[Beeker2211]

Dazzle, almost every state right now is dealing with significant budgetary problems. Only states with heavy federal help and mineral excise taxes are doing ok, but are usually in counter cyclical patterns in relation to the rest of the nation, and really it's still just a barely holding on there. And you didn't read my article, which showed a 4% increase from FY 1989-1990 in the chart which was continuing an established trend, whereas JV showed an incredible jump.

High taxes lead to fiscal problems invariably, you're going to have to show me hard figures. Above all show how Connecticut is actually that far and away of the pack (which it isn't).

~Cheers

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Dazzle, almost every state right now is dealing with significant budgetary problems. Only states with heavy federal help and mineral excise taxes are doing ok, but are usually in counter cyclical patterns in relation to the rest of the nation, and really it's still just a barely holding on there. And you didn't read my article, which showed a 4% increase from FY 1989-1990 in the chart which was continuing an established trend, whereas JV showed an incredible jump.

High taxes lead to fiscal problems invariably, you're going to have to show me hard figures. Above all show how Connecticut is actually that far and away of the pack (which it isn't).

~Cheers

I think you're in denial. I wish I could agree with you. It would be very comforting.

You are aware that CT has the highest per capita debt in the nation?

[Beeker2211]

No, there are things to be worrid about, and there are things not to be worried about: it's not a matter of comforting. Marginal tax differences between the states are important, but in all not as crippling as many of the new fiscal conservatives are trying to say. Is there a point of no return? Yes. But NY is closer to it than CT by a wide margin, and the "low tax" states have the federal government (paid for by mostly CT, NJ, NY, RI, MA, MI, CA, etc etc) that offsets the cost of the government they use. I'm not saying it's wrong, the purpose of the progressive taxation is to help out poorer areas, and for the last decade they wasted it unfortunately. So please don't hold them up in a light saying "ah-ha!"

And are you aware that's a bunk question you asked me? In no way is Connecticut top of that list, in either public or consumer, in terms of percentage of income or raw amount per capita. It is high, but we're also coming out of recession which skews the numbers a little across the board. I'm not saying that changing it wouldn't be a good idea, but the chicken little attitude about it seems folly.

PER CAPITA STATE BOND DEBT FOR 50 STATES

~Cheers

[nevada49]

No other taxes went down, property taxes are high, sales tax is high. The income tax is a joke - you are taxed on gross income, even though thousands of dollars a year of your gross income go to federal income tax and social security. So you are taxed twice on your gross income, no deductions for dependents. I am retiring next year and looking only at states without an income tax to relocate to. New Hampshire has neither income or sales tax, their roads look great, cities look good. I think Washington would be making a big mistake, though they would certainly be in the majority with an income tax.