[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Lol. CT precious (and clearly useless) education is getting sliced open like a cadaver. Much like the product of our education, these cuts too are useless as they are redistributing it to the most underperforming and underwhelming schools in the state. An actual deliberate move to lower the yield of educational dollars. To call CT a pathetic display of incessent and likely perpetual failure is an understatement. CT is the epitome of doom and gloom. It's not only a falling sky, it's a falling sky made of rat turd covered in horse flies.

FWIW, I never said FFC is THE reason for CT affluence, I said, similar to FFC influence on the skewness of income per capita, GDP is probably equally disproportionate in that part of the state. That is to say, that our GDP rank ain't s$&t without FFC, which means our GDP ain't s@"t without NYC, which means our GDP ain't got $@"t to do, with doing s@"t right. Basically, any notion that CT is not doom and gloom is an incorrect interpretation and we most certainly have no sustainable future.

According to my rough calcs -- the wealthy towns of FFC pay about 20% of CT's income taxes. Greenwich alone pays about 14% - Greenwich Pays The Most In Income Taxes In Connecticut | Greenwich Daily Voice

Meanwhile, these towns are no more than 5% of CT's population.

Given the fact that these 5-6 towns are really NYC-driven, not CT-driven -- there is definitely merit to your argument, however esoteric -- that FFC skews the numbers.

So yes, I agree that GDP is a much better indicator than personal income. In other words, let's see how CT stands on its own two feet.

CT sounds like a 85 yr old man, leaning on a cane, broken hip surgery, by-pass quadruple intravenous (not sure), on an inhaler, asking to play running back in a football game.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Surprised to see Milford in the top 10. Though we do have a lot of wealthy residents on a rather long shoreline.

Also interesting that Trumbull is not in the top 10.

One more post to help you out.

Ridgefield is not in the top ten either. Are you contending that Milford is wealthier than Ridgefield too?

Ridgefield Population: 7,645
Ridgefield HH income: $115,798

Milford Population: 51,857
Milford HH income: $80,312

Now do you GET IT? If confused look at population very carefully.

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by Henry10

According to my rough calcs -- the wealthy towns of FFC pay about 20% of CT's income taxes. Greenwich alone pays about 14% - Greenwich Pays The Most In Income Taxes In Connecticut | Greenwich Daily Voice

Meanwhile, these towns are no more than 5% of CT's population.

Given the fact that these 5-6 towns are really NYC-driven, not CT-driven -- there is definitely merit to your argument, however esoteric -- that FFC skews the numbers.

So yes, I agree that GDP is a much better indicator than personal income. In other words, let's see how CT stands on its own two feet.

CT sounds like a 85 yr old man, leaning on a cane, broken hip surgery, by-pass quadruple intravenous (not sure), on an inhaler, asking to play running back in a football game.

Greenwich, Stamford, Westport, Norwalk, New Canaan, Wilton, Weston, Redding, Ridgefield after Westport prices start to fall but still expensive like Fairfield/Trumbull/Easton

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Without FFC We be on par with New York State, Minnesota, Colorado, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Oregon

Not even close. Give facts to back this up. Wisconsin state per capital income is $28,340. Except for Windham County, all of Connecticuts counties are higher. Most are much higher. jay

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by Henry10

According to my rough calcs -- the wealthy towns of FFC pay about 20% of CT's income taxes. Greenwich alone pays about 14% - Greenwich Pays The Most In Income Taxes In Connecticut | Greenwich Daily Voice

Meanwhile, these towns are no more than 5% of CT's population.

Given the fact that these 5-6 towns are really NYC-driven, not CT-driven -- there is definitely merit to your argument, however esoteric -- that FFC skews the numbers.

So yes, I agree that GDP is a much better indicator than personal income. In other words, let's see how CT stands on its own two feet.

CT sounds like a 85 yr old man, leaning on a cane, broken hip surgery, by-pass quadruple intravenous (not sure), on an inhaler, asking to play running back in a football game.

The above metrics are even more impressive when you factor in that residents of these towns working in NYC aren't paying CT income taxes. These same towns that comprise less than 5% of the population, also have the highest proportion of NY/NYC based employees. We can't arrive at a precise factor adjustment, but it is possible that 2.5% of the population is paying 20% of the state coffers. Before someone jumps in and points out that NYC commuters isn't 50% of these town earners, can we agree that the NYC base is out earning CT based employees. This also explains why Trumbull pays comparable per capita taxes to Milford despite ~$30k higher income per HH. The NYC working population of Trumbull is higher than Milford and skew the numbers.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Greenwich, Stamford, Westport, Norwalk, New Canaan, Wilton, Weston, Redding, Ridgefield after Westport prices start to fall but still expensive like Fairfield/Trumbull/Easton

Stamford and Norwalk numbers are relatively low, when it comes to Income Tax / Person they pay to CT.

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

The above metrics are even more impressive when you factor in that residents of these towns working in NYC aren't paying CT income taxes. These same towns that comprise less than 5% of the population, also have the highest proportion of NY/NYC based employees. We can't arrive at a precise factor adjustment, but it is possible that 2.5% of the population is paying 20% of the state coffers. Before someone jumps in and points out that NYC commuters isn't 50% of these town earners, can we agree that the NYC base is out earning CT based employees. This also explains why Trumbull pays comparable per capita taxes to Milford despite ~$30k higher income per HH. The NYC working population of Trumbull is higher than Milford and skew the numbers.

Yes, NYC commuters would earn more than CT commuters, so that most likely would compensate and make the 2.5% number quite believable to me. Excellent points.

[jxzz]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

The above metrics are even more impressive when you factor in that residents of these towns working in NYC aren't paying CT income taxes. These same towns that comprise less than 5% of the population, also have the highest proportion of NY/NYC based employees. We can't arrive at a precise factor adjustment, but it is possible that 2.5% of the population is paying 20% of the state coffers. Before someone jumps in and points out that NYC commuters isn't 50% of these town earners, can we agree that the NYC base is out earning CT based employees. This also explains why Trumbull pays comparable per capita taxes to Milford despite ~$30k higher income per HH. The NYC working population of Trumbull is higher than Milford and skew the numbers.

Your assumption may be wrong.

There are lots of commuters in FFC who mainly pay to NY. However, the wealthiest FFC residents who may only work in hedge fund offices in FFC because they are the boss and do not need to commute to NYC that much. Most these firms probably have both offices in CT and in NYC.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

The NYC working population of Trumbull is higher than Milford and skew the numbers.

Is it significantly? Got numbers on that?

This also goes back to the median HHI discussion. Milford has many more $1MM+ homes than Trumbull, but it also has many many more lower middle class residents. Which explains both the higher income tax and lower median HHI.

Fairfield has a lower HHI than Trumbull but far more wealth as the tax receipts prove, and Fairfield definitely has more NYC commuters.

It is NOT bad CPA's, either way.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

The NYC working population of Trumbull is higher than Milford and skew the numbers.

You sure about that?

[hvexpatinct]

Originally Posted by jxzz

Your assumption may be wrong.

There are lots of commuters in FFC who mainly pay to NY. However, the wealthiest FFC residents who may only work in hedge fund offices in FFC because they are the boss and do not need to commute to NYC that much. Most these firms probably have both offices in CT and in NYC.

The wealthiest residents are paying CT income taxes on capital gains and other realized investment income.

I don't think we can underestimate the proportion of tax receipts generated by those.