[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

I'm a lifelong Connecticut resident. I have no desire to leave the state, but I'm worried about Connecticut's economic future.

By and large, Connecticut's economy has been stagnant since the early 1990s. Overall job growth has been marginal at best, wages have been flat, and the major industries that constitute the economic keystones of the state (manufacturing, defense, financial services, and insurance) have all downsized to varying degrees. The gap between rich and poor (already the widest in the nation) continues to grow, poverty rates continue to increase, the number of middle-income households continues to shrink, and the overall tax burden continues to rise.

You correctly make a direct connection between economic malady and growth of Govt.

Yet, it is strange that you find the solution in precisely that -- growth of Govt:

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

...I also believe there must be some serious rethinking in how municipal governments are structured and function. 169 independent cities and towns putting their 20 square miles of self-interest first doesn't work in a global economy. There must be new policies developed and implemented that offer incentives to neighboring municipalities to merge, share resources, or at the very least strongly cooperate on a regional level.

Economic growth is a direct result, not of Govt concentration and centralization, but exactly the opposite - Govt decentralization, and local decision-making.

The solution is more Capitalism. That means -- less regulation, more economic freedom, privatization, smaller tax burden. Yes, the profit motive.

Unfortunately "middle-class" and small-business are no longer the constituency of Hartford Politicians. Large business slurping on the Govt trough, and lumpen-proletariat of rotten inner-cities are. So yes, things have gotten worse gradually, and CT's future trajectory is negative. No two ways about it.

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

I strongly believe there needs to be a new wave of state leadership -- people in top executive and legislative positions who have experience in the comprehensive policy-making behind how to attract and retain high-paying jobs in the 21st century economy.

A different political class, sacrificial of its own interest -- this is a utopia. Politicians never ever give up their power. You have to yank it out of their "dead" cold hands.

That's the inherent nature of politicians -- gobbling of power away from the individual, and civil society. This is as old as dirt, and ain't disappearing any time soon.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Economic growth is a direct result, not of Govt concentration and centralization, but exactly the opposite - Govt decentralization, and local decision-making.

The solution is more Capitalism. That means -- less regulation, more economic freedom, privatization, smaller tax burden. Yes, the profit motive.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I was going by the list you posted in your post. Of course big companies pay taxes, their properties are valued higher but overall residences in many communities pay the majority of the taxes, not businesses. In Fairfield there is no doubt GE is the highest taxpayer but again that represents a smaller percentage of the taxes paid in a town. Jay

Maybe that's so in some places, but the general rule of most municipalities is that residence taxes never are enough to run the town, so corporate property taxes are needed to make up the deficit in revenue from houses.

So most town/city managers are always hoping to maximize commercial and industrial zoning, to keep the place running.

[Jeff from CT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

You correctly make a direct connection between economic malady and growth of Govt.

Yet, it is strange that you find the solution in precisely that -- growth of Govt:



Economic growth is a direct result, not of Govt concentration and centralization, but exactly the opposite - Govt decentralization, and local decision-making.

The solution is more Capitalism. That means -- less regulation, more economic freedom, privatization, smaller tax burden. Yes, the profit motive.

Unfortunately "middle-class" and small-business are no longer the constituency of Hartford Politicians. Large business slurping on the Govt trough, and lumpen-proletariat of rotten inner-cities are. So yes, things have gotten worse gradually, and CT's future trajectory is negative. No two ways about it.




A different political class, sacrificial of its own interest -- this is a utopia. Politicians never ever give up their power. You have to yank it out of their "dead" cold hands.

That's the inherent nature of politicians -- gobbling of power away from the individual, and civil society. This is as old as dirt, and ain't disappearing any time soon.

I'm not advocating for growth in government at all. I'm advocating for a reduction in the glut of municipal governments across the state -- a glut that is obsolete and anathema to economic growth in the 21st century. Connecticut no longer requires (and maybe never really did require) 169 town and city governments independent of each other. I believe the state would be far better off if jurisdictions consolidated, combined resources, eliminated duplicative or redundant services, and began functioning as part of larger integrated regions. Granted, this type of thinking goes against New England parochialism and is bound to make many people uncomfortable. However, it's the type of thinking (combined with smart pro-growth fiscal and economic policies) that would position Connecticut in a more advantageous spot on the global economic map.

I find your characterization of politicians overly pessimistic. Yes, there are bad apples, but many politicians -- especially on the local and state levels -- are in office because they truly care about making a positive difference in their state and communities. With that said, I think we need a new wave of leadership in Connecticut that can think more creatively outside of the box.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

... With that said, I think we need a new wave of leadership in Connecticut that can think more creatively outside of the box.

What, shaking down the citizens and businesses with new taxes year after year isn't creative? If it's good enough for Tony Soprano, it's good enough for CT, capeesh? I guess the difference is you can't call the cops or defend yourself when one of CTs official goons come to take your money. How convenient.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

What, shaking down the citizens and businesses with new taxes year after year isn't creative? If it's good enough for Tony Soprano, it's good enough for CT, capeesh? I guess the difference is you can't call the cops or defend yourself when one of CTs official goons come to take your money. How convenient.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

They should I spent closet to $1,000 in car taxes the past 3-4 year's living in Waterbury it's ridiculous. Don't even know where that money goes to for the town.

$250/yr isn't that much, but it's hard to tell without knowing the value of your car.

I pay $25/yr in East Hartford. I'd pay a lot more for the same car in Hartford. Get a car that's not valued at high, move to another town - or both If it's old enough, make sure you get classic plates as that caps the value they can appraise it at.

(not trying to diminish your pain, but if property taxes go up, so will rents as those owners will have to recoup their losses. You won't get away without paying somehow. a car you own is easier to control than if all the rents go up)

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Hence they deserve a say in the size of government, and how much it confiscates.

They apparently have lots of say-- more than you or I. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

They apparently have lots of say-- more than you or I. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed.

They should. Its great. If the average guy pays $10k in state/local total taxes while a corp pays $5 million for all its taxes to the same, the latter should have 500 times the say of the former. Direct correlation to $ paid.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

I'm not advocating for growth in government at all. I'm advocating for a reduction in the glut of municipal governments across the state -- a glut that is obsolete and anathema to economic growth in the 21st century. Connecticut no longer requires (and maybe never really did require) 169 town and city governments independent of each other. I believe the state would be far better off if jurisdictions consolidated, combined resources, eliminated duplicative or redundant services, and began functioning as part of larger integrated regions. Granted, this type of thinking goes against New England parochialism and is bound to make many people uncomfortable. However, it's the type of thinking (combined with smart pro-growth fiscal and economic policies) that would position Connecticut in a more advantageous spot on the global economic map.

You leave out probably the most important feature of our political system -- representation. Instead of strengthening it, your proposal weakens it.

As citizen, who can you influence more, your selectman or the Hartford Rep? As areas grow larger, your voice gets diluted. Add here that some politician from a bigger town or even city will favor larger constituencies, which are in the city, at the expense of the smaller town / rural areas. Here we go again with Govt's re-distribution of wealth.

First Selectman knows me by name, as he does many other people. Chairman of Planning & Zoning is my next door neighbor. People are lot more involved in town's politics than county's or state's. Many residents never even step foot in counties' seats.

Yes, the smaller jurisdictions, the more voice you and I have. Local board knows town's issues than someone more removed. Secondly, if we don't like a selectman / selectwoman, we have a better chance of removing him / her. Try that with a Hartford politician.

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

I find your characterization of politicians overly pessimistic. Yes, there are bad apples, but many politicians -- especially on the local and state levels -- are in office because they truly care about making a positive difference in their state and communities.

Exactly that's why we need more decentralization, not centralization. In local Govt, you can weed out the bad ones more easily than in a larger jurisdiction. Many Hartford politicians are untouchable. They are deeply intertwined into the machine, they possess more power, more money, and are therefore harder to remove.

Power corrupts. You say "let's give them more power, you're pessimistic, don't worry, they'll stay honest." Neither history, nor track-record are on your side.

Originally Posted by Jeff from CT

With that said, I think we need a new wave of leadership in Connecticut that can think more creatively outside of the box.

Sigequinox took words out of my mouth -- what do you mean "outside of the box?" The only creative and productive skill they have is -- how to fleece you and me.