[Henry10]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

I'll agree that on CT having some positive aspects of personal economic growth in regards to business's. What I don't agree with is how the big wigs of CT government are handling it. They are cutting services to so any necessary areas that are having a detrimental effect on the quality of life in CT. I am glad and hopeful that a solution can be found about the mismanagement of funding for city schools. Been saying for a while city schools are greatly underfunded and has a great affect on education.

To bad no strong third party candidates for CT. Stuck voting for Republicans.

Think the State should suspend any future projects for the next 4 years. Finish any ongoing projects within 2 years. Set up a small account for any emergency or maintenence cost for the State ensuring safety of CT residents.

Should work on reducing medicaid cost.

Reduce number of those on welfare by encouraging growth of liveable wage jobs on the State.

Increase spending on medicare. Return within the 4 years the $600 million to CT hospitals.

Improve DMHAS increase funding and avoid cuts to DCF/ECF.

Increase funding to police and judicial services. Work on more rehabilitation programs over corrections.

Fix the income tax rate system of the State either do away with it or lower the burden on the working class, those making $60K or below.

Lower higher education cost.

Do away with town/city taxes create county taxes. Towns fund for school and emergency services.

Make a flat business tax. Offer tax exemption for businesses with no corporate ties and 50 or less employees.

Legalize Marijuana. Tax Marijuana, cigarettes, and alcohol at 12 to 15 percent.

Lower gas tax to 40 cents per gallon.

Lower sales tax by 1%.

I would love to see this in CT, but know that we are talking fantasy. CT politicians are working very hard to "invent" "new" "innovative" way how to tax more, not less.

Their constituency (city welfare class) will not allow this. They will fight math and logic tooth and nail.

[JayCT]

This editorial seems to do a good job of describing Connecticuts economy. It talks of the bad and the good (yes there is good and a lot of it). I find it particularly interesting how he mentions that while The state is losing people under the age of 30, it is a magnet for those over 30. I think this has to do with the type of economy we have with more upper level jobs than an average state. This is reflected in our higher income levels. Jay


Perplexing Contradictions Portray Connecticut Economy - Hartford Courant

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

That's an interesting perspective. I've never met anyone who'd rather work at Walmart than work for Amazon. Maybe it's the circles I run in?

Walmart employs more minimum wage employees than any company in the country. I think "promotion" has to be defined for that 90K promotions statistic to be meaningful.

At both the lower end (min wage jobs) and corporate jobs, I think they're pretty equal. I know someone who joined them after getting her MBA from MIT... said their recruiting was pretty competitive at her school. Talented people want to join profitable companies and they are industry leaders... the difference might be if someone's interest is in e-commerce/technology or traditional retail. Either way, don't think anyone would complain about the jobs either companies might bring to their state.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This editorial seems to do a good job of describing Connecticuts economy. It talks of the bad and the good (yes there is good and a lot of it). I find it particularly interesting how he mentions that while The state is losing people under the age of 30, it is a magnet for those over 30. I think this has to do with the type of economy we have with more upper level jobs than an average state. This is reflected in our higher income levels. Jay


Perplexing Contradictions Portray Connecticut Economy - Hartford Courant

What I think is interesting is that statistic that 2/3 of CT's companies are profitable... is that really a competitive stance? That sounds dismal...

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

What I think is interesting is that statistic that 2/3 of CT's companies are profitable... is that really a competitive stance? That sounds dismal...

Connecticut is a small company state-- Remember that often the goal of small companies is not profitability, but enhancing the wealth of the owners. (I had a professor once put it as: The goal is to steal as much wealth from the company as possible, while minimizing tax liability.)

Obviously in larger companies, profitability is a critical factor.

The profitability number isn't one that concerns me. Most of us who own small businesses suck the profitability out of them and convert it to personal wealth.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

No comparison, WM is not dangerous for employees. Some Amazon warehouses have been. I would hope Ct version of OSHA stays on top of them, to insure the conditions are safe.

As do I. A dangerous work environment is inexcusable.

Not sure why you're so eager to excuse Walmart though... (Actually I know why, but think it's pretty silly).
http://www.workplacemagazine.com/Ezi...EzineDataID=70

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

What I think is interesting is that statistic that 2/3 of CT's companies are profitable... is that really a competitive stance? That sounds dismal...

I believe that is significantly higher than the national average. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

As do I. A dangerous work environment is inexcusable.

Not sure why you're so eager to excuse Walmart though... (Actually I know why, but think it's pretty silly).
http://www.workplacemagazine.com/Ezi...EzineDataID=70

WM has a far better safety record.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

What I think is interesting is that statistic that 2/3 of CT's companies are profitable... is that really a competitive stance? That sounds dismal...

That actually sounds too high, especially if they included traditionally tough business lines such as food service/restaurants.

The article said the CBIA did a "survey" of business so their findings are not scientific.

I do find it funny that yet another person managed to add a quip regarding CT's inheritance tax.

Not that Scinto is thrilled with Connecticut; his gripes include the inheritance tax, which he, like many others, calls the death tax. With an exemption far lower than the federal inheritance tax level, it's driving rich people out, he said.


Rich people already know how to plan their estates and won't be getting caught by any of CT's inheritance taxes. The ones who do get caught off guard only have themselves to blame.

Also, to my knowledge in all 50 states if a spouse dies all assets are transferred to the surviving spouse tax free.

[RonaldusMagnus]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

That actually sounds too high, especially if they included traditionally tough business lines such as food service/restaurants.

The article said the CBIA did a "survey" of business so their findings are not scientific.

I do find it funny that yet another person managed to add a quip regarding CT's inheritance tax.

Not that Scinto is thrilled with Connecticut; his gripes include the inheritance tax, which he, like many others, calls the death tax. With an exemption far lower than the federal inheritance tax level, it's driving rich people out, he said.


Rich people already know how to plan their estates and won't be getting caught by any of CT's inheritance taxes. The ones who do get caught off guard only have themselves to blame.

Also, to my knowledge in all 50 states if a spouse dies all assets are transferred to the surviving spouse tax free.

It is fairly common knowledge that the easiest way to escape the death tax is moving to a place like FL.