[BPt111]

Originally Posted by CAJ13

Taxpayers of course.

CT going be in serious red in next 4-5 months.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Will money come from state budget or taxpayers ?

Tribe sues Connecticut for hundreds of millions of dollars | WTNH Connecticut News

Like every other attempt by these people, this will not go anywhere. They have no basis for the suit. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BPt111

CT going be in serious red in next 4-5 months.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

The projected deficit is lass than 1/2 of 1 percent of the budget. That is insignificant. The economy would have to tank big time for that to happen and all indications are that the economy in our state is improving, not getting worse. Still we should be seriously concerned with some of the more problematic parts of the budget like pension obligations but that is a whole other story. Jay

[HumpDay]

Originally Posted by JayCT

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

The projected deficit is lass than 1/2 of 1 percent of the budget. That is insignificant. The economy would have to tank big time for that to happen and all indications are that the economy in our state is improving, not getting worse. Still we should be seriously concerned with some of the more problematic parts of the budget like pension obligations but that is a whole other story. Jay

I think for long term success the state should lower most state workers pay as well as getting rid of certain benefits. It's not healthy that we're owing people a lot of money and we're getting less tax revenue in return. Our state government is also too big and we need to downsize. The only issue is that the unions run our state far more than people may think and it's definitely going to be nearly impossible to make any of what I said happen.

[JGBigGreen]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Like every other attempt by these people, this will not go anywhere. They have no basis for the suit. Jay

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by HumpDay

I think for long term success the state should lower most state workers pay as well as getting rid of certain benefits. It's not healthy that we're owing people a lot of money and we're getting less tax revenue in return. Our state government is also too big and we need to downsize. The only issue is that the unions run our state far more than people may think and it's definitely going to be nearly impossible to make any of what I said happen.

After the last round of layoffs I believe we are midpack against other states for workers vs residents. I believe somewhere between 90-100 state employees per 10,000 residents. The benefits for new workers is much lower then legacy workers, It may be able to go lower but not much now that wages and hiring are going up in general. The issue is legacy costs. Come of these can be brought down thru negotiation, but really the current employees have an upper hand. CT views pensions as personal property you can't take it away without a court ruling, Legally "we can't pay" is not a good reason to take it away. Pensions also have federal laws protecting them, which means in pensions were to be cut en masse the feds may step in as well. So you may get a 1-2% cut here and there but not much bigger.

So basically all we can do is keep cutting the incoming benefits till we find a low point where people still want the jobs, and keep our workforce at current levels. That's not going to be enough short term but long term it should play out OK.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by East of the River

After the last round of layoffs I believe we are midpack against other states for workers vs residents. I believe somewhere between 90-100 state employees per 10,000 residents. The benefits for new workers is much lower then legacy workers, It may be able to go lower but not much now that wages and hiring are going up in general. The issue is legacy costs. Come of these can be brought down thru negotiation, but really the current employees have an upper hand. CT views pensions as personal property you can't take it away without a court ruling, Legally "we can't pay" is not a good reason to take it away. Pensions also have federal laws protecting them, which means in pensions were to be cut en masse the feds may step in as well. So you may get a 1-2% cut here and there but not much bigger.

So basically all we can do is keep cutting the incoming benefits till we find a low point where people still want the jobs, and keep our workforce at current levels. That's not going to be enough short term but long term it should play out OK.

Can I have a moment EastOfTheRiver?

Can I let you in on a little secret?

If you are a police officer or teacher in the state of CT you are not going to get your pension. Yes you heard that correctly, you will not get paid.

You can make up all the excuses you want but here is the truth, the money is NOT THERE. THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT TO PAY YOUR PENSION!!!

know what that means, you get kicked to the curb.

Call it bankruptcy call it whatever your want the state is broke. And your butt is up a creek without a paddle.

YOU WERE WARNED!!!

CT is bankrupt in 5 years.

Take is from an Actuary!

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by JayCT

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

The projected deficit is lass than 1/2 of 1 percent of the budget. That is insignificant. The economy would have to tank big time for that to happen and all indications are that the economy in our state is improving, not getting worse. Still we should be seriously concerned with some of the more problematic parts of the budget like pension obligations but that is a whole other story. Jay

Can you show me examples of Connecticuts improving economy?

Henkels moving operations here is a good example. But I don't think adding 300 jobs while losing 550 is so great. Can you cite any other examples?

[RunD1987]

Every State worker entering the system or has been there 5 years or less switches to a 403B. Need to do away with the pension. It's harsh.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

The fee is like aluminum can deposits, it's an upfront cost for the end of usable life disposal for the mattress you are buying. The thing is any mattress bought before the fee or brought in from another state is returnable (unless there's a health or safety hazard) under the program.



It gives a low cost alternative through byebyemattress. Thus reducing the need for illegally dumping mattresses.



This is ludicrous. First off, mattresses that aren't recycled end up in landfills... do you think maintaining landfills is free? Second, mattresses are ill suited for being in landfills (and most operators DO NOT WANT THEM) and most mattresses are up to 90% recyclable. So again you're all for throwing good money after bad, for what? Third, if you think there's a one for one relationship on this sort of thing you clearly have no idea how governmental financing works. If a municipality isn't dealing with the $300-$400 expense of dealing with each mattress (after labor, cleaning, disposal) all it means is that the money can be shifted to more pressing operational matters. Fourth, there's nothing forcing you NOT to donate $291 to a charity. That point meant literally nothing.

Unlike the bottle you do not get the money back, and there's not billions of mattresses thrown away like cans and they don't get swallowed by baby seals. Point is, mattresses are much lower volume and extremely arbitrary.

Anyway, from the way you describe it with byebyemattress , it sounds an awful lot like the tax payers are subsidizing an organization who then gets to sell off 90% of the mattress components. Why not charge a tv or computer tax (if malloys reading he probably has a raging erection right now--a word to Malloy, if it lets more than 4 hours, call a shrink and an executioner, thanks). And with that in mind, if I start a company that recycles and sell all these components to huge commercial organization and tech component distributors, would it sit well with you that my company gets kick backs from the state from YOUR tax dollars?

I struggle to see, in any way, how this provides economic gain and meaningful use of tax dollars. Just more economic resistance at worst, neutral at best and irritating foul taste in the mouth as always.