In an abrupt change from her original plan, Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Friday that her proposal to eliminate the car tax would apply only to the first $30,000 of a car's fair market value.
The revision came in response to criticism by Democrats that Rell's plan would disproportionately favor the rich, who sometimes own numerous highly expensive cars. Her amended plan came less than one week after The Courant reported that residents of Greenwich own 2,337 cars that are worth more than $50,000 each. The town's vehicle roster includes 39 Rolls-Royces, 40 Maseratis, 90 Bentleys, 94 Ferraris, 931 Porsches and 3,474 Mercedes-Benzes.
This proposal has no chance in seeing the light of day simply because Rell's plan includes eliminating the $500.00 property tax credit.
Some Democrats scoffed at the idea, saying that Rell is backpedaling in an attempt to salvage her proposal.
"Last month, I said the governor rolled out her car tax on flat tires," said House Speaker James Amann, one of the leading car-tax opponents. "Putting a doughnut on one of the wheels doesn't make it roll. What about the basic inequity of someone with one car vs. a wealthy person with three or four? It's a minor adjustment to a badly flawed proposal."
Rep. Christopher Caruso, a Bridgeport Democrat, rejected the statements by Republicans that urban Democrats should favor the car-tax elimination because of the high tax rates in the cities. He charged that Rell's new plan will not work because it still relies on eliminating the popular $500 property tax credit as a way to make up for losses as a result of ending the tax on vehicles.
"It doesn't resolve the problem for urban dwellers and the middle class," Caruso said Friday. "People in Bridgeport don't drive Bentleys. They don't drive Porsches. They don't drive BMWs."
It's simple, as long as the governor continues her quest to eliminate the $500.00 property tax credit, the Democrats will never allow this proposal to see the light of day.
...and lets not get into how eliminating the tax would hurt cities and small towns.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
