This is a good blog. What might make it even better would be an example. If your house is assessed at 100K or 200K and if you use last year's mill rate or the PROPOSED, (at this time) mill rate, how much would the property taxes increase on a property?
Last year's mill rate was 34.98 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3498). The 'proposed' mill rate is 37.53 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3753, an increase of $255). For a $143k property your taxes will be increasing $365 ($5002 to $5367), or an extra dollar per day. Houses assessed more than $143k will be a little more than a dollar a day. Houses assessed less than $143k will be a little less than a dollar a day. Really, what is a dollar a day in the whole scheme of things?
Why not follow Governor Christie's lead and cut spending, cut the size of city government and deliver a budget with no increase? I know, everyone is going to say they can't do any cuts because of the unions, but Governor Christie has unions and he found ways around them, why can't we?
" KD said... Last year's mill rate was 34.98 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3498). The 'proposed' mill rate is 37.53 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3753, an increase of $255). For a $143k property your taxes will be increasing $365 ($5002 to $5367), or an extra dollar per day. Houses assessed more than $143k will be a little more than a dollar a day. Houses assessed less than $143k will be a little less than a dollar a day. Really, what is a dollar a day in the whole scheme of things?
April 19, 2010 8:42 AM"
It's something for John The Lesser and Phil Sherwood and the DTC to use to criticize the Mayor!! That's it in a nutshell.
Why can't we deliver a no increase budget? Because we have had no increases in the past six, yes six years that why! If you really want no tax increase then what are you willing to get rid of? Garbage collection? Snow plowing? Leave pickup? Pools?etc. etc. Tell the city what it is that you think you can get rid of and I'm sure the Mayor has a rational explanation as to why you can't.
A dollar a day can add up to a lot across the entire year, and any increase is unfortunate. However, KD is right, if you keep this increase in perspective it is a very small one. To the poster who mentioned cutting government, part of the Mayor's proposal is the elimination of close to $1 million in positions.
I like the idea of Governor Christie being able to suspend union contracts whenever he deems it an emergency, and then the Governor can pay them as little as he sees fit.
Why can't we give our Governor and our Mayor that authority???
Finally, the taxpayers are seeing the light! It is the unions controlling everything. Are they smarter than the rest of us or did they get their positions because of nepotism or dumb luck?
Negotiations are key. Elected officials, not always Rhodes Scholars, should not be in a position to give away our money to city or school officials just to like "good guys'.
Anonymous said...Elected officials, not always Rhodes Scholars, should not be in a position to give away our money to city or school officials just to like "good guys'....
This is why the unions have the council loaded with their own people. If the taxpayers are really paying more attention, they would never vote for these union yes men for the council.
" Anonymous said... I would like to know how much the City employee co-pays are going to up to compensate for the 7,000,000 increase in health care?" " Anonymous said... You mean city employees don't get totally free health insurance. They actually pay something towards their health care? When did that start?"
TWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS !
With regard to the first: You should ask Alderman Sherwood why he didn't ask that this information be placed on the city's web site! Perhaps because it might tell you something about union control of city employees! However, Mayor Stewart is working on placing some of the elements of union contracts on line for all to see. With regard to the second question: Some unions were paying nothing toward health insure; they have started to pay since Stewart became Mayor. Do they pay as much as workers in the private sector? NO! But the city is making progress. It costs the city about $25K for family insurance plans with one insurer and, about $17K thriugh another. If the people that asked these questions work in the private sector and have insurance through their employer, I ask, what %age of your insurance plan do you pay?
This is true, it is time to start tough negotiations with all the city unions. Government employees are currently making twice what the private sector makes, and who do you think is footing the bill for their lavish benefit plans?
With regard to the first: You should ask Alderman Sherwood why he didn't ask that this information be placed on the city's web site! Perhaps because it might tell you something about union control of city employees!
That state posts every state employee union contract and their pay plans online. Why can't we do the same, so the people paying the bills can see what they are paying for?
To view a state employee contract, go to this link:
Sherwood, the carpetbagger from New Hampshire, sure has been quiet lately. I am wondering if his wife got her way, and they moved out of town, because rumor has it that she doesn't think the New Britain School System is good enough for her children, especially with an estimated 200 teacher layoffs coming due to budget problems.
In a new Rasmussen Reports poll released yesterday, 53% of New Jersey residents approve of Governor Christie’s first few months in office. In fact, further proving that New Jersey is heading in a new direction, the Governor has a 64% approval rating among independents and 80% with Republicans.
Rasmussen Reports’ April 16th survey found that 65% of New Jersey voters support a one-year salary freeze for teachers, administrators and other school workers. That’s two-thirds of NJ voters!
Its time for our governor and town leaders to stand up to these unions and show them that we are in charge, NOT THEM. WE should follow in Jersey's footsteps.
Let's talk about the State. What are the members of NB's state delegation doing about reducing our property taxes by leveling the playing field across the state. Where's the noise and outrage from average Joe? Nothing. Free ride for those guys everyday. Just more unfunded mandates and less PILOT monies. We need some focus on these guys and the Board of Ed in the next election. The system from the State down is unfair to those in the Cities. Let's make some noise and get some change at this level and in who drives our schools (62% of our budget)!
Mike, The liberals in the legislature are the problem.
We need to start electing people of integrity who will cut spending and reduce the size of state government. All the current delegation seems to do is find ways to expand the bloat in state government through more and more entitlement programs, and more and more job killing bills like mandatory sick days for every private employer. The more they raise the cost of doing business, the more jobs are going to be moved to right to work states where they have no union issues and drastically lower taxes.
Texas Governor Rick Perry was recently on Huckabee and when asked what the personal income tax rate in Texas was, Governor Perry responded with "a big fat zero." He followed up by explaining that they also have no business taxes of any kind, and of course Texas is a right to work state where unions have virtually no rights.
When you can say that here in Connecticut, then you can begin to be competitive, until then would the last one out of Connecticut please turn off the lights?
The unions really got a bargain with these Democrats, didn't they? The Republican Governor wants to offer another early retirement incentive to unionized state employees, and it is the Democrats that are against it. Do you think the union members will get the message that they were screwed by the Democrats in the legislature?
Frank:
ReplyDeleteThis is a good blog. What might make it even better would be an example. If your house is assessed at 100K or 200K and if you use last year's mill rate or the PROPOSED, (at this time) mill rate, how much would the property taxes increase on a property?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast year's mill rate was 34.98 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3498). The 'proposed' mill rate is 37.53 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3753, an increase of $255). For a $143k property your taxes will be increasing $365 ($5002 to $5367), or an extra dollar per day. Houses assessed more than $143k will be a little more than a dollar a day. Houses assessed less than $143k will be a little less than a dollar a day. Really, what is a dollar a day in the whole scheme of things?
ReplyDeleteWhy not follow Governor Christie's lead and cut spending, cut the size of city government and deliver a budget with no increase? I know, everyone is going to say they can't do any cuts because of the unions, but Governor Christie has unions and he found ways around them, why can't we?
ReplyDelete" KD said...
ReplyDeleteLast year's mill rate was 34.98 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3498). The 'proposed' mill rate is 37.53 (on a $100k property taxes would be $3753, an increase of $255). For a $143k property your taxes will be increasing $365 ($5002 to $5367), or an extra dollar per day. Houses assessed more than $143k will be a little more than a dollar a day. Houses assessed less than $143k will be a little less than a dollar a day. Really, what is a dollar a day in the whole scheme of things?
April 19, 2010 8:42 AM"
It's something for John The Lesser and Phil Sherwood and the DTC to use to criticize the Mayor!! That's it in a nutshell.
Why can't we deliver a no increase budget? Because we have had no increases in the past six, yes six years that why! If you really want no tax increase then what are you willing to get rid of? Garbage collection? Snow plowing? Leave pickup? Pools?etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteTell the city what it is that you think you can get rid of and I'm sure the Mayor has a rational explanation as to why you can't.
A dollar a day can add up to a lot across the entire year, and any increase is unfortunate. However, KD is right, if you keep this increase in perspective it is a very small one. To the poster who mentioned cutting government, part of the Mayor's proposal is the elimination of close to $1 million in positions.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of Governor Christie being able to suspend union contracts whenever he deems it an emergency, and then the Governor can pay them as little as he sees fit.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we give our Governor and our Mayor that authority???
I would like to know how much the City employee co-pays are going to up to compensate for the 7,000,000 increase in health care?
ReplyDeleteYou mean city employees don't get totally free health insurance. They actually pay something towards their health care? When did that start?
ReplyDeleteFinally, the taxpayers are seeing the light! It is the unions controlling everything. Are they smarter than the rest of us or did they get their positions because of nepotism or dumb luck?
ReplyDeleteNegotiations are key. Elected officials, not always Rhodes Scholars, should not be in a position to give away our money to city or school officials just to like "good guys'.
Anonymous said...Elected officials, not always Rhodes Scholars, should not be in a position to give away our money to city or school officials just to like "good guys'....
ReplyDeleteThis is why the unions have the council loaded with their own people.
If the taxpayers are really paying more attention, they would never vote for these union yes men for the council.
" Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI would like to know how much the City employee co-pays are going to up to compensate for the 7,000,000 increase in health care?"
" Anonymous said...
You mean city employees don't get totally free health insurance. They actually pay something towards their health care? When did that start?"
TWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS !
With regard to the first: You should ask Alderman Sherwood why he didn't ask that this information be placed on the city's web site! Perhaps because it might tell you something about union control of city employees! However, Mayor Stewart is working on placing some of the elements of union contracts on line for all to see.
With regard to the second question: Some unions were paying nothing toward health insure; they have started to pay since Stewart became Mayor. Do they pay as much as workers in the private sector? NO! But the city is making progress. It costs the city about $25K for family insurance plans with one insurer and, about $17K thriugh another.
If the people that asked these questions work in the private sector and have insurance through their employer, I ask, what %age of your insurance plan do you pay?
This is true, it is time to start tough negotiations with all the city unions. Government employees are currently making twice what the private sector makes, and who do you think is footing the bill for their lavish benefit plans?
ReplyDeleteTWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS !
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the first: You should ask Alderman Sherwood why he didn't ask that this information be placed on the city's web site! Perhaps because it might tell you something about union control of city employees!
That state posts every state employee union contract and their pay plans online. Why can't we do the same, so the people paying the bills can see what they are paying for?
To view a state employee contract, go to this link:
http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2992&Q=383228&opmNav_GID=1792&opmNav
Maybe Alderman Sherwood would rather have the union contracts printed under the legal notices in The Herald?
ReplyDeleteSherwood, the carpetbagger from New Hampshire, sure has been quiet lately. I am wondering if his wife got her way, and they moved out of town, because rumor has it that she doesn't think the New Britain School System is good enough for her children, especially with an estimated 200 teacher layoffs coming due to budget problems.
ReplyDeleteBoy do we need someone like Christie here:
ReplyDeleteGovernor Christie: 53% job approval rating!
In a new Rasmussen Reports poll released yesterday, 53% of New Jersey residents approve of Governor Christie’s first few months in office. In fact, further proving that New Jersey is heading in a new direction, the Governor has a 64% approval rating among independents and 80% with Republicans.
Rasmussen Reports’ April 16th survey found that 65% of New Jersey voters support a one-year salary freeze for teachers, administrators and other school workers. That’s two-thirds of NJ voters!
Its time for our governor and town leaders to stand up to these unions and show them that we are in charge, NOT THEM. WE should follow in Jersey's footsteps.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about the State. What are the members of NB's state delegation doing about reducing our property taxes by leveling the playing field across the state. Where's the noise and outrage from average Joe? Nothing. Free ride for those guys everyday. Just more unfunded mandates and less PILOT monies. We need some focus on these guys and the Board of Ed in the next election. The system from the State down is unfair to those in the Cities. Let's make some noise and get some change at this level and in who drives our schools (62% of our budget)!
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThe liberals in the legislature are the problem.
We need to start electing people of integrity who will cut spending and reduce the size of state government. All the current delegation seems to do is find ways to expand the bloat in state government through more and more entitlement programs, and more and more job killing bills like mandatory sick days for every private employer. The more they raise the cost of doing business, the more jobs are going to be moved to right to work states where they have no union issues and drastically lower taxes.
Texas Governor Rick Perry was recently on Huckabee and when asked what the personal income tax rate in Texas was, Governor Perry responded with "a big fat zero." He followed up by explaining that they also have no business taxes of any kind, and of course Texas is a right to work state where unions have virtually no rights.
When you can say that here in Connecticut, then you can begin to be competitive, until then would the last one out of Connecticut please turn off the lights?
The unions really got a bargain with these Democrats, didn't they? The Republican Governor wants to offer another early retirement incentive to unionized state employees, and it is the Democrats that are against it. Do you think the union members will get the message that they were screwed by the Democrats in the legislature?
ReplyDelete