[ctguy87]

Originally Posted by cj06117

Some people have to defend the state to the extreme to justify the expensive houses they bought. Keep that in mind. Denial is a wonderful way of handling challenges for certain individuals.

CT is hard to generalize in one statement since you have certain areas that are preforming quite differently. Stamford seems to be doing very well. I agree with you in regards to Hartford county. It is largely populated by mature companies which are not rapidly expanding and adding jobs like many would like you to believe. In fact, most are cutting jobs. Not all the cuts reach the papers either.

I personally wouldn't advocate for buying real estate in the Hartford area unless you have inheritance or some serious windfall owed to you. I saw tons of my coworkers make that mistake and I work for a fortune 100 and now they wish they didn't buy in. Careers stagnate and promises are broken.

Anyone with a scrap of financial intelligence will realize it is unlikely that jobs will continue to grow in the Hartford area unless there are significant policy changes. Mcjobs don't count.....

This. Perfectly stated.

[Mr_250]

If no companies leave (cross our fingers), there is something bigger that is certain. This budget battle has made news all over the Country. From MSNBC (which I watch in the morning) to a story in a California newspaper. This has been a black eye on Connecticut. No company, unless you are bribed would move here. This little battle will stun growth. What company would willfully come here or even expand?

[Mike 75]

Pretty much sums up how I feel about this budget.
Another big deficit, another big tax hike: How come it isn't working? - Hartford Courant
Its pretty clear that the Dems are in the pocket of the state employee unions and the rest of us can go pound sand. Its a shame.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Pretty much sums up how I feel about this budget.
Another big deficit, another big tax hike: How come it isn't working? - Hartford Courant
Its pretty clear that the Dems are in the pocket of the state employee unions and the rest of us can go pound sand. Its a shame.

Good editorial. If anything it is not strong enough. Jay

[jdhall1]

I highly Boehringer Ingelheim is going to move. They have of hundreds of millions tied up their facility on the Danbury/Ridgefield line.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

If you're not personally doing well here, why blame the larger economic picture?

Most people shouldn't. But young people paying high rents and paying off student loans and unable to save for a house have a case due to the high cost of living, which isn't a small percentage difference. In places where rent and housing is cheaper, you can get on with your life quicker.

And if you are doing well, why leave?

In my case: the present was fine, but the future was cloudy.

I was doing fine in CT, but I had to hustle up extra work so that we could easily pay for vacations and other amenities. But it meant I had to drive all over the state for work and that was getting kind of old.

Contemplating retirement, things didn't look so good. We decided that if we didn't want to outlive our savings, we would have to be in a position of much lower fixed costs. We could not see that being feasible in CT.

Real estate in our town was moving very slowly, and I couldn't see that getting better. It hasn't. Right now not owning that house is looking like the right choice.

Little to hold us: neither of us grew up in New England, most of our extended families live a long way from CT.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Henry10

CT electorally is at a point of no return. Working stiffs are no longer the winning constituency. So Hartford could care less what Aetna's, GE's or your interest is.




Corporations do NOT exist to create jobs, or protect the environment, or that the State can milk them for programs. If you take all the marketing fluff / BS way corporations exist for one and only one reason -- make money for the owners (i.e. shareholders).

To make money, corporations must compete in a very highly competitive and often global market, or national for Insurers.

Most of their margins are pretty thin, and even if they are thick -- the CEO who presides over the "thinning", read lower margins, gets the boot. If the CEO needs to move Aetna to Des Moines, so that Income goes up, so the stock will go from $ 115 to $ 125, that's what he'll do. If he don't, the board will find somebody else who will.

This is why I don't like participating in these tax policy/economic policy threads anymore. People only repeat what they see/hear on TV. In your mind corporations only exist to service shareholders but they are only one aspect. Corporations exist to service customers, employees, and shareholders. Over time the group that gets more attention changes and we are currently in the "shareholders" is supreme stage. When unions where stronger we were in the "employees" is supreme stage.

I'm going to repeat this for the millionth time. Corporations DO NOT pay taxes. They are part of their expeneses and any business that wants to stay in business is going to price their products and services to recoup those taxes. I don't want to get deep into economic theory, but taxes, especially rising taxes in a specific sector can actually hinder competition. For example, raise sales tax 5% Walmart eats the tax while smaller stores can not. Once the smaller stores close Walmart takes over the market and raises prices.

To get back to the shareholders. Corporations DO NOT directly benefit from rising or falling stock prices. Although one could argue that they would benefit from falling prices if they are buying stock back for treasury stock. Corporations only receive money from stock sales at their IPO.

Now the CEO and or the board can steer the company to perform better so the stock rises, but only the shareholders benefit. And I'm sure a CEO holds significant stock of the corporation he works for. This is one of the reasons American corporations can only see 90 days ahead. If they can't meet their wall street projections, their stock price will fall, which will affect the price of the CEO's stock. To add even more insult to this situation the CEO is going to pay 15% on the capital gains, and NO social security or medicare or unemployment taxes on that income.

I know this will sound condescending, but IMO the legislature isn't qualified to make these type of decisions alone. At the minimum they should have some economic and tax policy experts on the budget panel and perhaps take input from the public at large.

[HumpDay]

The state will probably do what they always do and pay them to stay. If Travelers move, it will hit Hartford hard. Aetna as well. We'll lose 2 of the cities largest employers. Don't we want to attract businesses instead of shaming them to be here? Yet the Dems want to create jobs but how are you going to do that if you make it even more expensive to do business. You're making surrounding states more attractive to business which is not good at all. I really really hope Malloy veto's it but I highly doubt he will. He will most likely hide from the public because he knows that we know we've been lied too AGAIN. But when he's being asked to talk about this tax hike I can guarantee you he will dodge the question or cherry pick these ridiculous statistics.. What a ****. Now my company will defiently be moving all because of the people in one building. I wanted to stay here but you have destroyed my life and my trust a LONG time ago. Though I could quit my job and stay here but I won't be doing that. I've had enough.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

What exactly is your criteria? Having worked in NH for over a decade, I think they have excellent schools, good government services, and reasonable housing prices. Of course it can be cold as hell in the winter so no argument there!

There are less jobs but also less people. NH's unemployment rate is only 3.8 compared to 6.3 for CT. Like most New England states, NH has a very high standard of living.

None of the 50 states fit my criteria, I do think CT is one of the better states though.

My criteria is basically this;

Low taxes, low housing costs
excellent/above average schools, Govt services, health care, infrastructure, and weather.

You may find a state that has one or a couple of these, but no state has all of them.

I don't even think a place like this exists on planet Earth, yet this is what everyone is looking for.

[HumpDay]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

None of the 50 states fit my criteria, I do think CT is one of the better states though.

My criteria is basically this;

Low taxes, low housing costs
excellent/above average schools, Govt services, health care, and weather.

You may find a state that has one or a couple of these, but no state has all of them.

I don't even think a place like this exists on planet Earth, yet this is what everyone is looking for.

That's nearly impossible. It would be really hard finding a place with all of that. Plus usually places with low taxes and low housing costs have lower wages as well. Don't get fooled by that lower COL concept. It's pretty deceiving if you ask me.