● A property tax cap slows the growth in property taxes, protecting local residents from sudden sharp annual property tax increases.

● A property tax cap moderates the growth in property taxes so that it more closely matches income growth rates. Since taxpayers pay their property taxes out of income, increases in the former should reflect increases in the latter.

● A cap forces towns to exercise discipline over budget and tax practices and gives them an incentive to find more efficient ways to deliver services.

● A cap puts pressure on the state to increase aid to municipalities while ensuring that state aid is used to provide property tax relief rather than fund new programs.

● Lower property taxes benefit local businesses, improves their economic competitiveness, and reduces the chances that they will relocate to other states or communities.

● Caps require governments to think of creative ways to generate other types of revenue.

● Caps do not reduce property taxes that are already too high.

● Caps do not address the underlying causes of property tax increases, many of which, such as employer health care, energy, and state and federal mandate costs, are outside the direct control of local officials.

● Unless state aid increases, revenue losses from a cap may lead to cuts or deterioration in municipal services and may affect educational achievement.

● Increases in state aid to municipalities to make up lost property tax revenue may lead to state tax increases and loss of local control over policies and programs.

● Pressure to make up revenue may lead towns to increase local fees or expand the property tax base by zoning more land for development.

● Unless exceptions are allowed for debt service payments, a cap could adversely affect a town's bond rating,

● Caps do not target tax relief to residents according to their ability to pay; consequently they may disproportionately benefit wealthier residents.

● Limits on assessments or tax bills for certain classes of property or certain types of residents could lead to different taxes and tax rates for similar properties.

● Eliminating the state income tax could attract and retain wealthy residents who are more likely to stimulate economic activity in the state through spending and investment.

● Without the income tax, residents would have more incentive to earn more and to invest in businesses and jobs here.

● Residents, employers, and the state would save the administrative costs of filing, implementing, and enforcing the income tax.

● Because sales tax revenue grows more slowly than income tax revenue, the change might require the state to reduce spending and become more efficient.

● Sales taxes are generally less volatile than income taxes, providing more stability for the state budget.

● The sales tax is easier for taxpayers to understand than the income tax.

● The sales tax only applies to taxable transactions, thus giving a taxpayer some measure of control over how much tax he or she pays.

● The higher sales tax rates and taxes on additional goods and services that would be required to maintain state revenue without the income tax would almost certainly lead to more tax avoidance through online, mail-order, and out-of-state purchases.

● Connecticut's small size makes it easy to buy goods and services in states with lower sales tax rates.

● Businesses located near the state's borders would be hurt by any big disparity between Connecticut's sales tax rates and the rates in neighboring states. Currently, state sales tax rates are: 5% in Massachusetts, 7% in Rhode Island, and 4% in New York.

● Businesses pay nearly half of all sales taxes, so a very high sales tax could make the state less economically competitive.

● Because the sales tax is more regressive than the income tax, higher sales taxes would shift the state's overall tax burden toward residents with lower incomes.

● Sales tax revenues are vulnerable to economic downturns and tend to fall during recessions when state expenditures typically increase.

● Sales tax revenues tend to grow more slowly than the overall economy, thus making it unlikely the tax could fully replace income tax revenues over the long term.

● Tax freezes provide protection against future tax increases. Property taxes are not based on income, so those living on fixed incomes are more vulnerable to high property taxes on their homes.

● Senior citizens are likely to have lived in their homes for a long time and may not have enough income to keep pace with higher property taxes resulting from rapidly rising property values.

● A tax freeze allows seniors to remain in the homes and towns they have lived in for a long time.

● Assuming a town wants to maintain or increase spending, a freeze for senior citizens may shift the tax burden onto taxpayers not eligible for the freeze.

● If a shift occurs, taxpayers not benefiting from the freeze may not have enough income to pay the higher taxes and meet their other obligations.

● A freeze does not reduce high property taxes.

● A freeze may not provide enough tax relief nor does it target the relief to all those who need it.

● Reducing gasoline taxes stimulates the state's economy by increasing discretionary income available for other consumer spending.

● Lowering gasoline taxes gives customers an incentive to stop at Connecticut service stations instead of driving straight through the state. Service station customers often buy other items, generating additional sales tax revenue.

● The taxes are regressive because they are a disproportionate expense for people with middle and low incomes.

● Capping the petroleum products tax makes the state less reliant on a volatile commodity (oil) that is subject to big price swings.

● Sudden sharp increases in gas prices have been attributed to speculation, which hurts the economy. The state budget should not benefit from oil price speculation.

● The state should not rely on a petroleum products tax that is complicated, invisible to consumers, and hard to explain and understand.

● Because revenue from both taxes goes to the STF, revenue reductions reduce the state's ability to address transportation infrastructure needs.

● Lower gas taxes encourage people to drive more and to drive bigger cars, leading to (1) faster depletion of a finite natural resource (oil), (2) adverse effects on the environment and air quality, (3) more traffic, and (4) faster road and bridge deterioration.

● Capping the wholesale oil price subject to the petroleum products tax merely protects against additional price increases; it does not reduce gas taxes or gas prices.