Budget Negotiations Today

Now that the Democrats have passed their budget, it seems it’s time for budget negotiations to actually get underway. The Democratic leadership and Gov. Rell will hold a meeting today at the governor’s mansion to try and hammer out an agreement before the end of the fiscal year comes around this Wednesday.

How sincere are they? It’s hard to know, though the posturing we’ve seen all month has continued. The governor delivered her response to the Democrats’ budget in the living room of a middle-class Newington couple (who, curiously, wouldn’t be directly affected by the Democrats’ proposed tax increases on the wealthy), while the Democrats held an event at the LifeStar landing pad at Hartford Hospital. Fortunately, no one seemed to need it right then.

I’d be surprised if any agreement happens before the end of the fiscal year, if only because all parties have been so inept at engaging one another and shutting off the rhetoric thus far.

Advertisements

40 responses to “Budget Negotiations Today

  1. If there’s no budget by the end of the fiscal year, it’s because Rell vetoed it after refusing to negotiate until three days before it’s due.

    If having a budget on time matters, then she should just sign it. If having a budget on time doesn’t matter to her, then I don’t know what all this hyperventilating has been about.

  2. Lessee…

    Our state is one of the most heavily taxed in the nation.

    We are also at the bottom of job growth.

    So, let’s increase taxes on businesses because the vast majority of our state- funded programs are too precious to cut…right?

    How do people like Sen. Williams, Rep. Donovan, Rep Geragosian & Co. and those who do their bidding like Slap sleep at night knowing that they are driving this state further and further into economic hell with such policies?

  3. So, let’s increase taxes on businesses because the vast majority of our state- funded programs are too precious to cut…right?

    How about increased taxes on tobacco now that we’ve seen revenues in New Jersey, New York and now RI drop like a rock due to those states taxing way beyond the tipping point?

    RI is now 34.60 a carton in state tax.
    Oddly – there’s nary a pack of RI taxed cigarettes in a pocket or purse in the entire state anymore.
    Doesn’t cut down on smoking – just cuts down on buying from local retailers.

    Duh?

    These people simply are not paying any attention; they’re living in their own little fantasy world.

  4. The governor delivered her response to the Democrats’ budget in the living room of a middle-class Newington couple (who, curiously, wouldn’t be directly affected by the Democrats’ proposed tax increases on the wealthy)

    How short sighted is this?

    My brother in law owns a small electrician company (he had 8 employees, now has 3).

    He loves it when the ‘wealthy’ build media rooms. elaborate wine cellars, garages that would knock your socks off, etc.

    Yes, he doesn’t make $500k (or close to it)., but I would say he is directly affected if the so-called wealthy have less to spend — or plain just leave.

    Ask his 5 former employees?

    My neighbor owns a dry cleaning business. Her business is way off. People don’t need to wear their suits to jobs on wall street when they don’t have jobs. She tells me that even well-to-do are doing their own shirts now. I don’t know how much money she makes (I don’t live in a wealthy neighborhood, although a so-called wealthy town). But she laid off 4 employees in January (she said she should have done it in November, but wanted to get her employees thru the holidays) and just laid off one other.

    Her husband is mowing their half acre now. Ask their landscaper how it has affected him?

    Our town fireworks may very well be cancelled. The big benefactor moved in October to Florida. He still has his home here, but has changed his ‘residence’ to Naples. His lawyer suggested to him that, among the long list of things to prove change in residency, he should start contributing to his new hometown.

    So to say that just taxing the rich doesn’t directly affect those of us who make far less is hogwash. Genghis, quit using Williams’ talking points.

    We are all going to suffer with tax increases — even if we aren’t rich.

  5. “The governor delivered her response to the Democrats’ budget in the living room of a middle-class Newington couple (who, curiously, wouldn’t be directly affected by the Democrats’ proposed tax increases on the wealthy”

    This is like saying a middle class taxpaying couple might be out for a Sunday drive and run across an upscale home that is being broken into by burglars. They decide that since the house is not in their neighborhood, and is probably insured why bother to call the police. It’s not their home, and they are not “directly affected” by what they see.

    Some time latter, when coming home one day after work they find that those same burglars they ignored when it was someone else’s home being broken into have just broken into their home. Since now they have been “directly affected” they sadly conclude they should have not looked the other way just because burglars didn’t start out not affecting them.

  6. Unless you want to count that joke of a budget that many Democrats couldn’t even support, when is the Senate and House Dems going to pass a legitimate budget? I know they like to point fingers however, It is THEIR constitutional responsibility. We’re waiting……..

  7. AndersonScooper

    I thought all the rich people moved away 20 years ago, when the income tax was first instituted!

    That argument was stupid then, and it’s stupid now.

    Sure folks occasionally retire to Florida, but instead of the anecdotal, how about a real empirical study proving that assertion? (Which doesn’t exist, btw.)

  8. I thought all the rich people moved away 20 years ago, when the income tax was first instituted!

    Many rich people did move and they took the jobs with them. That is why we rank near the bottom in job growth. If the goal is to chase out the rest of the productive people…who’s going to pay for all those social programs that everybody seems to be “entitled” to?

  9. AndersonScooper

    Puff–

    Why don’t we start with historical reality?

    Weicker, a Republican, instituted the persoanl income tax b/c Connecticut was overly reliant on corporate taxes to fund the state budget. That’s why businesses were leaving in droves, and the bleeding largely stopped after Weicker did the right thing. (it was political hari-kari btw, and it’s why I’ll always respect Lowell.)

    Again, beyond your blathering, you have no evidence to prove your bullshit assertion. (And according to it, New Yorkers and New Jerseyans would have been relocating here in droves, since both those states have much higher marginal income tax rates.)

  10. Sure folks occasionally retire to Florida, but instead of the anecdotal, how about a real empirical study proving that assertion? (Which doesn’t exist, btw.)

    I can’t tell you how many times I’ve posted this link on this site. Connecticut has been ranked 46th out of 50 states in attracting the wealthy since we raised the income tax in 2003:

    Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the “soak the rich” tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

    It doesn’t matter what evidence we provide: you won’t believe it.

    Again, beyond your blathering, you have no evidence to prove your bullshit assertion. (And according to it, New Yorkers and New Jerseyans would have been relocating here in droves, since both those states have much higher marginal income tax rates.)

    Do YOU have any evidence that “Connecticut was overly reliant on corporate taxes to fund the state budget” or that “the bleeding stopped”? Take a look at Hartford or New Haven or Bridgeport in 1991, and tell me how the Democrat income tax has helped those cities (you can call Weicker a Republican after you call Lieberman a Democrat).

    Weicker, a Republican, instituted the persoanl income tax b/c Connecticut was overly reliant on corporate taxes to fund the state budget. That’s why businesses were leaving in droves, and the bleeding largely stopped after Weicker did the right thing. (it was political hari-kari btw, and it’s why I’ll always respect Lowell.)

    Seriously, what evidence do you have for the fact that the “bleeding stopped”?

  11. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve posted this link on this site. Connecticut has been ranked 46th out of 50 states in attracting the wealthy since we raised the income tax in 2003:

    Here is the link:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

  12. Scooper, your historical reality is your reality.Not mine. First, Weicker who you think did the right thing for instituting an income tax claimed it would be a long term solution to deficits. Nice Job Lowell!

    The problem that Weicker probably didn’t anticipate is, with the exception of the gold coast, CT would become a state of belligerent underclass that would demand handouts and entitlements. Unfortunately, political prostitutes have realized that they could keep getting re-elected by giving in to these demands. I know you get a woody just thinking in ways to soak the rich but the truth is the rich will always be rich and can easily move away. They have and they will continue to.

    Because of people that think like you, the middleclass is taking the hit….. but you can’t see it because you’re so busy hating the rich and playing class warfare.

  13. Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; … Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the “soak the rich” tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

    How is a 0.5% increase in a flat tax a “soak the rich” tax hike?

    And it sounds like the number of millionaires in Connecticut actually increased, although the author made every effort to conceal that inconvenient statistic. Not only that, but the percentage of people in the state that are millionaires increased as well. That doesn’t sound so bad at all.

    Finally, isn’t Laffer’s big idea that if you raise tax rates revenue goes down, and if you cut taxes revenue goes up? Funny how in that whole article he didn’t mention anything about that.

  14. How is a 0.5% increase in a flat tax a “soak the rich” tax hike?

    It’s a “soak the rich” tax when you consider that it’s an 11% increase in the income tax, and the richest 1% of Connecticut residents pays over 32% of the income tax burden in Connecticut.

    And it sounds like the number of millionaires in Connecticut actually increased, although the author made every effort to conceal that inconvenient statistic. Not only that, but the percentage of people in the state that are millionaires increased as well. That doesn’t sound so bad at all.

    The author made no such effort. The author said that we ranked 46th in attracting millionaires, i.e., getting them to move here. The number of millionaires in Connecticut could have gone up (i.e., if there were a lot of native Connecticut residents who earned less than a million before 2003 and more than a million after 2003) or it could have gone down (i.e., if existing millionaires bolted, died or made less than a million after the tax change).

    You’re reading his words incorrectly: he wrote that we are near the very bottom in terms of attracting millionaires to move to Connecticut. If this was such a fertile ground for rich people, why aren’t they moving here?

    Finally, isn’t Laffer’s big idea that if you raise tax rates revenue goes down, and if you cut taxes revenue goes up? Funny how in that whole article he didn’t mention anything about that.

    No. You’re missing the point, again. Laffer’s points are twofold: if taxes are too high, raising them decreases tax revenue and lowering them raises tax revenue, and if taxes are too low, raising them increases tax revenue and lowering them reduces tax revenue.

  15. CT Dude is just scratching the surface of the reality that the Democrats absolutely, positively refuse to accept.

    Thank you very much CT Dude for putting it in the simplest of terms. Maybe now, even the most out of touch will be able to grasp these simplest of concepts.

    We can only hope.

  16. Thomas Hooker

    I can’t tell you how many times I’ve posted this link on this site. Connecticut has been ranked 46th out of 50 states in attracting the wealthy since we raised the income tax in 2003:

    Check out the link below from the Institute of Finance and Economics that thoroughly debunks Laffer and Moore’s assertions about millionaires in Connecticut.

    In fact, if one takes the ten year period, as that article did, and measure IRS data for filers with incomes in excess of half a million dollars, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut had the highest concentration of high income filers at the beginning of the period and at the end. This blog entry wanted to take the slight fall-off at the beginning of the decade. But that was during a stockmarket slump and a recession, and of course led to lower incomes for big filers in the tri-state area. But growth in the number of high income filers resumed after that period, and for that decade, as the study points out, they more than doubled in each of those states.

    Furthermore, Moore and Laffer’s suggestion that Connecticut’s increase in income taxes was a “soak the rich” tax is pure bunk, as the article points out. That higher tax rate applied to every tax filer over $20k in annual income. That is a flat tax, not a “soak the rich” tax.

    You just can’t keep getting your information from the WSJ editorial page, Fox News, and the Weekly Standard. Try getting the actual facts. It’s really worth it!

    The article to which I’ve linked above, blows Laffer out of the water. Really.

  17. Again, beyond your blathering, you have no evidence to prove your bullshit assertion. (And according to it, New Yorkers and New Jerseyans would have been relocating here in droves, since both those states have much higher marginal income tax rates.)

    Hey Pooper Scooper,

    Just by the vulgarity index, Puffer must be saying something right.

    The only factor that governs the voting decisions of the rich, the poor, and the middle class is who will give them the most for their vote. The only exception to voting with their feet is keeping family ties. Seeing that CT’s policies cause the greatest emigration of our youth, we are hemorrhaging the population with the flexibility to leave faster than any other state.

  18. No. You’re missing the point, again. Laffer’s points are twofold: if taxes are too high, raising them decreases tax revenue and lowering them raises tax revenue, and if taxes are too low, raising them increases tax revenue and lowering them reduces tax revenue.

    So then, taxes are too low?

    The author made no such effort. The author said that we ranked 46th in attracting millionaires, i.e., getting them to move here. The number of millionaires in Connecticut could have gone up (i.e., if there were a lot of native Connecticut residents who earned less than a million before 2003 and more than a million after 2003) or it could have gone down (i.e., if existing millionaires bolted, died or made less than a million after the tax change).

    So Anderson Scooper is right to say that you have no evidence whatsoever of increasing tax rates causing millionaires to leave the state? That was supposedly why you re-posted this link: because it was going to disprove his claim.

  19. Thomas Hooker

    The response to Laffer and Moore came from The Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy.

  20. Check out the link below from the Institute of Finance and Economics that thoroughly debunks Laffer and Moore’s assertions about millionaires in Connecticut.

    That study doesn’t debunk anything, and you’re a clown if you think otherwise. You can’t analyze taxes without taking everything into consideration: Laffer & Moore did, and the ITEP didn’t.

    When the feds cut the income tax rate on top filers from 39.6% to 35%, and then Connecticut raised its rate on top filers from 4.5% to 5.0%, the richest Connecticut residents still received a 4.1% marginal tax cut — and that’s precisely why tax revenues soared from 2003 to 2006. In that period, all Americans were allowed to keep more of their money, and they did good things with it.

    Regardless, read the Laffer & Moore article again. They are saying that Connecticut’s “percentage increase in wealthy tax filers” was the fifth-lowest in the country. Tell me where that study contravenes their point? It does not.

  21. Thomas Hooker

    I’m a “clown”, Jack? Just kiss my ass. OK?

  22. Once again tom, controlling your temper would be the prudent course of action. Using profanity is pretty low class and makes you look like an immature clown.

  23. I’m a “clown”, Jack? Just kiss my ass. OK?

    Maybe I used the wrong word.

    If you believe that a study that never discusses Connecticut’s “percentage increase in wealthy tax filers” debunks the findings of a study on Connecticut’s “percentage increase in wealthy tax filers,” then the word “clown” clearly wasn’t appropriate.

  24. Finally, isn’t Laffer’s big idea that if you raise tax rates revenue goes down, and if you cut taxes revenue goes up? Funny how in that whole article he didn’t mention anything about that.

    The Laffer Curve merely states that there is some level of optimal taxation between 0% and 100%. When you are to the right of this optimal point (i.e., higher), raising rates lowers revenue. When you are to the left, raising rates raises revenue. At 0% tax rates, your taxes collected will be zero. At 100% tax rates, your taxes collected would be zero, because people wouldn’t work. Starting from zero, as you raise rates, you collect more in taxes. But at some point, people decide either not to work, or to move, or to shift their activities to lower taxed activities. Each person has a different point for deciding this: it’s not as if everyone says, well rates are 35%, time to quit.

    Laffer doesn’t say where the optimal point is. In fact, the optimal point can move based on a variety of factors: during WW II for example, the optimal point was probably quite a bit to the right of where it is now.

    I think that people often overstate the effect of people moving out when income taxes go up a percent or so. Sure, some do, of course, but they may merely be accelerating plans to move to warmer climates anyway. However, raising taxes certainly doesn’t make us more attractive to move to. And yeah, a few other states have higher taxes, but no one is going to move here to take advantage of the tax situation.

  25. But at some point, people decide either not to work, or to move, or to shift their activities to lower taxed activities. Each person has a different point for deciding this: it’s not as if everyone says, well rates are 35%, time to quit.

    This is exactly correct. The Laffer Curve is based on human behavior, and suggests a hypothetical peak. It’s really inarguable: no one can refute the idea that people are more willing to earn that extra $1, $10, $100, or $1,000 if they can keep more of it. I know I’m going to bust my ass to earn an extra $10,000 if I can keep more than $6,500 of it.

    Laffer doesn’t say where the optimal point is. In fact, the optimal point can move based on a variety of factors: during WW II for example, the optimal point was probably quite a bit to the right of where it is now.

    Many of those who believe that World War II, and not the New Deal, brought us out of the Great Depression (myself included) believe that the war pushed the Laffer Curve to the right, making people more willing to work harder for the common good (i.e., the peak of the curve was at a higher taxation rate).

  26. “Why don’t we start with historical reality?

    Weicker, a Republican, instituted the persoanl income tax b/c Connecticut was overly reliant on corporate taxes to fund the state budget. That’s why businesses were leaving in droves, and the bleeding largely stopped after Weicker did the right thing. (it was political hari-kari btw, and it’s why I’ll always respect Lowell.)”

    As someone who was very active along with many others during this period trying to save jobs in a bleeding to death CT I think if we are going to do some historical reality checking let’s be more complete, as it seems we are once again repeating the same mistakes we made then.

    First, while this may seem like a detail but, Weicker was actually elected Governor of this state not as a Republican, but as an Independent. By this time in his career he was no more a real Republican than Lieberman who is currently also an Independent is still a real Democrat.

    Second, the political hari-kari committed by Weicker came from the fact that he deliberately deceived the voters of this state to get elected. He campaigned strongly against an income tax when running for office only to do a 180 degree flip flop on that issue as soon as he was elected. What there is to respect in deceiving the voters on your true position in order to get elected is something that escapes me. If he felt the income tax was what we needed then fine, just let the voters know that too.

    Still, that could have been over looked had he not just imposed a new tax burden on the residents of this state but also address the root cause of the problem in the first place, which was spending more than we could afford. But as usual when ever you give politicians a new source of revenue to spend they will reliably find endless ways to spend it. Which is exactly what was done, and exactly why this state has never fully recovered from the mess of the early 90’s.
    Beyond all this is the fact that once business learns how much can be saved by moving jobs to a lower cost area and sets up facilities there, you have let the horse out of the barn, with very little chance of getting it back in.

    Third, Speaking from a manufacturer’s point of view I can agree that the state’s reliance on corporate taxes which were at the time one of the highest in the nation certainly was one of the reasons businesses were leaving in droves. But that was only one of the reasons. There were many others which were just as, if not far more important.

    Some of them were: The high cost of labor, out of control worker’s compensations costs, high cost of power, poor infrastructure, difficulty in finding the kind of skilled labor needed. Additionally there was stiff competition from other states who saw all that CT was doing wrong, and learning from our mistakes. In the states I was regrettably being forced to relocate jobs to the government there was actually fully involved in drawing together all aspects of what it could do to help attract business. Here in CT we were working simply empty slogans like “The state that thinks like a business”, which BTW was certainly not the case.

    So here we are again today repeating all the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome. Sorry, been there, done it ………..it simply didn’t work then, a certainly isn’t going to work now.

  27. TrueBlue, Thomas and Samuel:

    Do you think we could use having $1.6 billion more earned by Connecticut residents? I do.

    http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2009/06/income-tax-connnecticut-budget.html

  28. AndersonScooper

    Dobbs, why don’t you check out the tax rates of the states people are leaving us for.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

    Massachusetts
    California
    New Jersey
    Virginia
    Georgia
    Rhode Island

    All those states have higher marginal rates than Connecticut!

    So the argument that you and Rick Green are trying to make is pretty stupid. If people are leaving Connecticut because of our income tax, why are so many ending up in states with higher income taxes?!?

    I can’t wait for your reply.

  29. So the argument that you and Rick Green are trying to make is pretty stupid. If people are leaving Connecticut because of our income tax, why are so many ending up in states with higher income taxes?!?

    Want to talk stupid? Half of that lost income left for places with no income tax (e.g., Texas, Florida and New Hampshire). So, for you to dismiss this study because those six states have higher marginal income tax rates than Connecticut’s top rate is pretty friggin’ stupid

    You’ve also (stupidly) failed to consider the impact of Connecticut’s other oppressive tax regimes, too. Why might you move to California when it has a higher marginal top bracket? Maybe because it has NO inheritance tax and NO estate tax, thereby allowing you to keep what you’ve earned and pass it to your children. (Thus, maybe the people who moved are going to retire and take their estates with them?) Or, maybe because California doesn’t levy property tax on automobiles (unlike Connecticut). Or, maybe because California’s property taxes on homes are limited to 1% of the cash value of the home. Minor details like that.

    It’s not too difficult to destroy your arguments, Ed. I like your effort, though.

  30. AndersonScooper

    Jack, please acknowledge the fact that the top bracket in California is 10.55%, and that if someone migrates there, it isn’t for tax reasons.

    Ditto for New Jersey, with a top bracket of 8.97%.

    And of course Rhode Island, (where you and Green argue Nutmeggers are also fleeing to), which has a top rate of 9.9%!

    Please explain to me how you reconcile:
    1) your argument that higher marginal income taxes will cause people to flee the state,
    2) yet we haven’t seen an in-migration from high tax states like NY, NJ and RI, but in fact the opposite.

  31. Jack, please acknowledge the fact that the top bracket in California is 10.55%, and that if someone migrates there, it isn’t for tax reasons.

    Don’t you pay attention? It isn’t for income tax reasons. It may be for property tax reasons, and it would probably be for estate tax reasons, but it isn’t for income tax reasons. Same goes for Rhode Island and New Jersey.

    Please explain to me how you reconcile:1) your argument that higher marginal income taxes will cause people to flee the state,2) yet we haven’t seen an in-migration from high tax states like NY, NJ and RI, but in fact the opposite.

    We have seen people flee the state. More importantly, for fiscal purposes, we’ve seen a whole lot of income leave the state. Unless, like Robert Gibbs, you don’t think $800 million to no-income-tax environments (Florida, Texas, New Hampshire) isn’t a lot of money.

    Why are you ignoring the $800 million that left for no-income-tax states and focusing on the $800 million that left for low-property-tax and no-estate-tax states?

  32. Dobbs, why don’t you check out the tax rates of the states people are leaving us for.

    MassachusettsCaliforniaNew JerseyVirginiaGeorgiaRhode Island

    The successful people ( your call them rich) are moving to places like the Carolina’s, Georgia & Florida, Nevada & Texas. And, when they move, the jobs move with them.

  33. AndersonScooper

    Pufn– If the Sun Belt is experiencing growth, while the North is not, could it possibly be due to the superior climate?

    But honestly, the idea that people are fleeing CT because of a 5% income tax is pure bunk, even if you ‘wingers won’t admit it.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

    FYI, the top marginal income tax rates in southern States:
    MD = 6.25%
    VA = 5.75%
    WV = 6.50%
    TN = 6.0%
    NC = 7.75%
    SC = 7.00%
    GA = 6.00%
    FL = 0.00%
    AL = 5.00%
    MS = 5.00%
    LA = 6.00%
    AR = 7.00%
    TX = 0.00%
    NM = 4.90%
    AZ = 4.54%
    CA = 10.55%

    Amazingly, CT’s top tax rate is equal or lower to 12 out of 16 of those states!

    Why are wealthy people fleeing to higher income tax environments? Could it be that it doesn’t really matter?

  34. Why are wealthy people fleeing to higher income tax environments? Could it be that it doesn’t really matter?

    Eddie:

    What are the average property, income, sales, corporate and estate/inheritance tax rates for each of those states? Not that those would be relevant or anything…

    And yes, given that the wealthy pay significantly more in taxes than the rest of Comnecticut’s residents, yes, it does matter.

  35. Jack to your point,

    As a home owner in both CT and WY your points are well taken. A relatively small increase in the income tax will probably not be the final nail in the coffin for my wife and my residence here in CT. What will be is the possible surtax (of last I heard 30%) to the estate tax.

    We have already taken the steps needed to protect our small estate from this tax. However increasingly these days it would seem logical to me that the safest thing to do would be to simple become Wyoming residents a few years sooner than we had planned. Simple enough to do, and then not worry about the CT estate tax, or the 5%(+) income tax.

    In addition we would then also save taxes on our cars registered in Wyoming since there is no property taxes on cars there either.

    As you point out it is not just one tax increase that puts one over the edge it is the sum total that at some point forces a decision on you. A fair share is fair enough, but at some point enough is enough.

    Beyond that the amazing Wyoming natural beauty, the great summer weather, with no humidity, the fantastic winter skiing, and the fresh air all still come tax free.

  36. As you point out it is not just one tax increase that puts one over the edge it is the sum total that at some point forces a decision on you. A fair share is fair enough, but at some point enough is enough.

    Al:

    Shame on you and your wife for working hard throughout your lives, and wanting to pass down to your family what you’ve worked so hard to earn. You should just let the Connecticut government tax it again.

  37. Jack,

    “Shame on you and your wife for working hard throughout your lives, and wanting to pass down to your family what you’ve worked so hard to earn. You should just let the Connecticut government tax it again.”

    Please forgive my greed. I don’t know what has come over me???? I guess I just figured that being ( a very small) part of the small percentage of Connecticut taxpayers who pays about 80% of taxes for everyone else should at least make one feel special. Sadly as it turns out finding out that all this time I haven’t been even paying my fair share ( and probably never will) makes me realize I serve no purpose here in this wonderful state.

  38. Pufn– If the Sun Belt is experiencing growth, while the North is not, could it possibly be due to the superior climate?

    Yes Scooper. No doubt climate is a huge factor and that is all the more reason why CT must be competitive and not over tax people.

    If Mortons sold their PorterHouse Steaks with all the trimmings for $65 and Ponderosa wanted to charge $85…where would you go? In this case, CT is the Ponderosa but somehow thinks they can continue to survive.

  39. Dobb is right. It’s net taxes that cause people to migrate to other states and net taxes that affect in-migration. If the net tax is too high — every tax increase becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    A 30% increase in corporate taxes is a mighty large straw, especially since there are other states out there whose net taxes are, shall we say, more competitive.

    The argument most often made in the 90”s in support of the income tax was that, absent a new tax, Connecticut would have to raise the sales tax too high to meet a deficit of about $2 billion. Now, let’s see – what is the current deficit?

    Dobb: Expect to be intentionally misunderstood. Prophets are never loved in their own country.

    These guys just want to tax and tax and tax, because they do not want to cut spending. The ostridge always needs more sand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s