LordConnecticut t1_je0w7y6 wrote on March 28, 2023 at 4:44 PM

Reply to comment by whateverusayboi in CT among the states with the highest tax burden by Kingdavid100

Hmm something isn’t right here… it seems they don’t have a way to properly account for states that don’t levy flat fees. NH is listed as $31, which is absolute bullshit. NH registration is scaled to the value of the car (literally like a property tax). When my fiancé lived there, she paid ~$500 per year for a three year old car valued around $17k. Even her previous car, a ten year old Subaru valued around $8k was costing her $200 a year in registration.

All this to say…they simply did an average and “forgot” many people don’t own cars…

Steady_Habits_CT t1_je2xtow wrote on March 29, 2023 at 12:49 AM

You don't have this correct. The NH registration fee drops each year as the car ages. More important, there is no sales tax on cars (or anything else) in NH so you are leaving this benefit out of the numbers.

So while she might have paid $500 to register a car in NH (sounds far too high for a $17k car, but it dependson the originalvalue of the car), if it were a new car the next year that fee would have been about $415, then $333, then $250, then $167, then $83, for a total of $1740 over 6 years! In CT that car would have cost in the first yr $1080 in sales tax plus $200 to $500 in CT car tax depending on town plus the $100 registration fee. So right in the first yr that car cost in CT taxes and fees nearly as much as 6 years of registration fees in CT. Over six years, CT taxes would add another $1000 or more to that cost! And we haven't even factored in the difference in auto insurance rates!

LordConnecticut t1_je2zl59 wrote on March 29, 2023 at 1:02 AM

Correct, property taxes on cars also drop as the car ages. This is true of any fee or tax tied to something of diminishing value. The NH registration fee is tied to the value of the car the same as a tax.

Your decline in the fee is too extreme, it doesn’t drop that quickly unless the vehicle in question is a luxury vehicle purchased new, which depreciates very fast. Your logic is suggesting a $17k car is worth next to nothing after 6 years, which is certainly not the case.

So the cost of registration is similar to the cost of registration in CT (every two years) and the property tax every year.

We’re not talking about sales tax, that’s entirely separate and obviously a state without a sales tax will be the cheaper proposition. The article is strictly about registration costs and mentions only a tiny fraction of the actual cost in NH.

Lastly, insurance is cheaper in most of CT save for the panhandle. (Southern) NH is too close to Boston to be very cheap, and thus has a higher population density then much of CT.

Steady_Habits_CT t1_je386lj wrote on March 29, 2023 at 2:07 AM

You remain confused and very unfamiliar with the process for calculating the registration fee for a car in NH.

You started this by claiming one must look at all the fees. Now you want to exclude sales tax from the analysis. That is flawed when doing a TCO. This thread is about all taxes, and sales tax is a major cost of ownership in any state with a sales tax!
I didn't go into the full detail because it is complex. The NH rate drops 3 points per thousand per year. So my calcs are correct.
Your statement about depreciation ignores that many in CT saw increases in their car tax over the last 2 yrs because of increases of used car prices! The value of each of our cars increased last yr in the CT tax calculation relative to 2021! And I know lots of others with similar experiences
The NH rate is applied to the original MSRP, and the depreciation rate is fixed. That is far fairer than CT's arbitrary approach to attempt a (poor) measure of mkt value. Thanks to the weird used car mkt, most cars went up in value over the last 2 yrs, whereas NH's approach resulted in ongoing declines as the vehicle aged.
We get it, you think CT should be made to look better than NH, but the only way to do that is to attempt to fudge the numbers. Fact is that NH's cost of registration for a car is far lower than CT's, all things considered including the sales tax one must pay in CT on every new or used car purchase.

I have no idea what your basis is for the claims on insurance. The majority of CT residents are in dense parts of southwestern CT and the middle of the state. I am aware of no evidence that is lower cost than southern NH. Plus, auto insurance is not a tax, and one has many choices in selecting an insurer. Certainly theft rates are better in NH.

Edit: Based on this data, NH auto insurance costs are materially below CT: https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/states/#rates

LordConnecticut t1_je4piq4 wrote on March 29, 2023 at 12:14 PM

You’re confused. The article is about tax burden. I responded to someone who posted an article about car registration fees did you read it? That does not include sales tax.

Do you have a source for the “NH rate drops three points”? That doesn’t make sense because there are two parts the the NH reg, state and town, and the town portion can vary, so it’s impossible to be fixed that way.

Yes CT property taxes on vehicles are based on the NADA guide which is market based, however it’s 70% of that value.

The NH rate is not a fixed decline. You must be looking at the state portion. Town portions are tied to mill rate which uses a value tied to the market.

I say insurance is cheaper because I’ve had two cars registered in both states lol. That article is interesting but again misguided. I’m paying the cost of “minimum” coverage in CT for full coverage and two cars. So again, their methodology must fail to split between good and bad drivers, age, etc. it may be that bad drivers are more expensive in CT, for example, which will drive up the data.

Steady_Habits_CT t1_je4rl51 wrote on March 29, 2023 at 12:33 PM

You are silly. The car tax in CT varies by municipality. In CT property tax rates and property valuations vary by municipality. Somehow you are able to ignore that but suggest NH costs cannot be analyzed due to a municipal component.

Finally, you are arguing over one small element of tax burden. Taxation of cars is no worse in NH than CT. But CT has a very substantial income and sales tax whereas NH has neither. There is no question that tax burden is materially higher in CT, unless one has little or no income.

LordConnecticut t1_je4t1iu wrote on March 29, 2023 at 12:45 PM

Who says I’m informing that? Of course it does. I’m saying the article has clearly poorly interpreted the NH data because no one, out of the dozen or so people I know in NH, have every paid as little as it states, even for a 20 year old beater. That’s the point of this discussion that you stepped into, you answered me.

CT car registration is a fixed fee bi-annually. My point is noting that three people including my fiancé, who have moved from NH to CT, now pay less for their car registration in CT then in NH, even if you recognise that NH registration is essentially equivalent to our car property tax and add ours into that calculation. Yes it varies by town in both states. My mill rate is currently 32 which is upper middle I believe, (and car property rates are now capped here).

You’re trying to turn this into a conversation about overall tax burden, of which CT’s is obviously higher, but that’s not what I was answering.

Anecdotally, in case you’re curious, CT generally still comes out ahead (why I know several people that moved from NH) despite the increased tax burden, because housing costs are generally lower now, and incomes are much higher. For example, my fiancé makes 20k more as an RN in CT vs NH, so while about 5-7k of that goes to taxes that NH does not have, she’s still better off. I would have to take about a 30k pay cut in my field to move to NH, so obviously saving the much smaller amount in taxes is not worth it.

Now working in MA/Boston and living in NH is a different story, although you have to pay MA income tax, but that’s what so many in southern NH do that; because salary is much higher.