Connecticut SB 101: Opposition to Statewide Property Tax
The Yankee Institute opposes Connecticut SB 101, which would impose a graduated statewide property tax on homes assessed above $3 million.
Connecticut lawmakers are weighing a proposal that would create a new statewide property tax on high-value homes, drawing sharp opposition from the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, which submitted formal testimony against the bill last week.
Senate Bill 101, currently before the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, would impose a graduated state property tax on residential real estate with assessed values above $3 million. Under the bill’s structure, homeowners would pay 2 mills on properties valued between $3 million and $5 million, 3 mills on properties between $5 million and $10 million, and 4 mills on anything above $10 million. Critically, those charges would stack on top of local property taxes that owners already pay.
The Yankee Institute, a Hartford-based free-market think tank, argues the bill sets a troubling precedent by pulling property taxation away from the local level and centralizing it at the state. Connecticut has historically left property tax authority with municipalities, giving towns and cities control over how they fund schools, public safety, and local services. SB 101 would represent a significant departure from that arrangement.
“Introducing a statewide property tax sets a concerning precedent by undermining the long-standing local control of property tax systems,” the group wrote in its testimony to the committee.
Beyond the structural argument, the Yankee Institute points to Connecticut’s existing cost burden as reason enough to pause. The state already ranks among the most expensive in the nation for both residents and businesses, with high property tax rates and one of the country’s steeper income tax structures already baked into the cost of living. Supporters of SB 101 frame the bill as a targeted measure affecting only wealthy homeowners, but critics say the framing obscures the broader signal it sends about the state’s direction.
The testimony raises particular concern about the bill’s potential effect on mobility. Retirees, entrepreneurs, and long-term homeowners who have accumulated equity over decades could find themselves facing substantially higher annual costs simply because of the location of a home they may have bought years ago, before property values climbed to current levels. Connecticut already struggles with out-migration, particularly among higher-income households. Adding another layer of property cost, the Yankee Institute argues, could accelerate that trend rather than reverse it.
There’s also a fiscal discipline argument embedded in the opposition. The testimony suggests that before the state looks to expand its revenue base, it should demonstrate progress on controlling spending growth, eliminating inefficiencies, and improving budget transparency. Creating a new tax stream, the group contends, tends to increase capacity for government spending rather than push toward structural reform. The criticism reflects a recurring tension in Hartford: revenue measures often move faster through the legislative process than the spending reforms that advocates say should accompany them.
Connecticut is not operating in isolation. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York are all competing for the same pool of mobile, high-income residents and retirees. Each state watches what the others do on taxes. A statewide residential property tax, even one targeting only the top tier of home values, could factor into relocation decisions in ways that affect the broader tax base over time.
The Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee has not yet voted on SB 101. It is unclear how much support the measure has among members, or whether leadership intends to advance it before the session ends. Governor Ned Lamont has not publicly weighed in on the proposal.
For Connecticut homeowners watching the session, the bill represents one data point in a longer debate about how the state funds its government and how much of that burden falls on property versus income versus business activity. That debate has been running in Hartford for decades without resolution, and SB 101 suggests it is not close to settling.
The Yankee Institute testimony was submitted March 10.