[UconnHusky1]

Originally Posted by JayCT

While losing the headquarters is not good, it’s not the end of the world. Let’s see what happens before crying that the sky is falling. Remember GE leaving barely created a ripple in Fairfield County. Jay

GE leaving was a massacre for Fairfield County

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

But you can’t sugarcoat the loss of a major HQ in the state (the largest, I believe). It’s not a good thing.

correct

[beerbeer]

The UT headquarters move takes all the high salaries --and all the millions in taxes they pay-- to Boston. Who makes up all those taxes, the middle class.

The rich (who can afford it LOL) moved their butts away from Connecticut. They could afford it, but they decided not to pay it.

Think what this says about Connecticut that Massachusetts has better tax advantages then Connecticut. This is a huge blow. And anyone who doesn't think all the high salary tax payers from Hamilton Standard and GE and UT and all the other companies leaving doesn't have a HUGE effect, doesn't understand economics or the role the rich play in taxes.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by JayCT

While losing the headquarters is not good, it’s not the end of the world. Let’s see what happens before crying that the sky is falling. Remember GE leaving barely created a ripple in Fairfield County. Jay

On the manufacturing side, my guess, no change at. It will have no impact. The HQ side, minimal impact in terms of jobs (maybe) they did say they will have a presence in CT still.

Overall the major impact will be physiological because it is never fun losing a Fortune 500 HQ to another state.

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by beerbeer

The UT headquarters move takes all the high salaries --and all the millions in taxes they pay-- to Boston. Who makes up all those taxes, the middle class.

The rich (who can afford it LOL) moved their butts away from Connecticut. They could afford it, but they decided not to pay it.

Think what this says about Connecticut that Massachusetts has better tax advantages then Connecticut. This is a huge blow.

Yes the move of the HQ would be a blow to Connecticut and the tax base but the move of HQ would not be motivated by our economic or tax policy over Massachusetts. It is the fact that Boston is a strong player for international corporations and many of the businesses in defense technology are located in the area. Reports indicate that about 100 jobs from the HQ would be involved in the move. Again, it's not good to lose any jobs but the opportunities from the merger should result in more business for both P&W and Collins. P&W already has plans to hire thousands over the next 5 to 10 years to support contracts they have secured as well as to replace the many senior employees leaving due to retirement.

If our politicians want to politicize this event so be it. However, it would be much more effective if they spent their energy in actually doing something to address the root causes of the problem which has been discussed at length for years instead of trumpeting their re-election talking points with no real solutions.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

Yes the move of the HQ would be a blow to Connecticut and the tax base but the move of HQ would not be motivated by our economic or tax policy over Massachusetts. It is the fact that Boston is a strong player for international corporations and many of the businesses in defense technology are located in the area. Reports indicate that about 100 jobs from the HQ would be involved in the move. Again, it's not good to lose any jobs but the opportunities from the merger should result in more business for both P&W and Collins. P&W already has plans to hire thousands over the next 5 to 10 years to support contracts they have secured as well as to replace the many senior employees leaving due to retirement.

If our politicians want to politicize this event so be it. However, it would be much more effective if they spent their energy in actually doing something to address the root causes of the problem which has been discussed at length for years instead of trumpeting their re-election talking points with no real solutions.

Amen re: the root causes of the problem. While this is definitely not a direct result of CT’s business climate or economic conditions, CT should take note of other states that are successfully attracting businesses. The disturbing trend needs to be turned around.

It looks like about 300 jobs will be lost in the state, which doesn’t appear to be a big blow, but they are the few hundred highest paid positions within the company.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by UconnHusky1

GE leaving was a massacre for Fairfield County

It was? It barely created a ripple in town let alone the county. Homes are still selling there. My friends just sold their upscale home in Greenfield Hill in a few days. The son of another friend builds homes in town and he is having no trouble finding buyers for them and he does not even build in the super-hot Fairfield Center/Beach area. Sorry but 200 jobs out of 420,000 jobs county-wide is statistically nothing. Jay

[kidyankee764]

I was going to post this in its own thread, but figured it belongs here. I’m not sure that IL is in any place to critique what’s going on in CT, but here you have it:

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/repor...Dmus-Cnfx028fw

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I was going to post this in its own thread, but figured it belongs here. I’m not sure that IL is in any place to critique what’s going on in CT, but here you have it:

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/repor...Dmus-Cnfx028fw

I am not crazy about all the new taxes coming down the pike in CT but if someone is going to write a story they should check the facts.

From the article
"Connecticut’s experience is a warning that switching to a progressive income tax will eventually end in a tax hike on Illinois’ struggling middle class, result in fewer jobs – particularly for those on the margins of the labor force – and increase poverty. It will fail to combat inequality or fix the state’s finances."

Well it appears to me the progressive tax rates in CT ARE KEEPING POVERTY LOW in our state. We had the 4th lowest poverty rate in the country in 2014.

1 New Hampshire.....9.2%
2 Maryland.............10.4%
3 Wyoming.............10.6%
4 Connecticut..........10.8%
24 Illinois................14.3% (not so bad but CT is better)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_poverty_rate

In 2017 we are still the fourth lowest.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/vis...ate-u-s-states

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I am not crazy about all the new taxes coming down the pike in CT but if someone is going to write a story they should check the facts.

From the article
"Connecticut’s experience is a warning that switching to a progressive income tax will eventually end in a tax hike on Illinois’ struggling middle class, result in fewer jobs – particularly for those on the margins of the labor force – and increase poverty. It will fail to combat inequality or fix the state’s finances."

Well it appears to me the progressive tax rates in CT ARE KEEPING POVERTY LOW in our state. We had the 4th lowest poverty rate in the country in 2014.

1 New Hampshire.....9.2%
2 Maryland.............10.4%
3 Wyoming.............10.6%
4 Connecticut..........10.8%
24 Illinois................14.3% (not so bad but CT is better)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_poverty_rate

In 2017 we are still the fourth lowest.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/vis...ate-u-s-states

I agree with you, but not your numbers.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-258.pdf

Scroll down to page 9, and you’ll see supplemetal poverty rates, as cost of living widely differs from state to state. Once that’s taken into account, CT’s poverty rate actually rises close to 13% (so not much better than IL). If you scroll to page 11, you’ll see much of the coastal Northeast, California and Florida have more poverty than thought due to cost of living. That’s why blanket lists of things like incomes and poverty rates really don’t give the full picture. Source here is US Census.