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.
The problem with the LBJ Great Society programs is that they created a perverse incentive to be a single parent. The economic outlook for a kid in a poverty level single parent household is really lousy. We've created a cycle of permanent underclass where single mothers have daughters who become single mothers and have sons who land in prison until their testosterone level drops. Every failed city has this same problem. I don't have the answer but that particular "solution" didn't work. Bill Clinton reformed the program so cash benefits have a 5 year lifetime cap (the "Temporary" in TANF) and eliminated extra cash benefits for extra children from single mothers already on welfare. That didn't fix anything. Health care costs are now so high that there's a big disincentive to get married because a pregnant low income woman automatically qualifies for Medicaid. I think we need to have very strong disincentives for anyone becoming a single mother. It's been a disaster.
How about more and better access to birth control? All women of child bearing age receiving state assistance get free birth control. Its not a silver bullet and the religious types would hate it, but its better than what we're currently doing.
This is more anecdotal than anything else: Recently, I took my retired parents to a financial planning seminar in Fairfield. I found it interesting that they discussed establishing a domicile in Florida, in retirement. What was even more interesting was that about 35% of the seniors already had a FL residency and another 20% of the attendees were very interested in learning about Florida’s financial benefits.
The reason why I am sharing this because the talk of Hedge Fund Billionaires shifting their residency to lower tax locations is not limited to the 1%. Average, Middle class folks are willing to consider the lower cost option. Sure, many from CT retire to FL anyway, however the level of interest was surprising to me.
I follow this thread with great interest because CT’s economic future appears to be murky. Regardless of party affiliation, we need a Governor who is going to be fiscally responsible in cleaning up budgetary mess. I know a lot of blame has been heaped on Malloy, however his responsibility is limited to the mess he inherited. Sure, he is hardly a dynamic Governor like Cuomo or Baker, however he has been able to dive in to try to resolve the issues. Unfortunately, Malloy/Democrats version of the clean-up, includes higher taxes. Folks like me are willing to pay more in taxes, only if I know that 1. There will be spending cuts/trimming inefficiencies 2. The tax increases are temporary/to fill the rough patch.
In an ideal world, I would love to see CT get rid of personal income taxes. While it may seem gimmicky, CT would join NH as the only two New England states with no income tax, however with CT’s better location (sandwiched between NY and MA), I am certain it would make the state more attractive to many. Sure, taxes on consumption/luxury goods should go up, maybe even mileage (as long as they are earmarked for the roads/infrastructure), however the cuts in spending need to be in concert with any tax increases.
This is more anecdotal than anything else: Recently, I took my retired parents to a financial planning seminar in Fairfield. I found it interesting that they discussed establishing a domicile in Florida, in retirement. What was even more interesting was that about 35% of the seniors already had a FL residency and another 20% of the attendees were very interested in learning about Florida’s financial benefits.
The reason why I am sharing this because the talk of Hedge Fund Billionaires shifting their residency to lower tax locations is not limited to the 1%. Average, Middle class folks are willing to consider the lower cost option. Sure, many from CT retire to FL anyway, however the level of interest was surprising to me.
I follow this thread with great interest because CT’s economic future appears to be murky. Regardless of party affiliation, we need a Governor who is going to be fiscally responsible in cleaning up budgetary mess. I know a lot of blame has been heaped on Malloy, however his responsibility is limited to the mess he inherited. Sure, he is hardly a dynamic Governor like Cuomo or Baker, however he has been able to dive in to try to resolve the issues. Unfortunately, Malloy/Democrats version of the clean-up, includes higher taxes. Folks like me are willing to pay more in taxes, only if I know that 1. There will be spending cuts/trimming inefficiencies 2. The tax increases are temporary/to fill the rough patch.
In an ideal world, I would love to see CT get rid of personal income taxes. While it may seem gimmicky, CT would join NH as the only two New England states with no income tax, however with CT’s better location (sandwiched between NY and MA), I am certain it would make the state more attractive to many. Sure, taxes on consumption/luxury goods should go up, maybe even mileage (as long as they are earmarked for the roads/infrastructure), however the cuts in spending need to be in concert with any tax increases.
Property taxes are high, income taxes are high, sales tax is high, spending is unchecked in CT, and many cuts are being made to services that affect the residents. Need to lower spending, regulate spending, improve services to CT residents, and lower taxes in the State at least at the income/sales tax level.
Pre 1960 the percentage of people under the poverty line in the US was around 24% after 1970 it was around 12-15% and has held there ever since. This is before wellfare is taken into account which drops it even lower. So no welfare is not causing people to be poor.
The biggest contributor to poverty is out of wedlock births. Since 1966 the poverty rate has actually increased despite trillions in spending & massive economic growth.
Why? Because out of wedlock births have skyrocketed due in large part to government programs like welfare.
Notice from the graph that the rate drops dramatically prior to 1966, this is because of private sector growth. That is what really reduces poverty private growth and jobs not government programs.
Don't fall for the Democratic spin
If CT continues down this path they will go bankrupt and then the poverty rate will increase even more.
Property taxes are high, income taxes are high, sales tax is high, spending is unchecked in CT, and many cuts are being made to services that affect the residents. Need to lower spending, regulate spending, improve services to CT residents, and lower taxes in the State at least at the income/sales tax level.
Property taxes depend on the town and are relative. For example, much of FFC has lower property taxes than Westchester Co. At least the property taxes are being spent on local matters like education. I lean Republican, however don't want to see education funding being gutted in the name of super low property taxes.
Eliminate income taxes. Sales tax can go higher particularly on luxury/vice goods like alcohol, cigarettes etc.
Yes, spending is out of control, entitlements, pension commitments are issues that need to be resolved. However for public policy to succeed you need to mix increased taxes and reduced spending. Punish people for buying things they don't need (like uber expensive cars) or should not be consuming (cigarettes), however you will not be able to able to decimate spending on it's own. Too many elected representatives will not allow it because far too many of their constituents will be impacted.
I am not looking to make this into a political issue, as we need centrists Republicans and Democrats to work on coming up with a solution that balances the budget while spreading the pain.
I wouldn't mind higher property taxes. I don't own property outside of leading a car. I mean the 35 mill cap was nice. If I had to pay 55 and would drop the property mill rate from the 70s I do it. I wouldn't mind if there was more libertarian and democratic socialist view in this State. All the neighboring States have services to residents such as tax paid tuition for higher education, working towards improving their State parks, decent social services available, legal marijuana, and so forth. Going further North sone States have less restrictive laws and regulations against their State residents. Sone States don't have income or sales tax.
The problem with the LBJ Great Society programs is that they created a perverse incentive to be a single parent. The economic outlook for a kid in a poverty level single parent household is really lousy. We've created a cycle of permanent underclass where single mothers have daughters who become single mothers and have sons who land in prison until their testosterone level drops. Every failed city has this same problem. I don't have the answer but that particular "solution" didn't work. Bill Clinton reformed the program so cash benefits have a 5 year lifetime cap (the "Temporary" in TANF) and eliminated extra cash benefits for extra children from single mothers already on welfare. That didn't fix anything. Health care costs are now so high that there's a big disincentive to get married because a pregnant low income woman automatically qualifies for Medicaid. I think we need to have very strong disincentives for anyone becoming a single mother. It's been a disaster.
Except the number of people qualifying for these dropped after it was instated it did not rise. So there dopes not appear to be evidence based on history that people chose to be poor post welfare being instituted.
The biggest contributor to poverty is out of wedlock births. Since 1966 the poverty rate has actually increased despite trillions in spending & massive economic growth.
Why? Because out of wedlock births have skyrocketed due in large part to government programs like welfare.
Notice from the graph that the rate drops dramatically prior to 1966, this is because of private sector growth. That is what really reduces poverty private growth and jobs not government programs.
Don't fall for the Democratic spin
If CT continues down this path they will go bankrupt and then the poverty rate will increase even more.
I agree private sector growth helped, but there was alot of that in the 50's and it was still in the 25% range. Civil rights and the war on poverty combined to bring it down below 20% (along with economic growth) It has stayed roughly level ever since between 12-15%. It rises during recessions of course. Now if you add in what the welfare programs actually do, the number of poor drops into the single digits.
I wouldn't mind higher property taxes. I don't own property outside of leading a car. I mean the 35 mill cap was nice. If I had to pay 55 and would drop the property mill rate from the 70s I do it. I wouldn't mind if there was more libertarian and democratic socialist view in this State. All the neighboring States have services to residents such as tax paid tuition for higher education, working towards improving their State parks, decent social services available, legal marijuana, and so forth. Going further North sone States have less restrictive laws and regulations against their State residents. Sone States don't have income or sales tax.
Got it. It sounds like you would like to shift in spending priorities with an increase in freedoms. I can get on board with what you're recommending. Before moving to CT, I lived in MA where the tax vs. citizen services was a good mix.
I think that the dogmatic approaches of Republican vs Democrat, tax vs. spending, do not work. There is no way we'll be able to achieve political consensus and be able to do the right thing for the State which is making it an attractive place to live and do business in, without mixing between certain tax increases and specific spending cuts. How to prioritize the two depends on the values of the residents of CT.
The problem with the LBJ Great Society programs is that they created a perverse incentive to be a single parent. The economic outlook for a kid in a poverty level single parent household is really lousy. We've created a cycle of permanent underclass where single mothers have daughters who become single mothers and have sons who land in prison until their testosterone level drops. Every failed city has this same problem. I don't have the answer but that particular "solution" didn't work. Bill Clinton reformed the program so cash benefits have a 5 year lifetime cap (the "Temporary" in TANF) and eliminated extra cash benefits for extra children from single mothers already on welfare. That didn't fix anything. Health care costs are now so high that there's a big disincentive to get married because a pregnant low income woman automatically qualifies for Medicaid. I think we need to have very strong disincentives for anyone becoming a single mother. It's been a disaster.
They qualify automatically in CT, but that's not the case in all 50 states. States are still free to set up their own qualification rules regarding medicaid funds.
In one of Malloy's proposals he said he will remove 10,000+ people from medicaid by tightening the qualifications. The medicaid dollars haven't changed, if any thing those dollars probably increased slightly.
Not providing medical care to pregnant women is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. One birth defect that could have been prevented or even lessened would wipe out any savings that denying the care would have saved.
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.
