[BPt111]

Originally Posted by JGBigGreen

LOL! I am perfectly happy that I am from Maine. I chose to live here in CT for a few years for my career and am perfectly comfortable with that decision. I find it interesting that the state is so polarizing in the way people describe it here on C-D.

What way ?

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

These agreements are so biased in favor of the companies I have to wonder who is doing the bargaining for the state of CT's side ? Maybe we should hire one of the negotiators the companies are using, because obviously they know what they're doing.

UTC's ABC policy of a few years ago, plus the threats by GE, AETNA, Travelers, Stanley Black&Decker should easily explain why Ct had to pay $400 mill..not to add jobs..just to retain them.

An improved Ct business climate, w/o the 2015 new tax burdens, would raise its bargaining position in deals like this.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

They get tons in return! Access to the most productive workforce in the world at a relative bargain, a sane stable and quick court system, safe streets, and quick access to running capital.

.

LOL! The 40-50% they wish to relo would happily go wherever they chose to move. Des Moines, Iowa will pass Hartford in insurance jobs given the last 5 years trajectory of each in a few years.

Shazam..they can handle that educated work in Iowa..YES.

[Mr_250]

I thought this was interesting contrast. Connecticut's Moment Of Tax Reckoning - Forbes. The top article is about Connecticut and the upcoming budget slash tax increases. Below that is an interesting article that is the polar opposite about North Carolina. They reduced their taxes by $2B, reduced income taxes and reduced the corporate tax below 3% by 2017.

In 2017 CT will have a corporate tax rate over 9% and NC will have one below 3%.

Begs the question, can CT learn anything from other States? Not copy, but learn about what they are doing to get people and businesses to their state. From an outsider prospective, if CT did what NC did we would BOOM. We have a better workforce, more educated and better QOL than NC. All we need is that one catalyst and CT will grow.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

I thought this was interesting contrast. Connecticut's Moment Of Tax Reckoning - Forbes. The top article is about Connecticut and the upcoming budget slash tax increases. Below that is an interesting article that is the polar opposite about North Carolina. They reduced their taxes by $2B, reduced income taxes and reduced the corporate tax below 3% by 2017.

In 2017 CT will have a corporate tax rate over 9% and NC will have one below 3%.

Begs the question, can CT learn anything from other States? Not copy, but learn about what they are doing to get people and businesses to their state. From an outsider prospective, if CT did what NC did we would BOOM. We have a better workforce, more educated and better QOL than NC. All we need is that one catalyst and CT will grow.

It is an interesting article but remember it is a bit slanted coming from a business magazine. I thought the article under it about New York's failure with attracting new businesses was equally interesting. They have spent $53 million on advertising a new business program that basically added only 76 jobs. That article also mentions how uncompetitive New York is for business and rates them as the worst with the highest taxes in the country. It sounded so familiar. You could have just removed the words "New York" from just about every line of the article and had basically the same article this publication has written about Connecticut and New Jersey for that matter too. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

While all 3 of the tri-states are not competitive now for business, that can be changed (and CC has done his part to start the process of reducing the raise taxes culture here).

I recall an Italian coach who took over a very unsuccessful Ct women's basketball program a few years ago. How are they now?

The big hurdle is the mental aspect of becoming a state that does not punish success.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by JayCT

It is an interesting article but remember it is a bit slanted coming from a business magazine. I thought the article under it about New York's failure with attracting new businesses was equally interesting. They have spent $53 million on advertising a new business program that basically added only 76 jobs. That article also mentions how uncompetitive New York is for business and rates them as the worst with the highest taxes in the country. It sounded so familiar. You could have just removed the words "New York" from just about every line of the article and had basically the same article this publication has written about Connecticut and New Jersey for that matter too. Jay

This is based on a purposeful misunderstanding of how startups work... Forbes knows this, but, it's an opportunity to make a Democratic governor look bad so they tell half the story...

These startup zones provide 10 years of tax relief for startup companies within the zones. Only 56 companies were approved for the program. Very few startups will receive funding in their first year. Very few will employ anyone until they have a proven product and market.

Most will fail. However, attracting a critical mass of startups is a medium term investment in jobs. Eventually some of these startups will succeed. A few will employ hundreds. A couple will employ thousands.

This is not dissimilar with CT's goals for the new startup ecosystem-- minus the tax breaks.

However, these programs are rarely run well by the government and are usually fraught with downside.

The biggest problem with this program is belief in the myth that companies will go wherever taxes are the lowest. Again and again, taxes isn't even the top four reasons a specific geography attracts companies... Talented workforce in needed areas of expertise, available assistance, mentoring, accelerators and investors in the community and industry density are more important than tax rates by a long run.

Startups aren't making any money... No matter the tax rate, multiply it by zero and the result is always zero..

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

While all 3 of the tri-states are not competitive now for business, that can be changed (and CC has done his part to start the process of reducing the raise taxes culture here).

I recall an Italian coach who took over a very unsuccessful Ct women's basketball program a few years ago. How are they now?

The big hurdle is the mental aspect of becoming a state that does not punish success.

Brooklyn and Manhattan separately represent two of the highest density startup locales in the nation. New York city is the de facto world's commerce capital.

Whatever "punishing success" means has nothing to do with anything.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

He might not. But I do.

Which are the Most Productive State Economies? | Fairweather Consulting

Relevant quote:

"Free Exchange suggested that the process of high productive workers moving to lower cost areas may stifle long-term US productivity growth."


And while I disagree with Richard Florida a lot he did put this out a few years ago:

America's Most Productive Metros - CityLab

Both articles and your reference to them are misleading and manipulative. You claim that CT has the highest productive workers (Labor Producivity), yet your source is about Productivity, not LABOR Productivity.

Amongst economists and MBAs, it is well known that Productivity measured in GDP (which your sources are based on) is a poor indicator of LABOR productivity.

GDP basis provides a strong bias towards capital-intensive production, at the disadvantage of labor-intensive production.

So no, productivity based on GDP becomes misleading in measuring LABOR productivity.

Originally Posted by Mr_250

We have a better workforce, more educated and better QOL than NC.

That's a very broad generalization. I would put Triangle's workforce against Windham County's workforce any time.

Head-to-head with FFC workforce -- they are leaders in their own fields (IT vs Investment Banking).

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Brooklyn and Manhattan separately represent two of the highest density startup locales in the nation. New York city is the de facto world's commerce capital.

Whatever "punishing success" means has nothing to do with anything.

Startups, as much as you glorify them, are not what make or break an economy. They have been discussed as a means to avoid talking about the major corps, already employing thousand, so at odds with Ct excess taxation issues, they have gone public with their thought processes concerning where it might lead them.

This does noes mean startups are bad, but established large corps are what pays the huge chunk of the tax bills, enabling a state to foster startups who are paying little of the state's bills. (AETNA, for example, pays $65 million in Ct taxes annually)