grow on trees (except maybe in Greenwich), municipalities will have to figure out a way to get this revenue back on the books. Probable result? Increased property taxes.

If passed as is, the new budget will exempt the first $20,000 of a car’s assessed value from the tax. Taxpayers in affluent communities may see their taxes go up twice, because those who own cars worth more than $20K will have to pay that tax, plus make up the revenue of those who don’t. And their property taxes may go up anyway.

Republicans now face an odd choice: criticize Malloy for “cutting” taxes or support the cut and potentially wind up in deeper financial waters at home.

It’s unfortunate the governor, who campaigned two years ago on increasing transparency and eliminating one-time budget fixes, is now resorting to the same gimmickry he once criticized. And unfortunately, the shenanigans don’t end there.

Business leaders are complaining that tax hikes due to expire will now be extended under the proposed budget (is a retained tax hike the same thing as raising taxes? The Gov says no). Plus, in a picture perfect example of the sort of unintended irony only government can accomplish, the new budget, presented in a new “streamlined” fashion, caused enormous confusion among legislators who can’t find where line items are located.

But wait! There’s more! In still more budget trickery, Malloy cuts Medicaid coverage for poor parents and aid to hospitals, both of which will presumably benefit from the shift to Obamacare.

The winner? Insurance companies, who will furnish the coverage, while raising rates for everyone else.

Insurance companies will also benefit from the elimination of a state Healthcare Advocate unit funded by the insurance industry that recovers Medicaid funds paid in error. Budget Director Benjamin Barnes said the unit hasn’t been effective, but State Healthcare Advocate Victoria Veltri told the Connecticut Mirror the unit uncovered serious processing errors. It was also hampered by bad data.

But back to the car tax, which may wind up hurting us more than it helps. How will municipalities make up the revenue they so desperately need? With drastic cuts or higher taxes, or maybe even both.

Keep that in mind when it’s time to vote come November 2014. 

MikeS February 13, 2013 at 03:19 PM
I am originally from New York, so you can imagine that I am somewhat biased in this matter, coming from a state that got by without imposing a tax on car ownership. I am all for giving the municipalities the revenue they need to fulfill their necessary activities, but it comes down to this. Where are the towns allocating the revenue generated by the car tax? If the revenue isn't being directly spent against costs related to automobiles, e.g. street maintenance, traffic management, then this is not a justified tax. You cannot convince me that it's appropriate to tax me for owning an automobile and then use the proceeds for maintaining a park or the beach. That doesn't add up. There needs to be a correlation between the commodity you're taxing and the area that the tax revenue is going to address. Anything else simply is not fair.
thathouse February 13, 2013 at 07:57 PM
If they get rid of the car tax they'll have to make up the lost revenue somehow. Guess how they'll do that...raise the property taxes. Malloy is a buffoon for even recommending a ridiculous idea.
arkay February 13, 2013 at 08:53 PM
No way. Rent will go up and so will cost of being a homeowner. It has to come from somewhere.
Rocco Frank Milford Independents February 14, 2013 at 04:27 AM
Yes, we already pay enough tax on Gasoline, at the DMV, etc. The tax should just be scrapped so kids in college, and the working poor can catch a break. The amount of money the city collects seems like a lot, however once we scrap the computer system, reduce the size of government tax collectors, eliminate the printing and tracking costs on both the DMV and Town a smart person will soon realize that the tax just funds a bureaucracy that consumes as much money as it collects. My guess is, that the amount of money saved will be pretty much the same amount collected. I am all for smaller government and this is a terrific idea. So what if our taxes go up a bit on our homes we are paying the tax now anyway.
kokopop February 14, 2013 at 04:44 PM
I love the idea just so I don't have to deal with the idiot tax collectors. They insisted I should pay for my Ex husbands car taxes in 2009 (we divorced in 2001) because he neglected to change his address. I had to leave work, go home and get my divorce decree and bring it to the office....and wait for a supervisor because the idiot behind the desk insisted I could not re-register my car until his taxes were paid in full.
Starla February 17, 2013 at 06:46 PM
The tax goes into the general treasury and is used as necessary.
Starla February 18, 2013 at 02:31 AM
Best way to avoid paying high car property tax is to keep your car for a long time. Last year I paid $160 for my twelve year old car. It still runs great by the way.
James Kelly February 18, 2013 at 03:18 PM
Not everyone (and I would imagine, hardly anyone) has the option of keeping a car running, and in good condition, for 12 years. Many of us do not work along the shore, where Metro North runs, and work more than a 20 minutes drive from home in our personal vehicle, so any form of mass transit does not work. Scrapping the vehicle tax would be great for the people that have no choice but to have a car that allows them to do the above, yet most of us know that in Connecticut, they'll just find another item/service to tax to keep the money in the coffers.
Starla February 25, 2013 at 05:04 PM
On the contrary, if you look, you will see many cars a decade or more old. Some have been coddled obviously, but many are daily drivers. In my condo complex, there are a good many old cars with 250,000 to over 300,000 miles. It is a lot cheaper to maintain a car than it is to keep paying car notes and pay high taxes.
Rocco Frank Milford Independents February 25, 2013 at 07:14 PM
Car dealers in Milford said that the state would benefit tremendously from this Idea. One of the issues killing new car sales are the excessive taxes. A New car in Greenwich is taxed at 10Mils Vs. Triple in Milford. If the tax was eliminated or greatly reduced Car sales would improve and additional tax revenue would be generated on the sales tax, and luxury tax. .


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something