[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

From what I understand, there is no two ways about it. Urban + poor= voting Democrat in any state. Doesn't mean that all Democrats live in ghettos. It means that the ghettos vote Dem. I thought that was a pretty well known fact.

Indubitably they vote Democratic. The question is how often they vote, and the answer to that is: seems rare.

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

2nd, Connecticut fiddles while Rome burns. People all over are unemployed, struggling and taking pay cuts while the gov't spends, spends, spends.

That's my problem in a nutshell. The other side of the coin is the people saying "cut cut cut and less taxes" has not produced the amount of growth promised where it has been implemented. The idea that tax cuts spur growth and success automatically seem like there's a step missing that makes the picture complete. It reminds me of the underpants gnomes from South Park in a way:

"Step 1: Cut Taxes. Step 2: ???. Step 3: Profit!"

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

This is like the Emperor's New Clothes in this thread or a magic trick. These posts trying to argue that we CT is not irresponsible in spending when we have the highest tax burden in the country and yet we're broke! How can anyone argue that money isn't being wasted?

The argument is that perhaps less money is being wasted then stated ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

And please with money being put into the schools. More like money being dumped into bloated faculty,administration and their 10 assistants with their fat salaries and pensions. Stop acting it takes our crazy high tax dollars in order for students to learn.

Again, the administrations are insane for the amount of responsibility they have. I just don't have the numbers to say if paying the administrators less on a wide scale would help property taxes though.

Good luck to you if you do make the plunge and get out of dodge, though. Hope you find a place that you and your family can prosper and be financially stable, it's crazy everywhere right now.

~Paz

[bobtn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
It shouldn't cost the state any more to administer the things the counties would if they were incorporated. It should be nearly a wash, maybe even be cheaper because we need fewer country employees.

Beeker:"It should be? But the fact is that it rarely is."

In the sane private sector, we'd ask those managing such departments "why", and w/o good answers, hopefully, they have new jobs lined up.

[bobtn]

Good luck on your move Yankeerose00. As one who did the same thing, along with approximately 3 dozen other family members (including kids) throughout the tumultuous period of the 90s and the 250k statewide out migration pattern (over a decade), the key thing to make it successful is research before the move. We did, and those of us who did move chose several different states, and those of us who did our homework first, it worked out well for. I knew unemployment rates in my profession in my new region (it was 2.8 upon arrival), opportunities available on a recurring basis, had even gone through appointments with management recruiting firms in visits before the move. If it turns out 1/2 as well for you, it would be worth it. (Within 6 weeks, I had a permanent offer I accepted which was 1/3 higher than any previous Ct position, with richer benefits. The two positions I have since moved on to, were higher level, and of course, at substantial increases in salary, bonus levels, and benefits.)

No matter where one goes, though, when migrating between states, never make the move without some research into where you have chosen to go. Prior visits should be a prereq, and I'm not talking one day stopovers. In the year before my move, I spent about 3 weeks in my new state. 2 of those weeks were within the final 6 months. It came in handy, as this was before GPS systems became standard operating gear, and from day 1, I knew how to get almost anywhere within a very spread out metropolitan region.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

That's my problem in a nutshell. The other side of the coin is the people saying "cut cut cut and less taxes" has not produced the amount of growth promised where it has been implemented. The idea that tax cuts spur growth and success automatically seem like there's a step missing that makes the picture complete. It reminds me of the underpants gnomes from South Park in a way:

"Step 1: Cut Taxes. Step 2: ???. Step 3: Profit!"

Precisely. I'm always asking this of people. The argument is always made as if it's self-explanatory. "Well of COURSE, let people keep their money and everything great follows!"

As far as I can tell, that's never been the case, so I don't know why it would start working well now. You never hear that Step 2 spelled out with any sort of intellectual rigor.

Once again, it boils down to 'I want more money' -- if people were just honest and said that, I'd respect them more. But then again, their endgame is a) paying less taxes, b) having more money in their pocket, and c) somehow the world revolves around them such that all their other costs would stay the same while they d) pull in the same (or more) income. If only that were all true.

What do you think drives cost of living up? People having more take-home pay.

[bobtn]

basehead:"What do you think drives cost of living up? People having more take-home pay."

Actually, it's mainly due to people expecting to be able to do more of their wish list as careers progress, and incomes increase, and the pushback you are seeing is largely due to the fact the private sector does more with less all the time, but the public sector receives no pushback to do the same.

8 million positions cut in a few years, Earnings Per Share and revenue up from US operations = doing more with less. It is how almost every American professionals bonus calculation is based, whether revenue growth, earnings growth, reduced cost per hour of throughout-do more with less.

Too many in government, and this is a national problem, think not spending every last penny of budgeted funds is an injustice. That's the root cause of the pushback, the lack of expectations on the performance of public sector employees, both management and lower level.
That's why people favor lower taxes; when they do not see the bang for the buck of ever higher taxes, they fight back and say "cut off the funds or at least do not add to them". The onus, in this new era, is on the public sector to prove the private sector wrong in their impression of the value they add.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by basehead617

Precisely. I'm always asking this of people. The argument is always made as if it's self-explanatory. "Well of COURSE, let people keep their money and everything great follows!"

So you want people to have LESS of the money they have earned?

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

So you want people to have LESS of the money they have earned?

That's not what I said. I don't particularly "want" anything other than people to not simplify complex issues just because it somehow feels more satisfying to think with their gut.

I just don't think slashing taxes and giving everyone more take-home pay would necessarily improve quality of life in the long run. If everyone pays less taxes, most market-driven cost of living items would probably go up, at least when you're in an area that people actually want to live. Plus you'd be dealing to various degrees with the fact that certain things are now gone that taxes used to provide.

People often just have this simplistic view when they look at a paystub: "Wow if only taxes were cut by 50% i'd have $1000 more per month!". The story doesn't end there.

Think about how home prices would be affected if they got rid of the mortgage interest deduction cold turkey. Got that.. Now, imagine how home prices would be affected if everyone suddenly paid 5% or 10% less in taxes a year.

And beyond personal wealth accumulation, the picture is even murkier when it comes to corporations and job creation.

Companies don't just hire when they have more money (say with reduced corporate tax rates) -- there needs to ALSO be more demand for their services. Demand they can't meet with their existing staff. As productivity gains are made and companies are finding ways to do less with more, they're NOT itching to hire back those lost jobs.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by basehead617

What do you think drives cost of living up? People having more take-home pay.

Well well well...some truth finally sneaks out from the other side. I've been waiting for the "left" to make this move for a looooong time.

Yes, you are correct. Guess who is getting 45% higher pay in CT? Yes, say it with me. State workers. There are over 60,000 of them. Guess who else gets a skewed pay scale? Riiiight. UNIONS! ($50 per hour carpenters? Really?) And there are LOOOOTS of them in CT and they are fed by...STATE CONTRACTS and LEGISLATION! How cozy!

Add in the number of city/town municiple workers with similar pay scale and benefits and you can see why the average Joe in CT is about 40% behind the curve. Sucks, really.

So there you have it folks. I've been wanting to point that out for a long time. That's what's driving your cost of living in CT. The "rich" have some impact, but not in the same degree or numbers. Having the occasional "mansion" does not drive up the median home cost like having all new housing developments priced in the 400K range does.

Ever wonder why, WHY we don't have new developments in the low 200's?

ETA: Do 2x4's cost more here? Carpet? Drywall?

Think about that for a minute.

Oh, and guess what it takes to fund those government workers and union projects? Yep. TAXES!

Weee, this is fun!

Originally Posted by bobtn

In the sane private sector, we'd ask those managing such departments "why", and w/o good answers, hopefully, they have new jobs lined up.

Or, in my case - I close my doors and go out of business.

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

Well, it doesn't matter. I can live here and bang my head on my desk every year as property taxes and every other tax rise or I can leave. I'm choosing the latter.

I understand though. Believe me I do.

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

And it's really a shame. I feel like my dream of living here was squashed like a roach.

Sigh...yep. Believe me, I lost my hometown to innercity trash (Waterbury), and now being pushed out of my home state. It really sucks.

I would have been more than happy to grow up and STAY in the Waterbury area and raise my family. At one time it was a great place to live. Litchfield county was your backyard, train service to NYC, the beach 30 min away etc etc. Now? Pfffft, whatever.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by basehead617

The argument is always made as if it's self-explanatory. "Well of COURSE, let people keep their money and everything great follows!"

What do you think drives cost of living up? People having more take-home pay.

I almost puked when I read this response. I'll do it your way: I want more money.

Satisfied? Or am I just unintellectual and greedy?

[mlassoff]

I think there is a difference between being priced out of the state and not being able to live the lifestyle one desires within the state. If you live in a 350K house you can't afford in Avon-- leaving the state is not your only option. You could move to a more affordable town, and rain in your own spending. I live very well below my means, and, therefore, affording the small tax increase is no big deal.

I know this is easier for me as a single guy, but, a lot of people purchased too much house and over-committed financially during the boom years. I know this is not the case for everybody, but definitely the case for some. Some claim that these taxes have made the state unaffordable, when it's their consumption oriented lifestyle that is truly the culprit....

You could move to Texas, but, then would you want to send your kids to private school? Would that eat up the difference in COL? (Texas schools rank 47th/50). You'd be in a bigger house, but, would you just then consume more and live at the absolute limits of your salary?

Sorry to say this, but most don't manage their finances much better than the government manages theirs.