It’s refreshing to hear a common campaign theme coming out of the 2011 election season.
As reflected in the April 23, 2008 Board of Aldermen minutes, we previously looked at the prospect of a 4 payment tax system. This administration extensively researched this option for our taxpayers.
We looked at every aspect, including whether or not additional employees were needed to implement the system, as well as the extra cost the City would incur with 2 extra mailings a year.
We also looked at how a 4 payment system would affect the money coming into the City budget, as well as how some loss of interest would affect us financially.
The governing body of a municipality has the discretion to adopt a system of tax collection whether it be a 2 or 4 payment system. Most Cities and Towns in Connecticut fall under the 2 payment system.
At the time of our research, we collectively made the decision not to pursue the 4 payment system, but if we hear enough requests from our constituents, we could definitely look at this again.
The writer is a Republican member of the Board of Aldermen running for re-election in the Third Ward.
Editor’s note: The Valley Indy welcomes ‘guest columns’ from those running for local office. We take each submission on a case-by-case basis. We’ll print up to two a month per candidate. We ask that the columns offer positions and solutions, as opposed to simply criticizing an opponent. We insist on a 500-word limit. If a political opponent takes issue with a guest column, responses are encouraged in our comment section. We encourage candidates to register with Facebook with your first and last name to post a response here. We will not post your responses for you.
It’s like “demand and supply!” Not enough people are demanding the four-payment tax system, so it is only being used currently — as a political ploy.
Mr. Muzyk as usual you couldn’t be more wrong.
Mr Foley in looking at the 4 payment option is concerned for people for whom the 2 payment system creates a hardship and has spoken to a number for which that is the case. The 4 payment option also does not need to be implemented across the board but instead could be made available as an elected option on a taxpayer by taxpayer basis with very minor modifications to the system / software and thereby meet a need for some while not burdening others.
Your mind-reading skills are obviously non-existent so maybe instead of telling someone what they are thinking, you should simply refrain from attacking others or attempting to put words in their mouth.
Walt Mayhew: I do not have to attack Dan Foley. His ‘shoot from the hip spokesmen’ are doing a yeoman job of beating up on the old teacher!
Here is the correct information as of 10am. I double checked with our Tax Collector.
CT general Statue 12-142 Installments; due date states that “the legislative body of each municipality…shall determine whether such tax shall be due and payable in a single installment or in two installments or in four quarterly installments…”
Each type of tax (real estate, personal property and motor vehicle) can have its own number of installments BUT all of that type of tax has to be collected in the same number of installments. If real estate is collected in 4 installments then ALL real estate bills are collected in 4 installments, across the board.
Ken, you stated that you came to the decision to stick with the two payment system. Could you please explain your collective reasons for this?
I’m not affiliated either way on this issue – a budget is a budget – but I’m curious as to what the pros and cons are outside of timing.
Here you go Chris, with the disclaimer these discussions happened 3 1/2 years ago:
Pros:
1. Would help those who would benefit from a 4 payment system. Don’t get me wrong, this in no way causes someone to pay less in taxes, it just spreads out the payments over 4 instead of 2 for personal budgetary reasons.
Cons:
1. Would require more mailings from the Tax Collectors office as the entire City would have to switch.
2. There might be a need for additional help (I say might, as the tax collector was not 100% sure her office could handle the additional burden)
3. An upgrade in the software system was needed
4. We didn’t go into depth on how 4 payments would affect the City budget, but if you were use to paying certain bills at certain times of the year, this would have to change to accommodate the new schedule of money coming in to the City.
5. We also didn’t go into depth, but did realize there would be a loss in received interest to the City.
We also discussed the fact (this was neither a pro nor con) that all residents would have to pay 4 times a year which would increase the likelihood of late interest payments for those who are not prompt at remembering and paying bills.
All the aldermen decided there really wasn’t the interest from the public to change the system. Obviously, we would like to help everyone, but if a handful of people wished the system changed, the benefit would have to outweigh the costs/issues.
I wrote the article to let people know that if, due to the recent economic conditions, more people were interested in a 4 payment system, we could readdress the issue. A firm number would have to be placed on the above criteria.