Reporters today received copies of the most recent study by the Yankee Institute of Public Policy, a think tank founded in the early 1980s by Bernard Zimmern, “a French entrepreneur who had set up shop in Norwalk to market his improved compressor technology.”
The report took a look at the licensing and other fees associated with dog ownership reported to the state Department of Agriculture during fiscal year 2008.
“For all the joy man’s best friends give us, you’d think dogs might be tax-exempt,” states the report. “In fact, Connecticut dog owners pay almost $2.5 million in dog-related licenses and fees a year. Dogs that live to be 12-years-old rack up more than $100 in taxes over their lifetimes.”
In a phone interview Fergus Cullen, the Yankee Institute’s Executive Director, said: “It’s not the most hard-hitting public policy paper you’re ever going to read. Part of it is, we believe, people should be confronted with the taxes they pay. They shouldn’t be hidden and they shouldn’t be nickel-and-dimed.”
There’s a lot of interesting data to be found in the analysis. For example, Stamford was in 2008 only one of three municipalities that turned a profit when the costs for animal control were subtracted from assorted dog-related fees. (Look for that little nugget to show up in outgoing Stamford Mayor/Potential Gubernatorial Candidate Dannel Malloy’s literature in the near future).
East Lyme earned $7,236, Stamford earned $6,162 and Beacon Falls earned $134.
“There’s a lot of variations between the towns in terms of how good they are at administering things like dog taxes,” Cullen said. “Does anyone really think Hartford only has 363 dogs? Of course not. It showed people aren’t registering their dogs and no one’s coming after them when they don’t and there’s probably a little less ‘cultural pressure’ if you will between neighbors (to register).”
The report might be viewed by some as anti-canine propaganda, although I guess it might also lead to less dogs being adopted and abandoned during tough financial times if those who read the results realize they can’t afford a pet.
“We’re for equity in taxation policy, regardless. Part of what we discovered is non-dog owners are subsidizing dog owners. If dog taxes are meant to offset animal control costs in most towns they’re not doing that. Milford stood out, Norwalk stood out,” Cullen said.
He also admitted he does not own a dog.
