[Henry10]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Since computer power and data collection has become so much easier and reliable there's no reason to live in CT and work in NY (to avoid income taxes) because that isn't possible any more.

Are you trying to say that pre-computer age, NY companies did not withhold NYS Income tax from CT residents?

[Robert137]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

Jay, your awfully defensive. Did the article say there was no other wealth in the state? No. Only that most was concentrated in the southwest corner of Greenwich, Darien, New Canaan,etc. The facts are in the article if you would read the whole thing.

Historically less expensive than NY? Yes, And the key to that was no income tax. Many people on all of these state forums are all looking for similar things, good quality housing, schools, within earshot of their jobs. When CT was 0% income tax that was a gargantuan blinking "COME HERE" signal to those whom the state income tax of NY vs NONE in CT. Do you think the very people debating Westchester v Fairfield County weren't doing the trade-off of a few more minutes commute vs a big fat 0% income tax? It is logical. You had part of the tri-state area drawing people in. Now that arbitrage is finished and the result is over time that money leaves the state. It is hard to understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but want to make a couple of clarifications. Conn. actually did have an income tax prior to 1992--it was a tax on interest and dividend income, something like 6%. Not a big deal for most but there it was. It was eliminated when the general income tax was instituted and the sales tax rate was reduced from 8% to 6%. Also, a family moving from NY to Conn. in those days would not save income tax if their jobs were in NY--they would still owe tax to NY and the situation is the same today. What did happen is that a lot of firms took advantage of the robust economic climate back then (no "earned" income tax included) to open up offices and headquarters here. All those big office complexes which are now apparently obsolete were filling up. It was a great place to move to. Lower property taxes than NY and NJ, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country (remember those days?) and companies moving in and buildings going up, lots of jobs to be had.

[RonaldusMagnus]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

There was a report released last year that showed population shifts of each area. SW CT saw a major influx of those from New York (actually so did New Haven County). The shift was great enough for me to be confident in using the word "flock".

Yep, click on the link. Gaining from NY but bleeding TO other places.

So what your saying is "relative to NY" it is attractive. No argument there although it was MUCH MORE attractive previously.

Pretty good interactive link: IRS Tax Migration | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

Did people suddenly begin moving for retirement reasons and discover FL in 1992?

No, people have been moving to Florida to retire since the 1930's at least. That's why the data is useless unless it excludes these people.

It would make more sense to compare migration from CT to another low tax state that has similar weather such as Kansas. I don't think many people are flocking to KS for lower taxes.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Are you trying to say that pre-computer age, NY companies did not withhold NYS Income tax from CT residents?

I'm sure they did, but if NY's rate was lower than CT's rate the CT residents would only pay to NY BEFORE CT had an income tax. I don't know what NY rates were at the time, but in CT 1991 was 1.5% 1992 and forward was 4.5%.

There's also the lesser known dividends and interest tax. About 1988 CT started taxing those at 6%.

[RonaldusMagnus]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

No, people have been moving to Florida to retire since the 1930's at least. That's why the data is useless unless it excludes these people.

It would make more sense to compare migration from CT to another low tax state that has similar weather such as Kansas. I don't think many people are flocking to KS for lower taxes.

Not only do people flee the state for income tax purposes, the wealthy also flee bc of the ridiculous estate and gift tax. CT is the only state in the country that imposes a gift tax.

Clearly you didnt click the link. Your Kansas example is borderline ridiculous. Your thesis is erroneous because we are talking about NET dollars leaving the state. If the state were healthy and attracting people/businesses then all the retirees could flee to Florida and the new money would offset it. But we are talking net outflow.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Huh? I hope not for financials reasons since sales tax is peanuts in comparison. Also sales tax is arguably the most fair, since people are paying based on their lifestyle choices, not getting skimmed off the top by a bunch of goons.

I would favor though, if all states eliminated the single item cap. That makes it less fair, as the wealthy would benefit the most from this.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

I was thinking of FL when I wrote that...

Most of my experience has been in New haven. Local roads by me are fair condition. TN wouldn't even be a fair comparison because of the milder weather and also because the nashville metro economy is doing incredibly well-an important distinction. That being said, CT made the right choice in seducing the worlds largest hedge fund, since CT doesn't need any more economic hits.

That is true. Nashville metro economy makes managing their state finances very easy. At this point, UBS has more employees in Nashville then Stamford. (Although I think they will need more space there despite being in a building of about 15 floors).


And yes Ct had no choice but to pay the greenmail to the hedge fund to stay.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

Yep, click on the link. Gaining from NY but bleeding TO other places.

So what your saying is "relative to NY" it is attractive. No argument there although it was MUCH MORE attractive previously.

Pretty good interactive link: IRS Tax Migration | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

Lol all that link says is make your money in CT, NY, MA, PA, IL, and CA and retire somewhere cheaper. It says nothing on how productive the economy is for individuals

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

No, people have been moving to Florida to retire since the 1930's at least. That's why the data is useless unless it excludes these people.

Sure, but the growing gap of taxes between the two states strongly skews the choice toward Florida.

It would make more sense to compare migration from CT to another low tax state that has similar weather such as Kansas. I don't think many people are flocking to KS for lower taxes.

Kansas weather? Similar to CT? Not on this planet.