[cynic1]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here it is as to why our income is going up despite people leaving.

Table 2.3-1 Growth in Filers by AGI Group

Growth 2010-2015
$15,000-$50,000.................-2.2% (negative growth)
$50,000-$100,000...............-0.2% (negative growth)
$100,000-$200,000..............12.1%
$200,000-$500,000..............33.9%
$500,000-$1,000,000............31.4%
$1,000,000-$5,000,000.........26.3%
$5,000,000 or more..............27.9%

The two lowest income groups saw negative growth but everything else saw (IMO) amazing growth and accounts for our higher state standing of late in the HH income and per capita income increases.

Mr_250 gets a gold star for this year.

The problem with this "analysis " is that I would assume that at least 50% of these upper income folks work in New York... and therefore pay the bulk of their income taxes to the State of New York.


I lived on a road off Round Hill in Greenwich until 2015... with 9 homes..incomes probably in the top 4 brackets....home values at the time ... between 4 and 9 million .. 8 of which owners worked in New York City.... I was the exception ... I paid the bulk of my State income taxes ... to Maryland.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Answer to the question in bold.


http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/budget...ion_Trends.pdf

Weicker looks correct- A Tale of 2 Connecticuts.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This is great information. Page 5 notes that we are losing people making $50,000 to $100,000 but are gaining people making over $100,000. To me that makes some sense as I would guess many of those we are losing are retirees. However it also says we are losing people making more than $5 million which is not good but I think has less of an impact than what we are gaining. Jay

I've written that several times here. Inward migration of white collar professionals. Outward migration of middle class due to the high cost of living. The poor have no mobility because their safety net benefits are not portable. Metro Boston is the same way though the inward migration of white collar professionals is higher.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by cynic1

The problem with this "analysis " is that I would assume that at least 50% of these upper income folks work in New York... and therefore pay the bulk of their income taxes to the State of New York.


.

There is no analysis, just NUMBERS which are going HIGHER for higher incomes.

I am reading the entire thing. Even the state of CT is not giving an explanation to the numbers so far that I can see. But can't we all be glad the numbers are going UPWARD. Maybe not for some on here because it does not fit into THEIR negative analysis/comments of our state.

Since I am the last of the baby boomers (full retirement in 10 years) I am going to make a prediction as to what I am seeing what my older cousins* are doing. CT is going to continue to see a negative migration because the baby boomers will still moving down south en masse for at least the next 10 years.

*I have hundreds of cousins in my baby boomer generation in Fairfield and New Haven counties.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here it is as to why our income is going up despite people leaving.

Table 2.3-1 Growth in Filers by AGI Group

Growth 2010-2015
$15,000-$50,000.................-2.2% (negative growth)
$50,000-$100,000...............-0.2% (negative growth)
$100,000-$200,000..............12.1%
$200,000-$500,000..............33.9%
$500,000-$1,000,000............31.4%
$1,000,000-$5,000,000.........26.3%
$5,000,000 or more..............27.9%

The two lowest income groups saw negative growth but everything else saw (IMO) amazing growth and accounts for our higher state standing of late in the HH income and per capita income increases.

Mr_250 gets a gold star for this year.

That's sad news for Ct, as the masses are not in gowth areas per the chart.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

That's sad news for Ct, as the masses are not in gowth areas per the chart.

Why? The negative growth for the $50,000 - $100,000 group is negligible and the upper income levels is good. Jay

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

That's sad news for Ct, as the masses are not in gowth areas per the chart.

Migration by Age - Key Takeaways (page 31 of link)
"Connecticut is losing on net a higher number of 22-29 year olds and those aged 65 or more compared to pre-recession."
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/budget...ion_Trends.pdf

Age 65 or more Just what a said in one of my previous posts. The baby boomers are retiring and moving down south. People have been retiring and moving down south for generations. It is making a bigger impact now because of the LARGE size of the baby boomer population. Makes sense. It also makes sense that the lower incomes of the retirees shows the decrease. It all fits.

Age 22 to 29 And for the young adults this is also the pattern I have seen for generations in my family as I said in one of my last posts. The teenagers go off to college and then move to a bigger city like NY or Boston. When they start to have families they boomerang back to the suburbs. This pattern has been going on for generations in my family and this all seems perfectly normal.

It makes sense to me but of course I am not trying to fit an particular political agenda to these numbers, just plan old Independent (like the "I" that I am) common sense.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Migration by Age - Key Takeaways (page 31 of link)
"Connecticut is losing on net a higher number of 22-29 year olds and those aged 65 or more compared to pre-recession."
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/budget...ion_Trends.pdf

Age 65 or more Just what a said in one of my previous posts. The baby boomers are retiring and moving down south. People have been retiring and moving down south for generations. It is making a bigger impact now because of the LARGE size of the baby boomer population. Makes sense. It also makes sense that the lower incomes of the retirees shows the decrease. It all fits.

Age 22 to 29 And for the young adults this is also the pattern I have seen for generations in my family as I said in one of my last posts. The teenagers go off to college and then move to a bigger city like NY or Boston. When they start to have families they boomerang back to the suburbs. This pattern has been going on for generations in my family and this all seems perfectly normal.

It makes sense to me but of course I am not trying to fit an particular political agenda to these numbers, just plan old Independent (like the "I" that I am) common sense.

You are correct. Neither of these trends are new. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Why? The negative growth for the $50,000 - $100,000 group is negligible and the upper income levels is good. Jay

A healthy economy is built from a strong middle class out, not a few 1%ers congratulating themselves over a strong economy.

[Lincolnian]

I am interested in the findings by the newly formed Commission on Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth with co-chairmen Jim Smith, former CEO, Webster Bank and Bob Patricelli, Former Chair and CEO, Women’s Health USA. Smith in particular has indicated that our transportation and infrastructure issues are significant restraints on growth and investment. Contrary to many people's opinions regularly expressed here about non-automobile centric investments in infrastructure, many business leaders believe that investment in trains and busses as well as the development of bikeways and more walkable urban centers are essential. Additionally, "The Bus to Nowhere" is doing well. Total ridership is approximately double what it was prior to adding the Fastrak. ConnDOT: CTfastrak Development along the Fastrak is taking place especially in areas of Elmwood where people are choosing residence to have access to the Fastrak. 616 New Park will open this year. https://www.amentaemma.com/616-new-park-multi