[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

So much wrong with that interview I don't know where to start. She's trying to set her company up to ask for a hand out. She even said that in the interview and I don't think she even knew it. She hit all of the CBIA talking points in one short interview which is amazing.

And here is a free pointer, if you can't find employees with the correct training, then you should set up the training yourself.

She is spot on. Ct is anti business. If you wish to drive all business out, you love how Ct treats business.

CBIA is simply telling it like it is. The truth hurts.

I am grateful Stanley and AETNA both publicly scolded Ct government in recent weeks. Long overdue.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

The poor are least likely to vote. This is common knowledge, so I don't know why people keep harping about this. You can research the data here all you want. But I will provide a quick highlight from 2014

Avon - percent of registered voters who actually voted 68%
Bridgeport - percent of registered voters who actually voted 38%

SOTS: Statistics and Data

The percent who actually voted includes D, R, I , Unaffliated. If you drilled down to parties the numbers would be more skewed. I believe Avon Republicans had a voter turnout of 85-90% and Bridgeport Democrats had a turnout of 50-55%.

I had made this analysis in a previous post.

Elections are decided by the absolute number of votes cast, of which Bridgeport had three times as many as Avon. And those votes in Bridgeport are going to heavily skew for Democrats, while Avon will have more of a split between Democrats and Republicans.

[BPt111]

The National Association of State Budget Officers says the states without a budget on July 1 are: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania and Michigan, budgets are on the governors' desks.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

She is spot on. Ct is anti business. If you wish to drive all business out, you love how Ct treats business.

CBIA is simply telling it like it is. The truth hurts.

I am grateful Stanley and AETNA both publicly scolded Ct government in recent weeks. Long overdue.

Believe it or not I happen to agree with you on this. But I also agree with MrGompers that businesses need to do more and by that I mean they need to do more than just complain.

Where has Aetna been in the revitalization of Hartford for the last 20 years? Travelers at least helped push through the Front Street/Convention Center/Science Center redevelopment but Aetna has been noticeably absent from much of anything. That does not mean they did not support the city with charitable work but they certainly could have been more proactive in making their Asylum Hill/Farmington Avenue neighborhood more inviting and livable. They could have also encourage ING (now Voya) to build a new office downtown rather than out in Windsor when they kicked them out of their Farmington Avenue complex several years back.

There was a time when Aetna led a group of businessmen called The Bishops. They were the ones who got the XL Center and adjacent mall built. Before that it was Constitution Plaza. This is true leadership which is hard to do from your New York townhouse. Just saying. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Believe it or not I happen to agree with you on this. But I also agree with MrGompers that businesses need to do more and by that I mean they need to do more than just complain.

Where has Aetna been in the revitalization of Hartford for the last 20 years?

They may have been giving up on Ct. Corps do give up on regions, and it takes years to come to fruition. I've been involved in moves that truly started years earlier-not always where gov't wasn't the right fit, sometimes employees were not the fit, sometimes geography, but remember when AETNA had the press conference last week-the seeds were sewn years earlier. I reference moves I was involved in as we tuned out to the region's needs long before we moved. Our time spent with charitable orgs or civic groups went down first. ($ donations remained intact)

My gut feeling is all the employers who issued statements at Malloy's huge tax hike a few years back we're firing the last warning shots. If still dissatisfied, they would talk with their feet.

If I were this lady at this company, I would relocate now. Ct has had enough chances, and I see no meaningful progress. As a smaller player, if Ct ignores AETNA, they surely ignore her company.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

She is spot on. Ct is anti business. If you wish to drive all business out, you love how Ct treats business.

CBIA is simply telling it like it is. The truth hurts.

I am grateful Stanley and AETNA both publicly scolded Ct government in recent weeks. Long overdue.

The woman in the interview did not offer a single example of how her business is "over regulated" nor how much her business or her own earnings are affected by taxes. When people are complaining they need to offer solutions. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Also, when they are complaining about taxes we need to see how much taxes they and their business(s) are paying.

This is why I love it when public companies like Black & Decker start complaining about taxes, because I can just go look up their financial statements online and find out what they are paying in taxes.

This woman's company is privately held, so we won't be getting any tax information from her any time soon.

She even managed to work in the 6.99% highest tax rate for CT's income tax which I doubt more than a handful of her employees would pay. She also managed to cry about the estate tax - which again I doubt any of her employees would be affected by. (but I bet she would be affected by the estate tax)

Another thing she mentioned which I doubt any one noticed is the "CT corp income tax surcharge" but she failed to mention that the surcharge only applies to companies with gross income in excess of $100 million do you think her company earns that much? If it does why not show us the tax returns?

If she thinks she can't find employees with the appropriate experience such as machinist in CT, she should go ahead and try her luck in Florida. She'll be in for a rude awakening. For extra fun pay the Florida workers minimum wage and see what happens.

Conn is loaded with people with the appropriate background due to all the defense manufacturing taken place here. My guess would be the wages she's offering are too low or she's looking for "purple unicorns" that can walk into the factory and start working within 5 minutes with zero training.

Plenty of people are looking for jobs in CT. I would guess she could set up a training program and get people on board within a month doing the simplest of tasks. No reason to look to the Govt to do that for you. I thought these business people and CBIA worshipers hated the Govt any way.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Another thing she mentioned which I doubt any one noticed is the "CT corp income tax surcharge" but she failed to mention that the surcharge only applies to companies with gross income in excess of $100 million do you think her company earns that much? If it does why not show us the tax returns?

If she thinks she can't find employees with the appropriate experience such as machinist in CT, she should go ahead and try her luck in Florida. She'll be in for a rude awakening. For extra fun pay the Florida workers minimum wage and see what happens.

.

It has to earn a few hundred mill with that headcount.

She can find qualified employees in any state, btw.

I was with 2 national employers whose Southeastern plants were our most profitable, with far fewer quality issues, and better than average customer retention/satisfaction. Ct still has quite a few mfg white collar workforces manufacturing elsewhere. Sturm Ruger for instance small hq in Ct; mfg Prescott, Az. Casco, once based in Bridgeport, last I knew manufactures product in Kentucky. Others, like Beretta, successfully relocated mfg away from Ct, plus white collar staff. It isn't rocket science.

[Robert137]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I think it would be good if CT raised the sales tax and used that increase to fix the pension funding issue. Also, include a sunset provision on the tax, for example it expires automatically in 5 years. I do not think any legislator would agree to either of those terms though.

I agree with you on this, but I think people here underestimate the severity of the state employees and teachers pension situation. The unfunded liability for earned benefits is about $26 billion--mostly comprising retirees and older active employees. The annual cost for benefits earned each year is about $400 million. Changing the plan, even for current employees, would reduce the $400 million, but barely impact the $26 billion. Remember that state revenues currently total about $20 billion yearly

To fund the unfunded liability over a reasonable period of say 30 years, would require an annual contribution of over $3 billion, versus the current contribution of just over $2 billion. (These are in addition to employee contributions.) So a dedicated increase of 1.5% in the sales tax (which would raise about $1 billion annually), plus the current contribution, would pay off the unfunded liability in 30 years, not anywhere close to 5 years. There is also a $2 billion bond that was issued a few years ago to pay some of the Teachers' Plan contributions which is due in 2032.

This assumes that pension fund investments earn 8% to 8.5% annually over the period. That now seems unlikely, and if it doesn't happen, even higher contributions will be needed.

According to the Boston College report, the $400 million current cost for benefits is less than than the average of "similar" plans across the country, as a percentage of pay. I don't know how much less a replacement plan of the 401(k) variety would cost, I'm guessing not much. It's not material in the overall picture.

I believe that state pensions will be paid and the state won't go "bankrupt". But some fairly major, long-term tax increases are in store.

Here is a link to an article from November 2015 which covers some of the situation. At the bottom of the article is a link to the Boston College study of the plans. If you go to the study (very long), just read the "Executive Summary".

https://ctmirror.org/2015/11/10/trea...-for-pensions/

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Robert137

I
I believe that state pensions will be paid and the state won't go "bankrupt". But some fairly major, long-term tax increases are in store.

https://ctmirror.org/2015/11/10/trea...-for-pensions/

More major tax increases = startling decline in state tax base= Ct bankruptcy at some point

Just reality.

Outside of anything requiring proximity to Wall St, what Ct has is highly movable.

Des Moines, Iowa is USA's 2nd largest insurance employment center.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

It has to earn a few hundred mill with that headcount.

She can find qualified employees in any state, btw.

I was with 2 national employers whose Southeastern plants were our most profitable, with far fewer quality issues, and better than average customer retention/satisfaction. Ct still has quite a few mfg white collar workforces manufacturing elsewhere. Sturm Ruger for instance small hq in Ct; mfg Prescott, Az. Casco, once based in Bridgeport, last I knew manufactures product in Kentucky. Others, like Beretta, successfully relocated mfg away from Ct, plus white collar staff. It isn't rocket science.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but I would eliminate gun manufacturers from the debate as they moved due to political reasons not economic reasons.

I still do not think that a company can find highly qualified and experienced employees to fill the roles of the company in the story (Lee Manufacturing) in Florida (which is the state she used in the interview) The northeast is loaded with these people not just CT.

They can try to move elsewhere and pay low wages, but if that was plausible they would have moved already. I haven't even begun to analyze the costs it would take to move a company especially one with huge physical assets that may be impossible to move. Any savings a company like Lee Manufacturing could realize would be eaten by the moving expenses alone.

This woman and the complainers like her are only bluffing. They want handouts, tax breaks, subsidized training, etc. Once again if these guys hate the Govt so much why are they trying to get help from the Govt ? What happened to all that boot strap talk ?