[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Zero. If you're making that kind of money as your AGI, you would have hit the Schedule A phase-out or been subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax dual tax system. The change to Schedule A deductions mostly nails the upper middle class and the high side of middle class in blue states, not rich people.

This.

[JGBigGreen]

There are really no truly objective organizations but that doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t truths in the data. The studies I’ve seen posted on here seem to indicate that more high earning people are moving out and being replaced by lower to middle class earners. Do you have different studies?

Originally Posted by JayCT

The National Review and the Cato Institute are hardly the most objective of organizations so I take anything they say or conclude with a BIG grain of salt. I find it highly suspicious that they release this "study" less than a week before the election. Makes me wonder what their agenda really is?

As has been discussed and shown here based on more objective sources (like the US Census), the number of people making more than $100,000 per year has gone up in our state. Also, Forbes has listed our state as now having 9 billionaires on their list of the 400 richest people in America, up from 7 last year. Given we are a very small state with less than 1% of the US population, that is a significant number. As others noted, this is not the big deal that some here seem to want to make it. Jay

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Lamont will be bigger exodus, and these billionaires pay huge % of our budget when they stay.

If they didn't leave with Malloy I doubt the would leave under Lamont he is one of them to some extent.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Look at all the entertainment industry people who declare their plantation mansion in Williamson County outside of Nashville as their tax address. Just the savings from a year's income taxes in California pays for it.

Geoff, you mention that all the time but the second any of those entertainment people (and athletes) do one bit of work outside their domicile, they are subject to taxes on the money earned in those states. Film a movie, perform in a concert, or play a game in CA, NY, MA, or anywhere an income tax is in place - they pay taxes on those earnings. Even some cities have a jock/entertainer tax - play or perform at any publicly funded venue in Pittsburgh and live outside of the city, fork over 3%.

Now their royalties and the such aren't taxed if they domicile in a non income tax area.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

There are really no truly objective organizations but that doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t truths in the data. The studies I’ve seen posted on here seem to indicate that more high earning people are moving out and being replaced by lower to middle class earners. Do you have different studies?

You are right that there are no truly objective organizations but these two are kind of known to be particularly biased. We have had US Census data posted here that shows that there is an increase in people earning more than $100,000 per year. Not sure how much more objective you can get than that. Also, the fact that we now have 9 billionaires on Forbe 400 Wealthiest Americans List when last year we had 7 kind of shows that the very wealthy still find Connecticut to be a very attractive place to live. Wouldn’t that number have dropped if it was as doom and gloom as that study claims? Kind of simple logic. Jay

[CT_Yank]

Originally Posted by JayCT

An increase in people earning more than $100,000 per year. Not sure how much more objective you can get than that

100k ain't what it used to be and those earning 100k or more mostly centered in Fairfield County. You can't have house prices double or triple over 15 years, taxes double, daycare and health care costs double or triple without wage increases. People throw $100k around like it is the magic, high earning number. For a middle class fam of 4, that is barely surviving in FFC even in less wealthy towns.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by CT_Yank

100k ain't what it used to be and those earning 100k or more mostly centered in Fairfield County. You can't have house prices double or triple over 15 years, taxes double, daycare and health care costs double or triple without wage increases. People throw $100k around like it is the magic, high earning number. For a middle class fam of 4, that is barely surviving in FFC even in less wealthy towns.

Connecticut’ Median household income is $73,400 and is one of the highest in the country so $100,000 is still a very high income. The fact that the number of people earning more than that is growing means a lot. Jay

[CT_Yank]

..and Greenwich median income is $124,958. Please don't tell me people who make $124k can afford to live there. Again, 100k as some indicator of modern wealth really needs to updated for reality.

[Stylo]

Even here in Milford, a family with kids making 100k is definitely making some serious sacrifices and not saving much.

To me, 200k is doing well in this day and age in this area.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by CT_Yank

..and Greenwich median income is $124,958. Please don't tell me people who make $124k can afford to live there. Again, 100k as some indicator of modern wealth really needs to updated for reality.

A single person can afford a rental at that income level. Or a modest home or condo in, say, Byram. And only a single family home if you had saved for a big down payment.

You’d definitely be the “poor” in town