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.
Right but since going back to the office is still be debated nearly 16 months after this started I don't think we're really going back. The University system has remote workers from other states so if they can hire like that so can private industry.
Office based administration like finance, accounting and insurance can be done somewhere else as long as they have the licenses.
The reason why FFC does well is because long ago CT didn't have an income tax and it attracted people and companies (GE at the time). But now...People's is one thing but my eyes are on Aetna. I'd argue they'd have thousands of layoffs. It's not like it's Pratt and Whitney that actually makes something. Aetna wanted to move to NYC but I'd argue that being really CVS means they'll just go to RI or just go online. In addition that 50 million that companies gave Hartford over five years is in its fourth year. Hartford is still in receivership by the state and I doubt that would change any time soon.
As for that surplus of 500 million there's some obvious things that not everyone knows. CT operates under a two year budget, not a one year so technically that's just 250 million a year.
"What legislators and Lamont do know is that General Fund revenues for the fiscal year that closed on June 30 are being pegged now at just over $20.3 billion — $274 million more than were anticipated in mid-May."
So the surplus is only 1.3% of the overall budget.
"In addition, a special component of state finances captures a portion of income tax revenues tied to capital gains and dividends before they can be spent. Estimates for this savings program — dubbed the “volatility adjustment” because of the up-and-down nature of investment-related tax receipts — grew by $215 million between the new budget’s adoption and June 30."
Obviously the stock market has done quite well but that isn't that unheard of in other states. You still have 40 billion due for pensions and even if a surplus is in the billions over a few years it still has to fund OPEB.
Connecticut has had an income tax for 30 years now. It is ludicrous to believe that once not having an income tax has anything to do with our strong economy today. If the income tax was so bad, Connecticut would not be No. 1 in both Personal and Disposable Incomes and would not be in the Top 5 for Gross Domestic Product per capitia. If it was all Fairfield County wealth, you would not see every county in the state with a median income above the National Average. This fact proves Connecticut’s affluence is pretty much statewide.
Aetna did not want to move it’s corporate headquarters to New York, it’s then CEO did. He had a home there and the move was strictly his doing. I know several executives at Aetna today and they all say that the vast majority of corporate executives at Aetna at the time were not pleased with the move and were fighting to limit any relocations. Their cushy high salaries buys them an impressive lifestyle in Hartford and they would have taken a hit moving go high priced Manhattan. The move was going to mean the company dishing out a lot of cost of living increases for those that had to relocate. Fortunately the move was canceled and that CEO is long gone. He’s not even on the CVS Board any longer.
According to these same executives, there is no reason to worry CVS is moving any sizable number of employees out of Hartford. CVS is very happy with the current arrangement between Aetna and them.
You are also incorrect about the extra $500 million surplus being spread over two years. The article specifically says the increase is since mid May. Here is the exact line from the article: “Since then, nearly $500 million extra has poured into Connecticut’s coffers, according to reports from Lamont’s budget office.”
As for the pension issue, as I have noted NUMEROUS times her, Connecticut has a well defined and accepted plan to address the problem. The $40 billion you claim the need is not real money. It’s estimates based on the most conservative of conditions which are highly unlikely no matter what. Not all people entitled to a pension will take it and not all will live to be 100. The pension payment plan has been well received by the financial community and it’s why the States Bond ratings have been increased by four major credit agencies. The fact that the state has committed to making an extra $1.2 billion payment into its pension system only adds to that improved credit rating. With $500’ million extra, it’s even better now. Jay
Connecticut has had an income tax for 30 years now. It is ludicrous to believe that once not having an income tax has anything to do with our strong economy today. If the income tax was so bad, Connecticut would not be No. 1 in both Personal and Disposable Incomes and would not be in the Top 5 for Gross Domestic Product per capitia. If it was all Fairfield County wealth, you would not see every county in the state with a median income above the National Average. This fact proves Connecticut’s affluence is pretty much statewide.
Aetna did not want to move it’s corporate headquarters to New York, it’s then CEO did. He had a home there and the move was strictly his doing. I know several executives at Aetna today and they all say that the vast majority of corporate executives at Aetna at the time were not pleased with the move and were fighting to limit any relocations. Their cushy high salaries buys them an impressive lifestyle in Hartford and they would have taken a hit moving go high priced Manhattan. The move was going to mean the company dishing out a lot of cost of living increases for those that had to relocate. Fortunately the move was canceled and that CEO is long gone. He’s not even on the CVS Board any longer.
According to these same executives, there is no reason to worry CVS is moving any sizable number of employees out of Hartford. CVS is very happy with the current arrangement between Aetna and them.
You are also incorrect about the extra $500 million surplus being spread over two years. The article specifically says the increase is since mid May. Here is the exact line from the article: “Since then, nearly $500 million extra has poured into Connecticut’s coffers, according to reports from Lamont’s budget office.”
As for the pension issue, as I have noted NUMEROUS times her, Connecticut has a well defined and accepted plan to address the problem. The $40 billion you claim the need is not real money. It’s estimates based on the most conservative of conditions which are highly unlikely no matter what. Not all people entitled to a pension will take it and not all will live to be 100. The pension payment plan has been well received by the financial community and it’s why the States Bond ratings have been increased by four major credit agencies. The fact that the state has committed to making an extra $1.2 billion payment into its pension system only adds to that improved credit rating. With $500’ million extra, it’s even better now. Jay
Huh? You have to admit that not having an income tax next to a state that does will obviously attract people. NH tries to do this all the time. Yeah it isn't that much of a factor now but what's been in place has compounded. You have to admit the draw was pretty big back in the day. Urbanized NYC has the income but you take it home to FFC to a more suburban place. It's like Boston and the 128 belt.
Impressive lifestyle in Hartford? What's that take...40K? I think you meant West Hartford.
40 billion is not real money? Do you know what OPEB is and GASB or not? Right I know not everyone qualifies for a pension and not all will live to 100 but that's not the point. You have to maintain minimums to keep bond ratings. Naturally if the budget is two years then the surplus is over that two years. You can't simply add to a budget and pretend that the duration should be ignored. Let's say the year starts FY 2022 (which is now) you have two years to have it. You can't retroactively spend money in the past like that without some form of bonding. The state already bonded out the aid for Hartford and still has to pay that back.
https://ctmirror.org/2019/07/11/hart...lized-in-2019/
"Many lawmakers thought they’d authorized no more than $80 million in emergency aid —$40 million each in 2018 and 2019 — to keep Hartford out of bankruptcy. Instead, Connecticut was on the hook for an estimated $530 million in debt — to be paid off over several decades."
That's quite a leap.
The biggest question right now is do people really want to stay in the state. Precovid there were some companies moving but it seemed to stabilize. Now it's more remote work and layoffs. High income is fine but it doesn't mean there's actual jobs. If everything goes online then the idea of having any urbanization can be questionable at best. Between the pseudo UBI like policies we have for poorer people and a never ending stock market and housing market incomes will keep going up. But again why live there. If insurance and finance can be done anywhere then what's the point of doing in CT ? If the state and university systems are actively hiring people remotely what's to keep the private sector here? Affluent people don't make money with jobs for the most part. Jobs are for benefits. The tax advantages of investing far surpass income from labor.
Huh? You have to admit that not having an income tax next to a state that does will obviously attract people. NH tries to do this all the time. Yeah it isn't that much of a factor now but what's been in place has compounded. You have to admit the draw was pretty big back in the day. Urbanized NYC has the income but you take it home to FFC to a more suburban place. It's like Boston and the 128 belt.
Impressive lifestyle in Hartford? What's that take...40K? I think you meant West Hartford.
40 billion is not real money? Do you know what OPEB is and GASB or not? Right I know not everyone qualifies for a pension and not all will live to 100 but that's not the point. You have to maintain minimums to keep bond ratings. Naturally if the budget is two years then the surplus is over that two years. You can't simply add to a budget and pretend that the duration should be ignored. Let's say the year starts FY 2022 (which is now) you have two years to have it. You can't retroactively spend money in the past like that without some form of bonding. The state already bonded out the aid for Hartford and still has to pay that back.
https://ctmirror.org/2019/07/11/hart...lized-in-2019/
"Many lawmakers thought they’d authorized no more than $80 million in emergency aid —$40 million each in 2018 and 2019 — to keep Hartford out of bankruptcy. Instead, Connecticut was on the hook for an estimated $530 million in debt — to be paid off over several decades."
That's quite a leap.
The biggest question right now is do people really want to stay in the state. Precovid there were some companies moving but it seemed to stabilize. Now it's more remote work and layoffs. High income is fine but it doesn't mean there's actual jobs. If everything goes online then the idea of having any urbanization can be questionable at best. Between the pseudo UBI like policies we have for poorer people and a never ending stock market and housing market incomes will keep going up. But again why live there. If insurance and finance can be done anywhere then what's the point of doing in CT ? If the state and university systems are actively hiring people remotely what's to keep the private sector here? Affluent people don't make money with jobs for the most part. Jobs are for benefits. The tax advantages of investing far surpass income from labor.
Of course not having an income tax is attractive but the state was struggling to have enough revenue to run the state effectively. Before the income tax, our state had the highest sales tax in the nation. Because our state was so small people would just head to neighboring states to save money on taxes. Also during recessions the state would see a drop in revenue just when the burdens of dealing with increased unemployment increased. It made it very tough to balance the budget.
As I said, that was 30 years ago and we aren’t going back so it’s a mute point. Connecticut still represents a significant tax savings for New Yorkers in comparison to Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk and northern New Jersey. That’s why our state saw so many New Yorkers moved here during the pandemic.
The only county in Connecticut that did not have a Per capita income above the national average was Windham County which is not very big. It only has 116,540 people and the difference is just $749. That’s not much. The household and family income is actually much more telling. All f them are higher.
Yes, the executives at Aetna have an impressive lifestyle. Their jobs are in Hartford and they live throughout the region. Some may live in West Hartford but others live in other suburbs or the West End of Hartford which is very affluent. You should check it out. For what they paid for their roomy home in greater Hartford, gets them a modest apartment in New York. That’s why many were not pleased.
Throwing around abbreviations for Other Post Employment Benefits and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board does not make you an expert in pension financing. The number of people that actually draw pension benefits and the age pensioners live to IS THE POINT. They directly correlate to the amount of money that is needed in the pension funds. It has long been a matter of opinion just how much public pension funding should be. Not many are fully funded. Massachusetts Teachers Fund is only 51.7% funded. Boston Teachers is just 41.1% funded. Are you concerned about them? Is it affecting Massachusetts budget and economy?
As I pointed out Connecticut has a plan to address the pension gap it once faced. We’ve been sticking to it and the rating agencies have responded by improving our credit rating. That was before the state announced it was paying an additional $1.2 billion to the pension funds.
The only lawmakers that thought Hartford’s bailout would be $80 million were those that were ignorant. If it was that little the city could have self funded the shortfalls. Everyone knows the problem with Hartford’s budget and other cities in our state with similar issues is the amount of tax exempt properties in them and the incredible low payments made to them to compensate for it. Over the last couple decades that has added up.
I think it’s pretty clear that Connecticut is a very desirable place to live. A lot of people have moved here. They are attracted by its excellent education and healthcare as well as its beauty, character and history and its convenience to so much (NYC, Boston, beaches, mountains, countryside, cities and suburbia). Its very impressive. Not everyone cares about the few pennies extra it costs to live here. Jay
Of course not having an income tax is attractive but the state was struggling to have enough revenue to run the state effectively. Before the income tax, our state had the highest sales tax in the nation. Because our state was so small people would just head to neighboring states to save money on taxes. Also during recessions the state would see a drop in revenue just when the burdens of dealing with increased unemployment increased. It made it very tough to balance the budget.
As I said, that was 30 years ago and we aren’t going back so it’s a mute point. Connecticut still represents a significant tax savings for New Yorkers in comparison to Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk and northern New Jersey. That’s why our state saw so many New Yorkers moved here during the pandemic.
The only county in Connecticut that did not have a Per capita income above the national average was Windham County which is not very big. It only has 116,540 people and the difference is just $749. That’s not much. The household and family income is actually much more telling. All f them are higher.
Yes, the executives at Aetna have an impressive lifestyle. Their jobs are in Hartford and they live throughout the region. Some may live in West Hartford but others live in other suburbs or the West End of Hartford which is very affluent. You should check it out. For what they paid for their roomy home in greater Hartford, gets them a modest apartment in New York. That’s why many were not pleased.
Throwing around abbreviations for Other Post Employment Benefits and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board does not make you an expert in pension financing. The number of people that actually draw pension benefits and the age pensioners live to IS THE POINT. They directly correlate to the amount of money that is needed in the pension funds. It has long been a matter of opinion just how much public pension funding should be. Not many are fully funded. Massachusetts Teachers Fund is only 51.7% funded. Boston Teachers is just 41.1% funded. Are you concerned about them? Is it affecting Massachusetts budget and economy?
As I pointed out Connecticut has a plan to address the pension gap it once faced. We’ve been sticking to it and the rating agencies have responded by improving our credit rating. That was before the state announced it was paying an additional $1.2 billion to the pension funds.
The only lawmakers that thought Hartford’s bailout would be $80 million were those that were ignorant. If it was that little the city could have self funded the shortfalls. Everyone knows the problem with Hartford’s budget and other cities in our state with similar issues is the amount of tax exempt properties in them and the incredible low payments made to them to compensate for it. Over the last couple decades that has added up.
I think it’s pretty clear that Connecticut is a very desirable place to live. A lot of people have moved here. They are attracted by its excellent education and healthcare as well as its beauty, character and history and its convenience to so much (NYC, Boston, beaches, mountains, countryside, cities and suburbia). Its very impressive. Not everyone cares about the few pennies extra it costs to live here. Jay
Interesting thing I just found out about WFH and living anywhere - your medical insurance may be affected.
I know if I use my insurance outside the "system", it can cost more out of pocket. Another issue is virtual visits. Providers now have to ask where you are physically located as they must be licensed in that state in order to consult with you.
Of course not having an income tax is attractive but the state was struggling to have enough revenue to run the state effectively. Before the income tax, our state had the highest sales tax in the nation. Because our state was so small people would just head to neighboring states to save money on taxes. Also during recessions the state would see a drop in revenue just when the burdens of dealing with increased unemployment increased. It made it very tough to balance the budget.
As I said, that was 30 years ago and we aren’t going back so it’s a mute point. Connecticut still represents a significant tax savings for New Yorkers in comparison to Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk and northern New Jersey. That’s why our state saw so many New Yorkers moved here during the pandemic.
The only county in Connecticut that did not have a Per capita income above the national average was Windham County which is not very big. It only has 116,540 people and the difference is just $749. That’s not much. The household and family income is actually much more telling. All f them are higher.
Yes, the executives at Aetna have an impressive lifestyle. Their jobs are in Hartford and they live throughout the region. Some may live in West Hartford but others live in other suburbs or the West End of Hartford which is very affluent. You should check it out. For what they paid for their roomy home in greater Hartford, gets them a modest apartment in New York. That’s why many were not pleased.
Throwing around abbreviations for Other Post Employment Benefits and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board does not make you an expert in pension financing. The number of people that actually draw pension benefits and the age pensioners live to IS THE POINT. They directly correlate to the amount of money that is needed in the pension funds. It has long been a matter of opinion just how much public pension funding should be. Not many are fully funded. Massachusetts Teachers Fund is only 51.7% funded. Boston Teachers is just 41.1% funded. Are you concerned about them? Is it affecting Massachusetts budget and economy?
As I pointed out Connecticut has a plan to address the pension gap it once faced. We’ve been sticking to it and the rating agencies have responded by improving our credit rating. That was before the state announced it was paying an additional $1.2 billion to the pension funds.
The only lawmakers that thought Hartford’s bailout would be $80 million were those that were ignorant. If it was that little the city could have self funded the shortfalls. Everyone knows the problem with Hartford’s budget and other cities in our state with similar issues is the amount of tax exempt properties in them and the incredible low payments made to them to compensate for it. Over the last couple decades that has added up.
I think it’s pretty clear that Connecticut is a very desirable place to live. A lot of people have moved here. They are attracted by its excellent education and healthcare as well as its beauty, character and history and its convenience to so much (NYC, Boston, beaches, mountains, countryside, cities and suburbia). Its very impressive. Not everyone cares about the few pennies extra it costs to live here. Jay
First you say every county is higher and then you backtrack and try to say there's not many people there. Northeastern CT still exists and frankly many still go to mass for shopping and work. If you don't let a place develop then those people will go to other places. Long Island for example is pretty much dependent on NYC for the labor market.
PILOT's are an issue in CT any many other states. Urban areas tended to follow this pattern.
1) industry xyz has layoffs
2) property values drop
3) people leave
4) Some others move in attracted by lower prices
5) some have needs and this then attracts non profits and governmental offices that are exempt from taxation
6) Local budgets then are hurt to the point of dependency if not outright receivership
Few pennies extra? My car insurance is 25% more, my property taxes are much higher than a mass based house, gas prices are 20 to 30 cents more a gallon. People didn't really move that much in enough to adjust the overall population. Population growth is pretty important right now. Due to covid immigration is practically nil and the birthrate has been pretty low since 2008. You pretty much have to be welcoming and diversify. Even if population is flat it can age out. One of the fastest growing industries on Cape Cod is life insurance. People have aged out of most peak child bearing ages so early education isn't exactly awash with jobs. I've seen more shifts to recreation and elderly services rather than schools and this is going to take time to adjust.
You have to have some long term population growth. I don't mean some people moving a few towns away or a few counties. Real legit organic growth has to be made otherwise it isn't going to attract services. If you want to actually have businesses that do things in any capacity face to face you have to have customer growth and that's much harder to do if population isn't growing. Otherwise everything moves online and towns turn to crumbs. I knew a business that did a hybrid thing and it worked. Half the time it would be open to the public and the other half fulfilling online orders. It was some artsy soap/herbal place. They raise prices but they don't change formulas. So if you really want to see the lavender soap that's fine but they aren't going to be open eight hours a day for low volume when they can sell online as well. Some things are still taking time to redevelop like malls. Recently Tesla has said they are pulling out.
First you say every county is higher and then you backtrack and try to say there's not many people there. Northeastern CT still exists and frankly many still go to mass for shopping and work. If you don't let a place develop then those people will go to other places. Long Island for example is pretty much dependent on NYC for the labor market.
PILOT's are an issue in CT any many other states. Urban areas tended to follow this pattern.
1) industry xyz has layoffs
2) property values drop
3) people leave
4) Some others move in attracted by lower prices
5) some have needs and this then attracts non profits and governmental offices that are exempt from taxation
6) Local budgets then are hurt to the point of dependency if not outright receivership
Few pennies extra? My car insurance is 25% more, my property taxes are much higher than a mass based house, gas prices are 20 to 30 cents more a gallon. People didn't really move that much in enough to adjust the overall population. Population growth is pretty important right now. Due to covid immigration is practically nil and the birthrate has been pretty low since 2008. You pretty much have to be welcoming and diversify. Even if population is flat it can age out. One of the fastest growing industries on Cape Cod is life insurance. People have aged out of most peak child bearing ages so early education isn't exactly awash with jobs. I've seen more shifts to recreation and elderly services rather than schools and this is going to take time to adjust.
You have to have some long term population growth. I don't mean some people moving a few towns away or a few counties. Real legit organic growth has to be made otherwise it isn't going to attract services. If you want to actually have businesses that do things in any capacity face to face you have to have customer growth and that's much harder to do if population isn't growing. Otherwise everything moves online and towns turn to crumbs. I knew a business that did a hybrid thing and it worked. Half the time it would be open to the public and the other half fulfilling online orders. It was some artsy soap/herbal place. They raise prices but they don't change formulas. So if you really want to see the lavender soap that's fine but they aren't going to be open eight hours a day for low volume when they can sell online as well. Some things are still taking time to redevelop like malls. Recently Tesla has said they are pulling out.
If you go back and look at what I wrote, you will see I specifically said that Household and Family Incomes were higher. That is correct. Your like showed that. I said nothing about per capita income.
I am not aware of any part of Connecticut that has the economic pattern you describe so your point is pretty much mute.
I just looked up the minimum car insurance require,ents in Massachusetts and they appear ridiculously low. The minimums indicated would do nothing to protect anyone. No wonder your rates were lower. Massachusetts should be ashamed of itself. They are embarrassing so why even bother. Connecticut’s are much more comprehensive and complete.
I do not know why you think population growth is important. It is not. Connecticut is already the fourth most densely populated state in the country. To have that would likely destroy what little open space we have left and/or our state’s character. I doubt many would want that.
I also do not know where you heard that Tesla is pulling out of Connecticut. I have seen nothing about that in the media or on their website of either Milford or Greenwich closing. In fact they are now in the middle of fighting to add an East Hartford facility. Jay
Interesting thing I just found out about WFH and living anywhere - your medical insurance may be affected.
I know if I use my insurance outside the "system", it can cost more out of pocket. Another issue is virtual visits. Providers now have to ask where you are physically located as they must be licensed in that state in order to consult with you.
Varies by provider. If your employer uses a large one, it should be good anywhere. We have BCBS of Illinois, and all states (continental US) are covered. Pre covid, we had people in over a dozen states, and that quantity has grown considerably.
I suspect your employer chose a plan with a less comprehensive list of states. I'd check with HR if I were you. Not a wfh issue, as truthfully, the insurance company is disinterested in your location.
This is amazing. FedEx has s hiring more than 1,250 workers in the greater Hartford area to handle the surge in e-commerce and 7-day home delivery service. That’s great news. Interestingly the article also notes that Connecticut’s labor force has regained 94% of the jobs lost and is approaching its November 2019 high. Great news. Jay
Connecticut has had an income tax for 30 years now. It is ludicrous to believe that once not having an income tax has anything to do with our strong economy today. If the income tax was so bad, Connecticut would not be No. 1 in both Personal and Disposable Incomes and would not be in the Top 5 for Gross Domestic Product per capitia. If it was all Fairfield County wealth, you would not see every county in the state with a median income above the National Average. This fact proves Connecticut’s affluence is pretty much statewide.
Aetna did not want to move it’s corporate headquarters to New York, it’s then CEO did. He had a home there and the move was strictly his doing. I know several executives at Aetna today and they all say that the vast majority of corporate executives at Aetna at the time were not pleased with the move and were fighting to limit any relocations. Their cushy high salaries buys them an impressive lifestyle in Hartford and they would have taken a hit moving go high priced Manhattan. The move was going to mean the company dishing out a lot of cost of living increases for those that had to relocate. Fortunately the move was canceled and that CEO is long gone. He’s not even on the CVS Board any longer.
According to these same executives, there is no reason to worry CVS is moving any sizable number of employees out of Hartford. CVS is very happy with the current arrangement between Aetna and them.
You are also incorrect about the extra $500 million surplus being spread over two years. The article specifically says the increase is since mid May. Here is the exact line from the article: “Since then, nearly $500 million extra has poured into Connecticut’s coffers, according to reports from Lamont’s budget office.”
As for the pension issue, as I have noted NUMEROUS times her, Connecticut has a well defined and accepted plan to address the problem. The $40 billion you claim the need is not real money. It’s estimates based on the most conservative of conditions which are highly unlikely no matter what. Not all people entitled to a pension will take it and not all will live to be 100. The pension payment plan has been well received by the financial community and it’s why the States Bond ratings have been increased by four major credit agencies. The fact that the state has committed to making an extra $1.2 billion payment into its pension system only adds to that improved credit rating. With $500’ million extra, it’s even better now. Jay
So if 40B isn't the real number.....what is?
I'm guessing 500m will pale in comparison to that...
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.
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.
