Connecticut is at a crossroads.
Throughout the 2026 legislative session, lawmakers have advanced a slate of proposals that risk worsening affordability rather than improving it. From weakening the fiscal guardrails that restored stability to state finances, to expanding taxes, mandates, and centralized control, these bills could shape Connecticut’s economic trajectory for years to come.
At a time when residents are already grappling with high housing costs, rising energy bills, and an expensive cost of living, policy choices matter more than ever.
Below are eight bills that would make life harder and more expensive in Connecticut. Our full list can be found here.
SB 84: Weakening the Fiscal Guardrails
The fiscal guardrails are delivering results. Enacted in 2017, after years of budgetary crises and tax increases, they stabilized spending, built a $4.1 billion Rainy Day Fund and made possible the largest income tax cut in state history in 2023.
SB 84 moves in a different direction. The bill introduces structural changes to how surplus funds are used and relies on short-term revenue to fund one-time $200 to $400 tax rebates. While rebates may provide immediate relief, they do not address underlying cost drivers and can reduce fiscal predictability.
More importantly, shifting away from disciplined savings and debt reduction risks leaving the state more vulnerable in the next economic downturn.
HB 5156: Establishing a “Climate Superfund”
HB 5156 would require fossil fuel companies to pay billions for past emissions through a state “Climate Superfund.”
While the concept targets energy producers, the costs are unlikely to stay there. They would move through the supply chain, increasing costs at the pump, and for home heating. Estimates suggest the policy could add roughly 33 cents per gallon to gasoline, diesel, and heating oil — further straining already tight household budgets.
SB 440: Pay for Striking Workers
SB 440 would allow workers who voluntarily go on strike to collect unemployment benefits — a proposal that has already been vetoed twice.
Unemployment insurance was designed to support workers who lose their jobs involuntarily, not to subsidize work stoppages. Expanding eligibility would shift the cost of labor disputes onto employers and the unemployment system, while altering the balance of collective bargaining.
Policies that prolong disputes rather than encourage resolution can create broader economic ripple effects.
SB 101: Statewide Property Tax
SB 101 would establish a statewide property tax on homes valued above $3 million, layered on top of already high local property taxes. Connecticut consistently ranks among the highest in the nation for property tax burden. Adding a new statewide layer raises concerns about competitiveness, investment, and long-term economic growth.
At a time when policymakers are focused on affordability, increasing property taxes moves in the opposite direction.
HB 5133: Income Tax Increase
Another ‘tax the rich’ bill, HB 5133, would increase Connecticut’s top personal income tax rate from 6.99 to 7.99 percent.
While framed as targeting high earners, income tax increases can affect investment decisions, business growth, and where individuals choose to live and work.
Connecticut’s broader challenge is attracting and retaining taxpayers, not increasing the burden on those already here.
SB 104: Capital Gains Surcharge
SB 104 would impose an additional surcharge on capital gains income.
Capital gains are inherently volatile and sensitive to economic conditions. Increasing taxes on this income can discourage investment activity and reduce long-term revenue stability.
States that rely heavily on high-income taxpayers often face greater revenue swings, particularly during downturns.
HB 5003: Eroding Local Control in Education
HB 5003 shifts final decision-making authority in certain education matters away from locally elected boards of education and into the hands of an unelected arbitrator.
Local boards exist to provide accountability to parents and taxpayers. Removing that authority reduces local control and distances decision-making from the communities most affected.
HB 5554: Ending Bipartisan Oversight
For more than 50 years, Connecticut’s Regulation Review Committee has been evenly split between parties — ensuring bipartisan review of state agency regulations.
HB 5554 would replace that structure with majority control.
This change would remove a longstanding check on administrative authority and concentrate more power within the majority party, a significant shift in how state regulations are reviewed and approved.
The Bigger Picture
Taken individually, each of these bills raises important questions. Taken together, they point to a broader trend: expanding costs, increasing mandates, and shifting away from policies that promote stability and affordability.
Connecticut’s challenges are well known. The solutions, however, depend on policy choices.
The question facing lawmakers is simple: will these policies make the state more affordable, more competitive, and more predictable — or less?
The answer will shape Connecticut’s future.
