[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by JViello

Okay, lets play the game. I had record profits last year. Simply because we have been growing at a steady pace. It doesn't mean profit out paced increase in costs.

Huh?

Profit = Income - Costs.

Companies are taxed on profits.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Huh?

Profit = Income - Costs.

Companies are taxed on profits.

Sorry, I fat fingered and meant to type projected costs. Don't tell me you don't plan ahead for the next year or two. BUT lets keep playing the shell game that you accuse companies of doing.

Record profits. "We earned 13 billion last year which is a record". Nevermind that it's 2.9% of gross sales, vs 4.5% the last year when they did 9 billion.

So even though margin % is lower meaning they actually earned LESS compared to costs, it's still "record". Someday when you have employees and realize you increased gross sales by 100% yet your net is 10% lower you'll figure it out.

How long have you been in business? You are either being coy, or are ignorant.

[bobtn]

Plus VW Chattanooga will be open soon, with multiple suppliers also being built.

RTW!

[bobtn]

Editorial: Malloy wrong on business taxes- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

Very good editorial.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Please back your claim by quoting a personal attack on you that I made.

You mean other than the accusations of bad faith and insulting language?

It seems obvious to me who can more easily afford a tax increase. And, I'm sure the companies will survive the increase.

In The Quiet Coup - Magazine - The Atlantic , Simon Johnson points out: From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent.

So if you want to grab corporate profits, you're going to have to go after the financial sector. Which is in bed with the current administration.

Do you think they might be able to move profits around to avoid taxes? In fact, it's been argued that the high 2010 profits are because companies are moving profit recognition earlier in fear of future tax increases.

See, it's not a static calculation. The targets can see you coming and they can move.

[bobtn]

HeadedWest, Dynamic scoring is beyond left wing radical comprehension abilties.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

See, it's not a static calculation. The targets can see you coming and they can move.

That is exactly what I meant by "projected costs". Things are changing to radically, and so fast, and so wrecklessly who knows what next year will bring.

[Lincolnian]

The cited article on financial manipulation is a problem and undoubtedly played a large part in our 2008 meltdown. That is an issue that needs to be resolved at the federal level. Increasing the costs in Connecticut of financial institutions will do nothing other than have the costs passed down to the customers resulting in futher stagnation of our economic growth and development.

The reality of the situation is that the size and structure of our state government needs to be scaled back. There are mulitple departments performing similar functions with duplicate support systems and staffs. Consolidating can realize greater efficiencies. Negotiating with the employee's unions to phase in higher contributions toward pensions and healtcare costs is another opportunity. A full BC/BS healthcare plan for life is not feasible. Employees should be required to pay part or all of the group rate for these plans once they retire if they are not eligible for Medicare. Once they are eligible for Medicare if they chose to carry the plan they should be required to pay the full cost of the group rate. Pensions should be based on regular salary not overtime, acculated vacation pay, etc. Welfare programs should be analyzed to determine success of moving receipients from welfare to work. Programs should be implemented to make that a priority.

[Yankeerose00]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Well these element are factual. I think it might be a worthy undertaking for someone to actually obtain this information.

Loads of small business struggle, even in a good economy.

I don't know of any "business stability index" that compares different periods of time or state to state. Until we have data, we're all just expressing our feelings, not facts.

Your last statement is pretty revealing. You don't care about any positive signs... You want to only focus on the negative signs. That paints an incomplete picture... Don't you think?

Nice twist on my words. I meant I don't care as in, it's not relevant to this conversation. If I said, "No small business has ever survived in Connecticut" THEN it would be relevant to tell me about your dad's barber or dentist who's been around for 50 years. I'm very aware that some small businesses survive.

But let's not close our eyes to the fact that 1) there are better states to do business and 2) out of those that do thrive here, there are many more that don't.

I wonder how many small businesses are struggling and we just can't tell from the outside. Do you know how many businesses owners begin mortgaging their house and dipping into savings just to keep themselves going? When you see a business that has shut its doors, do you think that closed up after one month of bad profits? No. Many of them have been in the red for years and exhausted every effort to stay open simply because they don't know any other line of work. Kind of hard to find a new career at 45 or 50.


Look I have never, ever once said anything like, "this state sucks. Nobody can make it here" That is one thing I HATE about city-data. You get people who talk in extremes and project their own sad life on to an entire city. I have never done that.
Before I moved to Connecticut, there was not one person in real life who thought it was a good idea. I heard everything from, "It's cold, winters suck, the people are snobby and rude, the roads are old, the grocery stores suck, the long nights from Nov.-March will make you want to cut your wrists, the taxes will kill you, you'll never be able to afford a decent house, you'll always feel poor because Connecticut is a playground for old money..etc, etc." I heard every negative comment you could imagine.

Turns out, what going to drive me away is the fact that we are not doing well financially. I would never tell another person that they should leave or they can't do well. I can only speak for myself and my family. WE are doing worse financially than 2 years ago. We are almost 40. It's not like we are college kids who have room to grow. What we are doing NOW is going to effect us in retirement. Our savings and our social security will not go as far here and honestly, I'm fearful of the future for the first time. I'm not getting down on the whole state. It's just not the state for me.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

We are almost 40. It's not like we are college kids who have room to grow. What we are doing NOW is going to effect us in retirement. Our savings and our social security will not go as far here and honestly, I'm fearful of the future for the first time. I'm not getting down on the whole state. It's just not the state for me.

Ditto. I'm 40, my wife 36. This is "it". I need to find a place I can afford to do a 15 year mortgage as well. Try that on a 350K house with 35K down.