[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by wavehunter007

You can keep the snowmobile pics....I'd rather see the sun

.......and the bikini's.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by chris410

Where did I admit that these laws make sense?

Originally Posted by chris410

Most of these thigns are common sense, and not doing them is just plain stupid

Wow.

[chris410]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Wow.

What are you wowing? Just because something is common sense doesn't mean we need a law for it? Or do we???

[pvande55]

Cost of living plus perceived liberal politics. Also, many love to hate New York, so they hate CT by association. Too many rich folks as well.

[jane_sm1th73]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Jane,

Then why do so many more people, both as a percentage and raw numbers, struggle more in most other states? Especially those in "low tax" havens?

--- "struggle" is an emotional and value-laden term. Anecdotally from the postings on C-D, I personally have not read many complaints from people who have moved to low tax, low reg states attributable to quality of life. cites, pls?

Why did the PPP for most of the country fall for 30 years but rose in most "high tax" locales (RIPP being a clear exception) across the income groups?

---"PPP" definition (Investopedia): Often overlooked, the Producer Price Index (PPI) can also be utilized to assess the rate of change in prices. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the government body that collects PPI data and releases it on a monthly basis, the PPI "measures the average change over time in the selling prices received by domestic producers for their output." ...
"...When core PPI is calculated, volatile items such as energy and food prices are excluded from the core calculation. Although these omissions reduce the overall accuracy of the index, their prices are heavily influenced by temporary supply and demand imbalances that would make the index difficult to compare on a long-term basis.
"...By following PPI trends, consumers and investors can avoid unexpected changes to inflation. Inflation is less dramatic than a crash, but it can be more devastating to your portfolio.

In a word, "inflation" running higher in the high tax states would appear to be the driver. Inflation works great, until it doesn't. CT has witnessed the inflection point over the past decade - when employers flee, along with their wage-inflated jobs, what are left are commodity jobs (which will pay
commodity wages), coupled with a high fixed cost structure. Talk about suffering, for the ones who are left behind.

How come these "high tax" regions saw a significant rise of income for most of the residents, and have a larger portion of their population in what is considered "middle class?" How do you account that CT has one of the lowest ratio of government-to-GSP in the country? Or one of the lowest tax revenue-to-GSP in the country?

In a word, "inflation" running higher in the high tax states would appear to be the driver

Sure if you were born here you can go and might be able to live more comfortably with the equity you built up to this point... but what of the people born in the other parts of the country that aren't from wealthy backgrounds? It's not a pretty picture. And I'm sorry I've said it once and I'll say it again: I'd much prefer to live in a place where I personally might have a smaller house, simpler car, etc than one that turns a blind eye to unfortunate human conditions. Not only is it moral, but it is apparently much better economic sense based on state-by-state performances on metrics that aren't just "growth rate."

The equity differential attributable to fixed asset inflation is a one-time gift. Its possessors are affectionately described as "equity locusts" when they descend to new areas and proceed to overbid prices in there as well. I would urge you to Google the term.

[CTbrooktrout]

Originally Posted by chris410

Just a few that come right off the top of my head.

Nanny laws

-illegal to use a cell phone and drive
-illegal to not wear a helmet on a motorcycle
-illegal to not wear a seatbelt
-illegal to light off any aerial fireworks

The fact that many people die of these occurances every year tells me that it's not common sense to everyone. Good on you if it's common sense. For the others, they can read it in the driver's manual and hopefully remember. I wouldn't want to argue that QOL has been hurt by such laws. Certainly not in front of someone who's lost a loved one due to someone disobeying the above laws which should have been common sense.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by jane_sm1th73

[/b]

The equity differential attributable to fixed asset inflation is a one-time gift. Its possessors are affectionately described as "equity locusts" when they descend to new areas and proceed to overbid prices in there as well. I would urge you to Google the term.

No comprende.

[jane_sm1th73]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but if you're serious -- creating more regulations so more people can be hired to enforce regulations, and to oversee those that enforce regulations -- this is a very twisted and insane way of creating jobs.

Let's talk about productive jobs, those that actually make something, in the private sector. What is CT producing and / or going to produce in the future?

Yes - I was going for amusement value, lol!

That being said, I would urge you to think the matter through. It doesn't take two paper pushers today to do what one paper pusher did yesterday, particularly in a state with declining population. The only acceptable way to inflate public sector worker population - so as to ensure a growing voter bloc - is to enact ever more regulation so as to justify the increasing number of bodies. New department, new agency. When all else fails, say "But it's for the CHILDREN!!" -- with respect to (for example) a department that was being touted to conduct oversight for children's welfare, in view of the legendary ineptness of DCF.

Correct answer? Clean house, massively! Won't happen, because the public sector voting bloc must be enlarged, not streamlined. The politically correct answer? Populate a new agency instead of fixing the problem at the root. Now you have multiple agencies bickering over the welfare of a beleaguered population. Rinse and repeat.

I would encourage anybody who has a curiosity about the matter to take the time to read up on agency/department proliferation over the past generation with a fresh pair of eyes. It reads like a novel. Rather, the stories and justifications read like a novel, once you've cracked the code ("...what matters is a good cover story if you want to enlarge your beholden voting bloc").

I predict a never-ending batch of new regulations, whose aftermath will be a continuing bloat of state and municipal public sector workers, who are absolutely essential in order to conduct oversight over the new regulations. And a fresh round of taxes with which to fund such "workers". You can witness for yourself what this revenue strategy has done for the private sector companies. I'll connect the dots.

As a means to extract revenue while keeping the public mollified: impose ever greater regulations, taxes, and fees on businesses - so as not to tick off the larger voting bloc (general public has larger number of voters). The tactic has backfired. Now, even the general public is becoming dimly aware, because they no longer have as many places to work - attributable to the business exodus.

PS - I looked up one of the touted state-incubated software development firms from ten years ago, with which I was familiar because I passed by it every day, and the hoopla from the various state funding agencies was so raucous and self-serving. Neuvis. It lined its pockets with the subsidies. You think it's still in CT? You think it ever paid back per the terms of the subsidy? Multiply that by every company that has ever received CT cheese in exchange for unenforceable promises to do something or other on a long term basis for the state economy.

You won't see those headlines in the news. You have to view the hyperbole and hype with a bit of a skeptical eye, and seek the patterns.

[jane_sm1th73]

Originally Posted by Henry10

No comprende.

Sorry.

[Lalalally]

granted probably naive, but I have a suggestion... Can this thread just end now, please? Jane, I'm gathering you're a native of CT who perhaps discovered greener pastures that suit your personal story and lifestyle better than CT ever could? If that's the case, that is awesome! Good for you!! I'm happy for the peace you have found. Heck, I would even venture a guess that everyone on this board salutes you! Please remember though there are countless numbers of us here that love where we live and are happy to call this place home. The End.