Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-19-2019, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,636 posts, read 56,378,147 times
Reputation: 11150

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
This state's putrid business ranking is because it never thinks of reducing OTHER costs to fund infrastructure. It adds taxes, again and again and again..... When you must keep doing that, it is a knee jerk liberal reaction. It is not management. We need to address our reckless spending, with no sacred cows. If infrastructure ranks high, cut stuff that ranks low.

Ct could adopt to spending what many corps wisely do to cultivate top talent and fire the poor staff, a 20/70/10 plan. Find the 10% least deserving funding and prune it in REAL dollars, not just as a lower rate of increase.
So you support either putting our state billions more in debt with no way to pay for it or not doing anything and watch our transportation infrastructure continue to fall apart as we have less and less money to spend on it??? Jay

 
Old 04-19-2019, 04:39 PM
 
33,746 posts, read 16,727,035 times
Reputation: 17038
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
So you support either putting our state billions more in debt with no way to pay for it or not doing anything and watch our transportation infrastructure continue to fall apart as we have less and less money to spend on it??? Jay
I support what households do, cut elsewhere to fund more needed things.

I have yet to see you discuss the need to cut spending anywhere in govt. Hence, I roll my eyes at that short-sighted approach which earned our place amongst Least Favorable Business climates nationally. With several CEOs publishing letters admonishing Comrade Malloy for raising the cost to live here, and run businesses here, by billions.

I do NOT support additional taxes, as we are severely overtaxed at the local and sate levels already.
 
Old 04-19-2019, 04:52 PM
 
33,746 posts, read 16,727,035 times
Reputation: 17038
https://www.cbia.com/news/economy/le...ed-job-losses/

Excellent points connecting costs to results (job losses).
 
Old 04-19-2019, 05:58 PM
 
1,924 posts, read 2,015,909 times
Reputation: 1839
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
This state's putrid business ranking is because it never thinks of reducing OTHER costs to fund infrastructure. It adds taxes, again and again and again..... When you must keep doing that, it is a knee jerk liberal reaction. It is not management. We need to address our reckless spending, with no sacred cows. If infrastructure ranks high, cut stuff that ranks low.

Ct could adopt to spending what many corps wisely do to cultivate top talent and fire the poor staff, a 20/70/10 plan. Find the 10% least deserving funding and prune it in REAL dollars, not just as a lower rate of increase.
I don't disagree.
There are some ugly loopholes in Husky, for example, that need to go. This state does not need to be paying health care deductibles and coinsurance for kids of wealthy divorced parents.
 
Old 04-19-2019, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Az.
402 posts, read 681,814 times
Reputation: 616
If you are wealthy, it's fine. good for you. If you are a business or a working person, not so much. You lose
 
Old 04-19-2019, 06:45 PM
 
33,746 posts, read 16,727,035 times
Reputation: 17038
Quote:
Originally Posted by hvexpatinct View Post
I don't disagree.
There are some ugly loopholes in Husky, for example, that need to go. This state does not need to be paying health care deductibles and coinsurance for kids of wealthy divorced parents.


I'd also favor privatizing more government functions. Avoid the huge legacy costs of staffing, the tremendously costly Deluxe Insurance premiums, in favor of using private sector employers offering fair market value, no more, and no less.
 
Old 04-19-2019, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,636 posts, read 56,378,147 times
Reputation: 11150
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
I support what households do, cut elsewhere to fund more needed things.

I have yet to see you discuss the need to cut spending anywhere in govt. Hence, I roll my eyes at that short-sighted approach which earned our place amongst Least Favorable Business climates nationally. With several CEOs publishing letters admonishing Comrade Malloy for raising the cost to live here, and run businesses here, by billions.

I do NOT support additional taxes, as we are severely overtaxed at the local and sate levels already.
That is a completely separate issue. I have never said I did not support cutting spending BUT there is a significant problem with transportation funding that must be addressed.

We have four choices: do nothing and watch our transportation network deteriorate further for lack of funding; borrow more money as the Republicans have proposed putting our state in deeper debt with no way to pay for it; increase the gas tax like other states are doing and place the full burden of transportation funding on Connecticut residents; or implement tolls and finally get out of state drivers to pay their fair share. I pick the last.

Your turn. Jay
 
Old 04-19-2019, 10:24 PM
 
33,746 posts, read 16,727,035 times
Reputation: 17038
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
That is a completely separate issue. I have never said I did not support cutting spending BUT there is a significant problem with transportation funding that must be addressed.

We have four choices: do nothing and watch our transportation network deteriorate further for lack of funding; borrow more money as the Republicans have proposed putting our state in deeper debt with no way to pay for it; increase the gas tax like other states are doing and place the full burden of transportation funding on Connecticut residents; or implement tolls and finally get out of state drivers to pay their fair share. I pick the last.

Your turn. Jay
I pick NONE of them.

Choice 5, cut other costs concurrently, other departments, and fund needed improvements. No new taxes, just use the revenue differently.

That is what I would be ok with, which can also provide infrastructure improvements w/o new tax burdens, to boot.

Simple stuff can help. Place a moratorium on backfilling open spots, unless in LEO type functions. Just like the productive, private sector does.
 
Old 04-19-2019, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,636 posts, read 56,378,147 times
Reputation: 11150
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
I pick NONE of them.

Choice 5, cut other costs concurrently, other departments, and fund needed improvements. No new taxes, just use the revenue differently.

That is what I would be ok with, which can also provide infrastructure improvements w/o new tax burdens, to boot.

Simple stuff can help. Place a moratorium on backfilling open spots, unless in LEO type functions. Just like the productive, private sector does.
You don’t seem to get it. The amount of money the current gas tax generates is likely going down over the next 30 years. Inflation over that time will further erode what the current gas tax money will buy. Your choice is basically to do nothing so there is no fifth choice. Your choice however will just doom our transportation system to further (and likely accelerate) neglect and deterioration.

What you propose in cutting costs should be done but the savings should be used to cut other taxes and pay off our debts. That is a long term sustainable solution. But again that is a separate issue. Jay
 
Old 04-19-2019, 10:52 PM
 
33,746 posts, read 16,727,035 times
Reputation: 17038
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post


What you propose in cutting costs should be done but the savings should be used to cut other taxes and pay off our debts. That is a long term sustainable solution. But again that is a separate issue. Jay
I'd have no issue if taxes were cut concurrently via other cuts, as IMO any tax increase should be met with such concurrent tax cuts elsewhere, to keep total resident tax collections flat.

Separate issue = kick can down road. That should be met with a sound "no". If state dealt with that issue now, and any tax hike is met with equal cut, I am ok with that. But not a "we will look to cut later".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top