Patch Survey: Most In CT Do Not Favor A 'Mansion Tax'

CONNECTICUT — The state needs revenue, and one of the tax bill hottest potatoes in Hartford is the so-called "mansion tax." We surveyed Patch readers for their opinions, and your responses are summarized below.

Senate Bill No. 171, championed by State Senate President Martin Looney, would establish a statewide tax on commercial and residential real estate property. The rate would be one mill, or $1 for every $1,000 of assessed value, and it would only apply to properties assessed at $300,000 or more. Because assessed value in Connecticut is 70 percent of market value, only homes that sell for about $430,000 or more would be subject to the tax.

The overwhelming majority — over 95 percent — of Patch readers who took the unscientific survey told us they had skin in the game:

Over 70 percent of those who took the survey said they were flat-out opposed to the proposed legislation, but a fair-sized sampling (21.4 percent) said they could get on board if the tax skewed to more expensive properties.

A minority of responders were in favor of the bill, but a prevailing theme in their comments was that such a tax was long overdue:

"Connecticut has the worst income inequality and public school resource inequality in the nation. Absent the introduction of county government, it is hard to imagine how else we are going to tackle the issue of massive wealth gaps other than this."

"The 'mansion tax' sounds like a good way of centralizing revenues and dialing back on the inequality and segregation within the state of Connecticut."

"It's about time! That's all I can say!"

"We are so overdue for getting the upper middle class and wealthy class to pay their fair shares in taxes."

"It is time to start investing in CT so all our communities are financially sound and vibrant. Too many parts of CT are falling behind."

"Martin Looney's ideas for this tax have been needed to be implemented for many many years. Very few people In the Connecticut middle class will be affected by this tax. It's a tax that will predominantly and mildly effect upper middle class and wealthy white people who have fled to predominantly white suburbs. I am white by the way."

"CT needs more revenue to help more people! Those who are wealthier need to chip in more. We should also look at nonprofits like Yale that pay no property taxes."

"Those who have a great deal have a responsibility to contribute more. And conspicuous consumption is distasteful. How many square feet do you need. Not to enticing all the resources necessary to keep it up."

"The people who have all the money and can afford taxes get all these breaks, but not the underprivileged. They all have to pay their fair share of taxes. Simply put... rich people can afford to pay a little more. Let them."

"I've lived in Milford for 50+ years and think it's about bloody time the state starts going after the super rich who can afford to pay more!"

But would this tax be targeting just the "super rich," or is a $430,000 home more the province of the Connecticut middle class in 2021? Most of the survey-takers who were against the "mansion tax" pointed to the bill's definition of "mansion" as their sticking point:

"I live in a 1,600 sq ft house on 1/3 of an acre. It’s not even close to a “mansion” and my husband and I are not rich. We both work trades. Because my home is in Stamford I would have to pay this tax because property values here are greater than in other parts of the state. My property taxes to the city are already very high. Stop taxing us...."

"If $430,000 is a 'mansion' then probably about 90% of Fairfield County residents live in so-called mansions. I don't know who these politicians think they're fooling, but once again this will help to eliminate the middle class who are moving out of this state in droves as no one in the middle class can afford to retire here. Why would they...?"

"In CT homes that would be considered mansions are at $800k or more. By no means is $430k considered a ‘mansion’ in CT!!!! STOP TAXING us and learn how to budget...!!!"

"I have lived in Greenwich my whole life and when my husband and I bought our home 25 years ago, we chose to buy in Greenwich close to work. We knew we could get a much larger house for a lot less money farther away. Instead, we chose our 1400 square foot home. Hardly a mansion! Yet, we’ll be taxed a lot more than homeowners across the state with homes triple and quadruple our size. How about a mansion tax on size, on square footage, instead of market value? And don’t mansions have large yards? We’re on a postage stamp. We work hard for what 'little' we have. We don't want to be penalized for it..."

"Houses at 430k and up are average in most of the state. Do you really want us to leave and take all the other taxes we pay away...?"

...and that was another common refrain among the "No's": "Tax me some more, and I'll leave!" In fact, many who took the survey sounded as though they'd already packed their bags:

"This state likes to tax its companies and residents to the point where they have no choice but to leave. We have lost thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs because of the incompetence in Hartford. Florida doesn’t have enough homes to sell for all of the people CT is driving away..."

"I will leave ct if they do this. I am a 50 year resident and already TAXED TOO HEAVILY..."

"Enacting this large tax which will greatly affect the middle class will contribute to even more people choosing to leave the state. I have friends that moved to Trumbull from Windsor 18 years ago for better schools and purchased their 1400 square foot ranch for $250K that is now worth over $500,000. They have already stated they will not stay in CT a their jobs are now remote and where they live is irrelevant to their jobs which they make about $150K combined. I am also considering moving out of CT for pretty much every reason you can think of. Many people feel this way about our state ..."

"My home value is 440k and it is far from a mansion. Taxes like this is why people who can leave the state, do. I look forward to retirement and leaving this state."

"We are already one of the highest taxed states. You’re punishing those whose house appraises at a certain amount? If this passes you’ll see more of an exodus to the south"

"We are one of the highest taxed states. I'm moving because of this. I will never be able to retire here. I’ve worked too hard and made a lot of sacrifices. Why should I be penalized for saving and investing in a nice home? Bye Ct!"

The survey garnered nearly 2,600 responses, many of them from retirees who were quick to identify themselves as such. The majority of them were against the bill:

"I am retired and already pay my share of state and local taxes. The spending needs to be reduced across the board."

"I believe the taxes in Ct are more then sufficient, at this time with one of us retired and the other one on our way we started to think about moving out of Connecticut as many others that I speak with. We are dipping in to our retirement funds to keep our heads above water. When you are on a fixed income heavy taxes are hard enough never mind adding more excessive taxes. Connecticut is starting to push seniors out with not having any tax incentives to keep them there."

"At 74 and 73, my husband and I are still working. A tax of this kind will hurt seniors like us. And like the income tax will only increase over time. Do you really think a mansion is $430,000. This kind of tax would leave us with less to donate to other charities. We do not earn salaries of $100,000, or more. Look at the costs of food, utilities, gasoline etc. And how about medical expenses. We are all one serious disease away from devastation."

"This is just another way to tax honest homeowners who have worked hard their entire lives. I’m retired and pay enough Connecticut taxes from my teachers pension. Looney should retire and see how much taxes this State sucks out of people on a fixed income."

"We are seniors maybe it's time to move to Florida."

"I will leave the state if this bill passes. I am retired and on fixed income."

"...Mansion tax my foot...this is another excuse to sock it to the supposed well-off working class while the gov't continues to spend freely and raise taxes to cover the inevitable shortfalls. I'm now retired and on a fixed income. Cannot tell you how disgusted this makes me...as I'm being penalized again for being modestly successful, for working all my life and for paying all my bills. I will be departing CT soon...as this once great state offers little for retirees. CT only offers new and higher taxes on the middle class, fewer services and lower quality of life each year. Sad ending...

See Also: Patch Survey: Most In CT Anxious For Kids To Return In-School

Some retirees, however, were all-in with the idea of the new tax:

"As a retired (20 yrs. ago) teacher who taught in Greenwich and had apts. in other Gold Coast communities, and who struggles to stay in my home and pay utilities, insurance ( home, med. and auto) on a small retirement income, I know those with homes at $430,000 and up can afford to pay more. Particularly, since Trump gave them such a lovely tax break and their stocks have increased so much in value..."

Gov. Ned Lamont has said he doubts the bill will make it through the legislature this year, and Patch readers agreed overwhelmingly.

The comments from the 5.1 percent of survey takers who did see a mansion tax in our near future seemed to be fueled by a certain ideologically wishful thinking:

"It is time for people with more money & prop to stop getting all the breaks & loop holes."

"I'm a public school teacher, a single parent and a Southport homeowner. My house is appraised just over 300K. Compared to my gold coast neighbors, I'm a pauper. They can afford to pay this a lot easier than I can; if they don't keep a home in Florida to avoid paying taxes here entirely (ahem)"

"I think the rich keep getting richer and a tax on their 'mansions' would be a way to get money. The middle class keep getting taxed more and more but the rich can afford this tax."

"I believe it is time for the super rich to pay a little more in property taxes to help all the residents shoulder the economic burdens caused by the pandemic. The top ten percent earning households is the only segment of CT society to experience a significant rise in income during these difficult times."

"I feel that the more wealthy should be taxed a little higher to make revenue for the state. They do indeed find plenty of ways to get tax breaks."

Taxes are a sore point, and potential new ones especially so. As a result, many of the comments bordered on the... visceral ("You can barely get a decent condo for 400k in lower Fairfield county so take your tax and stick it!") ...and that's fine. But just as many were very carefully thought out, raised some new and curious angles, or just made us go "hmmmm":

"I think a better way to increase tax income for the state would be to restructure the income tax to treat capital gains as income. $430,000 buys you a pretty modest home in lower Fairfield County; this tax doesn't look like it generates that much money, and in eastern CT $430,000 is the high end in some towns. The "mansion" tax ends up being targeted toward southwestern CT. Treating capital gains as income would require all the wealthy with large stock and dividend income to start paying tax on their income, like the rest of us."

"I am not rich and do not live in a mansion. However, since this pandemic the rise in property values make my house worth over 400k approaching the so called tripping point. This is another way the State of CT will soak the middle class and contribute to many leaving the State."

"Lots of people oppose the state collecting real property taxes and distributing them to the cities. Permitting the state to tax real and/or personal property would be a slippery slope to further taxation by the state. In addition, the state would likely increase the rate of taxation above a second single mil similar to the way it increases income tax after promising it would remain flat. Real and property taxes belong to the towns in which the real and personal property exist. Suburban property owners should not be on the hook to fund the cities when the cities already receive more state and federal funding than the suburbs..."

"Taxes are pretty high right now. The federal government should raise marginal income tax rates and enforce the existing tax code, including the estate tax. Then they can distribute money to states for major projects, leaving more money for the states to do other work/programs."

"We are in a 55 and over community Regency at Prospect. We provide an incredible amount of school revenue through our real estate taxes with no children living in this complex. There are now quite a few homes that have sold in the 430,000+ range. It could be a hardship for those living on a fixed income. Please exclude those 55 and over since we don’t get any breaks on real estate taxes in CT as we did in NY (Star credit) if you make 500,000 or less..."

"While on surface the intended taxed mansions seems reasonable, the practical result will only further impact available middle class disposable income which has been under attack for some years now and in the face of no or very little wage gains during same period. 430,000 home value reaches deep into most suburbs and retirement populations. As an example the proposed $ 430 tax on a home valued at 430,000 would wipe out the last theee years of social security benefit increases, which have not kept pace with general increased cost of living increases over same period..."

How far will Senate Bill No. 171 get? Probably not very. But the energy and interest it has generated on both sides means you will be hearing a lot more about it, or its tweaked descendants, for a while.