[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

That is a seriously flawed interpretation since it is a NET number. Incredible. You can also flip to see net population shift in those states which is outward. Boggles the mind how people will contort themselves to believe tax policy is not a factor in where people decide to live.

The data is framed to make it look bad. I would imagine the author knows this and knows how to rile people up. If the data is net and CT has high income people leaving how many low income and middle income people would it take to replace the high income person(s)?

This article is for people who don't understand math. It would be far more accurate to state the loss/gain as a percentage of state GDP. It would even be a good idea to choose CT's best tax collection year and use that as a baseline. Then calculate each years regression/progression to that baseline. One year is a small sample though, so maybe doing it by decades would be better.

If tax policy influenced people and business every business owner would move to Kansas. That state does not have a business income tax and earnings are passed thru to the owners/shareholders.

For people with the means and ability to plan it makes total sense to earn high income in a high income state like CT then retire to a low income state. Now if Florida had the same high income jobs as CT we would be losing population to reasons OTHER than retirement. I would be more impressed if the reverse migration pattern existed. i.e people moving from FL to retire in CT.

[Beeker2211]

I agree JayCT, CT is in a fairly unique position where we have the type of economy where we can sit down and decide which kinds of growth we need and which would be a cherry on top. We could help convince a select number of communities that want to grow a way to ease into either moderate or significant resident and/or commercial growth and we'd be pretty close to the GA's goal. We are about to be one of, if not the only state, where rail connections can bring workers to almost all of the top 10 population and commercial centres (now if we could get direct rail to the Casinos, that'd be a home run). Our limited access highway system was not designed for the volume it eventually got (but no system does), but there are possibilities to target relief in certain choke points and accident cleanup (Automatic signal management would be extremely effective). Might want to hold off on adding higher ed spots for the time being, but keep that in the back pocket.

There are things we can do, and while we can make the tax code simpler, it doesn't revolve just around taxes.

[RunD1987]

I think CT is more in a position of very few options left. We can continue to drive taxes up, make empty promises, possibly maintain some goverment services, Rais corporate taxes, possibly lower the debt, and risk businesses/residents leaving the State.

Can create a workable plan that both sides can agree on for CT. Fix the State employment system. Fix benefits. Bust up Unions. Make mandatory retirement at the State at 20 year's of work. Beef up Social, Health, and Justice services and shrink indirect people services.

Fix tax income make it competitive to many States in the US.

Lower corporate tax and find businesses to return.

Eliminate sales tax and find other alternatives to tax.

Legalize marijuana.

So on and so forth.

CT needs to think 5 years maintain their debt. Reduce spending and become more cost effective. Tha CT ca move on to the next Stage attracting people and businesses to the State. Need to focus on Hartford and Bridgeport make these the cities people want to live and work in. Clean up crime, clean up the schools, fix infrastructure, build attractions, make it innovative place to live/play, and so forth.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

I agree JayCT, CT is in a fairly unique position where we have the type of economy where we can sit down....

This is a no-go from the get-go. Who's we?

We do have a system of representatives and executives who we have elected to govern CT, but who have mis-governed CT.

If you imply people other than our corrupt politicians, then what would this parallel legislature look like? What it would be its powers? Suggest, study, ***-***?

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

...and decide which kinds of growth we need and which would be a cherry on top....

Ok. Let's say we fired all politicians, got brand-new uncorrupted politicians in -- then what? Decide on which kinds of growth we need?

So, back to square one -- we have some masterminds in Hartford who DECIDE and dictate what's best for our communities, and pick losers and winners? Isn't this the problem right now?

So we do the same-old same-old, and expect a different result?

Or if we limit the new "assembly" to just "suggest things" without shoving things down our throats, like heavy regulations or high taxation for example -- then what is my consequence if I tell the new "assembly" GTFO here?

Originally Posted by RunD1987

...Fix the State employment system. Fix benefits. Bust up Unions. Make mandatory retirement at the State at 20 year's of work.

AFAIK, CT vest pensions to state employees after 5 years. So shortening the retirement age would increase the benefits burden for the state, not decrease it. So forcing people to retire in 20 years contradicts your initial intent of fixing the system. It makes it worse.

Originally Posted by RunD1987

Eliminate sales tax and find other alternatives to tax.

Eliminate Sales Tax -- not gonna happen.

Find other alternatives to tax -- politicians are trying very hard. Their livelihood depends on it.

[Beeker2211]

Henry10,

You being absolutely disingenuous. As much as you want to ignore it but CT has done better than the vast majority of other parts of the country when it comes to kitchen table economics. Where were you when CT was doing far better than other places for 25 years? It's only recently, since the recession, that CT has faltered.

And when I say "we" I also mean RTMs/City Councils, GRPO's, advocacy groups, Business councils, etc. Like the article says, the GA just doesn't think big enough, and surprise they are actually beholden to us.

A big reason that growth is slow in CT is extensive zoning. Much of this is good to preserve open space, but it comes at a cost. A lot of this is the reluctance of towns and cities to take the chance of bringing in new school aged children and increased infrastructure spending. So there's an issue to match any town or city that actually wants to grow to have a buffer to do so and shield a good bit of the risk long term? Isn't that just insurance so that we can find a good bit of growth? Where did I say Hartford on high would decide local planning issues? I'm thinking very much of a system where cities and towns compete with plans for exclusive-use block grants.

What productive things can we do? Because if low taxes was an economic boom you seem to believe it is TN, TX, AL, MS, MO would be funding us for nearly a century and a half. Not the other way around. CT could buy underused blighted land cheap and rent out manufacturing/commercial specific space at a reasonable but profitable rate. CT could increase mass transit reducing need for personal cars.

You have every right to be cynical, but I have no obligation to take what you spew wholesale as truth. I prefer solutions to problems, not trying to tackle windmills only so someone else with means has it easier.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Henry10

AFAIK, CT vest pensions to state employees after 5 years. So shortening the retirement age would increase the benefits burden for the state, not decrease it. So forcing people to retire in 20 years contradicts your initial intent of fixing the system. It makes it worse.

State employees are vested after 10 years. Even the ones on Tier 1 are still ten years. They also cannot draw pension until age 55 unless special circumstances such as disability apply. This is also why a number of state employees can collect two pensions. After vesting in one job title they move onto another one. Very typical in the judicial system. That's why all the court bailiffs you see are usually over age 50.

I would be in favor of stopping the double pension system. AT the minimum it would open up jobs for new younger workers who are trying to get into the work force.

Fun fact. The current DCF Commissioner in CT is a retired associate CT supreme court justice who draws a state pension of over 100k per year and earns a salary as head of DCF of approx 150k year.
She also has taught "ethics" at Yale law school and Quinnipiac.

That's exactly the type of abuse that needs to stop. I would go even as far as outlawing these "double dippers"

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

State employees are vested after 10 years. Even the ones on Tier 1 are still ten years. They also cannot draw pension until age 55 unless special circumstances such as disability apply. This is also why a number of state employees can collect two pensions. After vesting in one job title they move onto another one. Very typical in the judicial system. That's why all the court bailiffs you see are usually over age 50.

I would be in favor of stopping the double pension system. AT the minimum it would open up jobs for new younger workers who are trying to get into the work force.

Fun fact. The current DCF Commissioner in CT is a retired associate CT supreme court justice who draws a state pension of over 100k per year and earns a salary as head of DCF of approx 150k year.
She also has taught "ethics" at Yale law school and Quinnipiac.

That's exactly the type of abuse that needs to stop. I would go even as far as outlawing these "double dippers"

This is atrocious. Why is this even allowed? Is it a loophole (if you can even call something obvious a loophole) or is there a reason why they decided not to limit pensions to retirees?

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Despite UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland shedding jobs, Stamford is the bull's-eye when it comes to Connecticut growth. It's the state's fastest growing city with a stable tax base and, most important, a link to New York — which is projected to create 2 million additional jobs in the next generation, McGee said. "Connecticut needs to get a piece of that."

A Lofty Goal Of 500,000 Jobs Emerges From Economic Chaos - Hartford Courant

I think CT should create a viable transportation link between Hartford and Stamford. These two cities are the employment hubs of the state. If one could travel between the two cities in 60-75 minutes that would open up a lot of opportunities for employment.

I don't think they can build a direct train line, but maybe a combination of the fast track bus line and Waterbury metro north line would work. Currently, its not feasible to commute between these two cities and I doubt it ever will be.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

This is atrocious. Why is this even allowed? Is it a loophole (if you can even call something obvious a loophole) or is there a reason why they decided not to limit pensions to retirees?

Its business as usual and totally legal. Its pretty common at the municipal level as well. The entire pension system is broken and needs to be blown up.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If tax policy influenced people and business every business owner would move to Kansas.

That's an argument nobody made. Things like taxes act at the margin, where it is one of many factors that can sway a decision.

Keep your eye on Palm Beach; if the hedge fund cluster in Palm Beach achieves critical mass, it might display the power of lower tax levels. There is no technical reason why any financial operation needs to be located in any particular place.