[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

It means, while the sticker price is high, there's a enough evidence that CT is both undertaxed vis-a-vis to the majority of states and the tax dollars actually are being better spent (high service to low enough taxation). The lists you mention put a heavy emphasis on property tax in total value: forgetting that there are a enough huge estates with hefty (for us common folk) tax liabilities but outside of those few properties CT's modal payments is actually less than comparable states.

There's still no meaningful connection here. The GDP is almost entirely irrelevant as it has no connection to the amount of tax people are paying. If ANYTHING , I would argue that a low tax/GDP ratio in a state with insanely high taxes means that, instead of taxing products services exports etc to the end consumer, we are instead raping the businesses and salaries of individuals in addition to property and vehicle taxes which would not be accounted for by a measure like GDP. So I would literally reach the exact opposite conclusion as you IF I were to use such a metric, but I wouldn't, because it tells us nothing about what we want to know.


The lists I mention put an emphasis on the "tax burden" for individual or businesses based on aggregate metadata from robust and accurate databases curated for purpose of government use. Most use median rather than mean values to avoid extreme data bias (GDP does not though). So the notion that CTs "hefty tax liability" homes are skewing data is quantitatively false and empirically pretty easily debunked. You can simply plug in your favorite home value, say 300k, into your favorite source for property tax history and do this for as large a dataset as you would like and you will see the "modal" payments are hundreds of percentage points higher in CT than most everywhere else other than NY, NJ, MA, and TX. (Though MA and TX will be LOWER, juat not shockingly so).

CT being undertaxed is funny though...you are drawing a lot of conclusions with entirely different qualities from a single ratio that doesn't measure any of them. In fact, I can't even find the data you are talking about to confirm your #s. I did come across per capita debt, for which CT as of 2011 was the worst in country, debt as a percent of personal income, for which CT was 3rd worst, and debt to GDP ratio, for which CT was also 3rd worst. That doesn't sound to me like CT tax dollars are "well spent".

And the national tax-toGDP is ~27% or ratio of .27, not 5.5%. So, forgive me for wanting to see your numbers given you were incorrect with national and off by an order of magnitude. Ultimately it doesn't matter much, but now in just suspicious, you know 78% of statistics being made up and all.

[RunD1987]

Heard about 43.4 million dollars will be cut in funds to hospitals in the 2017 budget. Hospitals are taxed at 30 tomes more than businesses. Heard one area hospital will lose 11 million dollars over the next four year's.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

It means, while the sticker price is high, there's a enough evidence that CT is both undertaxed vis-a-vis to the majority of states and the tax dollars actually are being better spent (high service to low enough taxation). The lists you mention put a heavy emphasis on property tax in total value: forgetting that there are a enough huge estates with hefty (for us common folk) tax liabilities but outside of those few properties CT's modal payments is actually less than comparable states.

Yes, I am also curious where did you get the 5% number for Tax/GDP for entire country.

Keep in mind that the tax numbers Govt publishes does NOT include many other taxes and "fees" that cunsumers pay. For example:

-- Taxes on utilities, electricity, cable, phone.

-- Govt also requires some businesses to take on expenses which should have been Govt's expenses, and payed for by Govt bonds. Instead, these businesses pass on these costs to consumers, rather than show up on Govt books as liabilities, and Govt raise more taxes to pay for these.

-- Licensing fees.

-- Cost of Compliance, which businesses pass on to the consumer. I suspect this is pretty high in CT, but shows up nowhere in the "official" tax burden numbers.

-- Import duties, which for many products are substantial.

And there are more...

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Yes, I am also curious where did you get the 5% number for Tax/GDP for entire country.

Keep in mind that the tax numbers Govt publishes does NOT include many other taxes and "fees" that cunsumers pay. For example:

-- Taxes on utilities, electricity, cable, phone.

-- Govt also requires some businesses to take on expenses which should have been Govt's expenses, and payed for by Govt bonds. Instead, these businesses pass on these costs to consumers, rather than show up on Govt books as liabilities, and Govt raise more taxes to pay for these.

-- Licensing fees.

-- Cost of Compliance, which businesses pass on to the consumer. I suspect this is pretty high in CT, but shows up nowhere in the "official" tax burden numbers.

-- Import duties, which for many products are substantial.

And there are more...

It's also just incorrect use of the ratio and the conclusions drawn are unrelated. The statement is invalid if we are talking absolute , relative and every way in between.

Comparing property tax to property tax is just to easy, follow simple method in previous post. Comparing absolute value of tax is childishly simple too, not gonna bother. So I'll add in a few variables and context to a scenario involving relative burden....

Someone living in Nashville metro vs Hartford metro (who we will even assume is unsuccessful in "taking their salary with then") making 10% less with a Hartford salary of 50k will now make 45k. With a difference in property tax of 2k vs 6k, the difference is already close to made up. Add in car tax and you're even. Now there's no income tax, lower electric cost, milder winters (less expensive), lower gas tax, much more real estate purchasing power, better schools and neighboroods per cost,much better economy, more services for much less tax dollars, etc etc. more disposable income and higher quality of life. And who says u can't get more for less?

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

It's also just incorrect use of the ratio and the conclusions drawn are unrelated. The statement is invalid if we are talking absolute , relative and every way in between.

Comparing property tax to property tax is just to easy, follow simple method in previous post. Comparing absolute value of tax is childishly simple too, not gonna bother. So I'll add in a few variables and context to a scenario involving relative burden....

Someone living in Nashville metro vs Hartford metro (who we will even assume is unsuccessful in "taking their salary with then") making 10% less with a Hartford salary of 50k will now make 45k. With a difference in property tax of 2k vs 6k, the difference is already close to made up. Add in car tax and you're even. Now there's no income tax, lower electric cost, milder winters (less expensive), lower gas tax, much more real estate purchasing power, better schools and neighboroods per cost,much better economy, more services for much less tax dollars, etc etc. more disposable income and higher quality of life. And who says u can't get more for less?

Many people don't move. Moving into a new location is very stressful for a lot of people -- learn about new places, try new stores, learn new routines, relearn about efficient commuting ways, etc. etc. Some people just want to deal with "devil they know." Yet, plenty leave CT, which says a lot.

[NCOriolesfan]

We need more Huskies in North Carolina. Come on down. Just don't say "In Connecticut we.....".

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

It's also just incorrect use of the ratio and the conclusions drawn are unrelated. The statement is invalid if we are talking absolute , relative and every way in between.

Comparing property tax to property tax is just to easy, follow simple method in previous post. Comparing absolute value of tax is childishly simple too, not gonna bother. So I'll add in a few variables and context to a scenario involving relative burden....

Someone living in Nashville metro vs Hartford metro (who we will even assume is unsuccessful in "taking their salary with then") making 10% less with a Hartford salary of 50k will now make 45k. With a difference in property tax of 2k vs 6k, the difference is already close to made up. Add in car tax and you're even. Now there's no income tax, lower electric cost, milder winters (less expensive), lower gas tax, much more real estate purchasing power, better schools and neighboroods per cost,much better economy, more services for much less tax dollars, etc etc. more disposable income and higher quality of life. And who says u can't get more for less?

Much higher sales tax in TN. Also
Your life expectancy drops from 80 to 76.
I would say we get more and better services here but I've only visited TN never lived there. TN may be the better value thou.
I would say education wise we win but again maybe lose on value depending on how you define it.
Nashville area prices are getting closer to Hartford lately but the rest of the state agreed real estate power goes far.
But in general yes it will cost you less to live there. How well that works for you matters highly on what field you work in. The median salary in TN is 37% less then CT not 10%.

[ayoskillz]

Originally Posted by NCOriolesfan

We need more Huskies in North Carolina. Come on down. Just don't say "In Connecticut we.....".

Its plenty in sc

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Much higher sales tax in TN. Also
Your life expectancy drops from 80 to 76.
I would say we get more and better services here but I've only visited TN never lived there. TN may be the better value thou.
I would say education wise we win but again maybe lose on value depending on how you define it.
Nashville area prices are getting closer to Hartford lately but the rest of the state agreed real estate power goes far.
But in general yes it will cost you less to live there. How well that works for you matters highly on what field you work in. The median salary in TN is 37% less then CT not 10%.

Apple and oranges. Sigequinox did not compare CT with TN. He compared Nashville Metro area with Hartford Metro area. Two very different comparisons.

We know that FFC skews the numbers higher. Rural TN skews them lower.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Apple and oranges. Sigequinox did not compare CT with TN. He compared Nashville Metro area with Hartford Metro area. Two very different comparisons.

We know that FFC skews the numbers higher. Rural TN skews them lower.

Hartford County $66,395 household median
Davidson County (Nashville) $48,368

Not as big but still 27%