Connect with us

Connecticut

CT child tax credit still possible as budget talks hit home stretch

Published

on

CT child tax credit still possible as budget talks hit home stretch


State legislators are focused mainly on spending now, trimming their requests to compromise soon with Gov. Ned Lamont on a new two-year budget.

But with just over one week left in the 2025 session, one popular tax-cutting idea is still alive: a new credit for low- and middle-income households with children.

Leaders of the Senate and House Democratic majorities were cautiously optimistic about the child tax credit, though the full program likely would need to be phased in over several years.

The initial $150 per child income tax break under consideration would cost state government $83 million per year, even as looming federal Medicaid cuts could cost Connecticut hundreds of millions in annual revenue. But given the unprecedented surpluses the state has amassed since 2017 and the extremely conservative revenue growth the Lamont administration has projected during its six years, lawmakers say Connecticut can afford this relief.

Advertisement

“We are trying very hard to protect that tax credit the best that we can,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford.

“It still is a reasonable objective,” said Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, who said working families here needed more relief long before President Donald J. Trump and Congress began planning huge cutbacks in Medicaid, food stamps and other social assistance programs.

“The pressures [on working families] are going to be extreme, and we hear all the time about the potential Draconian, punitive choices” federal cutbacks will force upon them, Looney added.

Lamont’s budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said only that tax proposals remain part of ongoing budget negotiations among the administration and legislative leaders. The governor proposed boosting a different state income tax credit, one that offsets a portion of municipal property tax bills, from $300 to $350, while also broadening eligibility. 

Connecticut is the only state with a broad-based personal income tax that doesn’t account for the cost of raising children. Many Democratic lawmakers here largely have endorsed offering a $600-per-dependent credit with relief capped at $1,800 per household.

Advertisement

But because of the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the General Assembly’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee endorsed a less costly $150-per-child credit starting with 2025 earnings and tax returns filed in the spring of 2026, with a maximum household benefit of $450.

It would be available to single parents earning up to $100,000 per year and couples earning up to $200,000, starting with 2026 earnings.

The credit would be gradually phased out above those income levels. For every $1,000 earned above those thresholds, households would lose 10% of the credit’s value.

The credit also would be refundable. Even if a household earns so little it has no state tax liability to reduce via the credit, it still would have $150 per child added to its refund.

Nonpartisan analysts project this tax break would cost government about $83 million per year, about the same as Lamont’s plan to expand the property tax credit. It’s also roughly one-quarter of what legislators anticipate the state would lose with a full $600-per-child benefit.

Advertisement

And while the finance committee measure wouldn’t order increases in the credit in future years, many supporters say proposals to increase the credit would enjoy strong backing down the road.

Rep. Jillian Gilchest, D-West Hartford, co-chairwoman of the Human Services Committee and another backer of the $600-per-child benefit, predicted most Democrats won’t be satisfied for long with “an austere child tax credit” given likely federal cutbacks in health and human service programs. 

“More people are going to feel the pain of these [federal] budget decisions,” she said.

Reformers have been clamoring for a child credit in recent years as public and private analyses show Connecticut’s state and municipal tax systems, combined, disproportionately burden the poor and middle class.

The Department of Revenue Services’ 2024 report found the lowest-earning 10% of households effectively spent almost 40% of their income in 2020 to cover state or municipal tax burdens, more than five times the rate faced by Connecticut’s highest earners and two-and-a-half times the statewide average.

Advertisement

Even one of the largest state tax cuts in 2023, which included the first income tax rate reduction since the mid-1990s, only slowed — but didn’t reverse — the ever-widening shift onto working families, according to a 2024 analysis from Connecticut Voices for Children, a progressive New Haven-based policy group.

The United Way of Connecticut, one of the progressive groups spearheading this year’s push for a child tax credit, released a report last October showing that a family of four — two parents and two children — needed to earn $113,520 in 2022 in this state to cover a basic “survival budget.”

The United Way’s methodology covers housing, food, utilities, transportation, child care and — assuming the family can’t afford a computer — at least one smart phone. By comparison, the Federal Poverty Level, a simple metric developed in the mid-1960s by U.S. Social Security Administration economists and based largely on the cost of a minimum food diet, said a family of four earning more than $27,750 in 2022 was above the poverty line.

“On a good day, 42% of Connecticut families with children struggle to make ends meet,” said Lisa Tepper Bates, president of the United Way’s Connecticut chapter. “The proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will hit many Connecticut families hard. And ongoing economic upheaval and rising prices affect every family in our state. Creating a Connecticut child tax credit has never been more important.”

CT has underestimated tax revenues by wide margins

Legislators also were optimistic that Connecticut could afford to provide a child tax credit, even given the uncertainty of federal funding, given its budget caps and its track record of projecting revenues since Lamont took office in 2019.

Advertisement

These caps have generated surpluses averaging $1.8 billion, an amount equal to 8% of the General Fund, since they last were set in 2017. The administration is projecting a $2.4 billion surplus this year, equal to 10%. Analysts project budget caps will capture at least about $1.3 billion in each of the next two fiscal years.

Connecticut has funneled $12.5 billion in surpluses since 2017 to build reserves and scale back pension debt, a furious pace that far outstrips any similar effort in modern history. 

Critics say the state has overcompensated for fiscal mistakes of prior decades and is saving excessively now at the expense of core programs and tax relief for the poor and middle class.

The state also has been extremely conservative in its revenue projections in recent years.

Legislators largely build the budget each year using an April 30 forecast prepared by their nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis and by the governor’s budget staff. The basis for that forecast is income and other tax data provided by the administration, particularly the Department of Revenue Services.

Advertisement

Connecticut has amassed large surpluses in each of Lamont’s six years in office. Most of those surpluses turned out to be significantly larger than projected on April 30. The state’s fiscal year ends June 30, and the comptroller formally closes the books in late September.

Since Lamont has been governor, the actual surplus has topped the April 30 projection by an average of $600 million per year.

But 2020 and 2021 were outliers. The coronavirus led officials to push the 2020 income tax filing deadline back from Apil 15 to July 15. And in 2021 they moved it to May 15. In both cases, that meant analysts had limited data to build their projections.

But even if those two fiscal years are removed, the average increase in surplus after the April 30 projection has been $375 million.

“I believe it’s realistic to continue to talk about a phase-in” of a larger child tax credit, Looney said, noting that the average surplus in recent years far exceeds the cost of helping working families.

Advertisement



Source link

Connecticut

Pedestrian killed after being struck by Amtrak train

Published

on

Pedestrian killed after being struck by Amtrak train


An investigation is ongoing in Stonington after a person was fatally struck by an Amtrak train Saturday morning, according to Stonington police.

Police were notified around 11:25 a.m. by Amtrak police that a pedestrian was struck by a train between the Route 1 overpass and the Prospect Street and Palmer Street railroad crossing.

When crews arrived, they pronounced the victim dead at the scene.

The train involved is stopped while Amtrak police conduct their investigation and ask the public to avoid the area at this time.

Advertisement

Authorities say there is no threat to the public.

No further details were released.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’

Published

on

Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’




Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’ – NBC Connecticut



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Connecticut moves to crack down on bottle redemption fraud

Published

on

Connecticut moves to crack down on bottle redemption fraud


It’s a scheme made famous by a nearly 30-year-old episode of the sitcom Seinfeld.

Hoping to earn a quick buck, two characters load a mail truck full of soda bottles and beer cans purchased with a redeemable 5-cent deposit in New York, before traveling to Michigan, where they can be recycled for 10 cents apiece. With few thousand cans, they calculate, the trip will earn a decent profit. In the end, the plan fell apart.

But after Connecticut raised the value of its own bottle deposits to 10 cents in 2024, officials say, they were caught off guard by a flood of such fraudulent returns coming in from out of state. Redemption rates have reached 97%, and some beverage distributors have reported millions of dollars in losses as a result of having to pay out for excess returns of their products.

On Thursday, state lawmakers passed an emergency bill to crack down on illegal returns by increasing fines, requiring redemption centers to keep track of bulk drop-offs and allowing local police to go after out-of-state violators.

Advertisement

“I’m heartbroken,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who supported the effort to increase deposits to 10 cents and expand the number of items eligible for redemption. “I spent a lot of political capital to get the bottle bill passed in 2021, and never in a million years did I think that New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island residents would return so many bottles.”

The legislation, Senate Bill 299, would increase fines for violating the bottle bill law from $50 to $500 on a first offense. For third and subsequent offenses, the penalty would increase from $250 to $2,000 and misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison.

In addition, it requires redemption centers to be licensed by the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (previously, those businesses were only required to register with DEEP). As a condition of their license, redemption centers must keep records of anyone seeking to redeem more than 1,000 bottles and cans in a single day.

Anyone not affiliated with a qualified nonprofit would be prohibited from redeeming more than 4,000 bottles a day, down from the previous limit of 5,000.

The bill also seeks to pressure some larger redemption centers into adopting automated scanning technologies, such as reverse vending machines, by temporarily lowering the handling fee that is paid on each beverage container processed by those centers.

Advertisement

The bill easily passed the Senate on Wednesday and the House on Thursday on its way to Gov. Ned Lamont.

While the bill drew bipartisan support, Republicans described it as a temporary fix to a growing problem.

House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, called the switch to 10-cent deposits an “unmitigated disaster” and said he believed out-of-state redemption centers were offloading much of their inventory within Connecticut.

“The sheer quantity that is being redeemed in the state of Connecticut, this isn’t two people putting cans into a post office truck,” Candelora said. “This is far more organized than that.”

The impact of those excess returns is felt mostly by the state’s wholesale beverage distributors, who initiate the redemption process by collecting an additional 10 cents on every eligible bottle and can they sell to supermarkets, liquor stores and other retailers within Connecticut. The distributors are required to pay that money back — plus a handling fee — once the containers are returned to the store or a redemption center.

Advertisement

According to the state’s Department of Revenue Services, nearly 12% of wholesalers reported having to pay out more redemptions than they collected in deposits in 2025. Those losses totaled $11.3 million.

Peter Gallo, the vice president of Star Distributors in West Haven, said his company’s losses alone have totaled more than $2 million since the increase on deposits went into effect two years ago. As time goes on, he said, the deficit has only grown.

“We’re hoping we can get something fixed here, because it’s a tough pill to be holding on to debt that we should get paid for,” Gallo said.

Still, officials say they have no way of tracking precisely how many of the roughly 2 billion containers that were redeemed in the state last year were illegally brought in from other states. That’s because most products lack any kind of identifiable marking indicating where they were sold.

“There’s no way to tell right now. That’s one of the core issues here,” said state Rep. John-Michael Parker, D-Madison, who co-chairs the legislature’s Environment Committee.

Advertisement

Parker said the issue could be solved if product labels were printed with a specific barcode or other feature that would be unique to Connecticut. Such a solution, for now, has faced technological challenges and pushback from the beverage industry, he said.

Not everyone involved in the handling, sorting and redemption of bottles is happy about the upcoming changes — or the process by which they were approved.

Francis Bartolomeo, the owner of a Fran’s Cans and Bart’s Bottles in Watertown, said he was only made aware of the legislation on Monday from a fellow redemption center owner. Since then, he said, he’s been contacting his legislators to oppose the bill and was frustrated by the lack of a public hearing.

“I know other people are as flabbergasted as I am because they don’t know where it comes out of,” Bartolomeo said “It’s a one sided affair, really.”

Bartolomeo said one of his biggest concerns with the bill is the $2,500 annual licensing fee that it would place on redemption centers. While he agreed that out-of-state redemptions are a problem, he said it should be up to the state to improve enforcement.

Advertisement

“We’re cleaning up the mess, and we’re going to end up being penalized,” Bartolomeo said. “Get rid of it and go back to 5 cents if it’s that big of a hindrance, but don’t penalize the redemption centers for what you imposed.”

Lynn Little of New Milford Redemption Center supports the increased penalties but believes the solution ultimately lies with better labeling by the distributors. She is also frustrated by the volume caps after the state initially gave grants to residents looking to open their own bottle redemption businesses.

“They’re taking a volume business, because any business where you make 3 cents per unit (the average handling fee) is a volume business, and limiting the volume we can take in, you’re crushing small businesses,” Little said.

Ritter said that he opposed a move back to the 5-cent deposit, which he noted was increased to encourage recycling. However, he said the current situation has become politically untenable and puts the state at risk of a lawsuit from distributors.

“We’re getting to a point where we’re going to lose the bottle bill,” Ritter said. “If we got sued in court, I think we’d lose.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending