[HumpDay]

Many people in my neighborhood have recently moved out of state. A good portion of the individuals moving out state in my neighborhood were because of the states Cost of Living and lack of jobs. Back in the 70s and 80s, many people wanted to move to CT from different parts of the region because of one thing. No Income Tax! I wouldn't necessarily say this was the main reason but many companies moved here because it was cheaper. Unfortunately in 1991, that all changed. Taxes are becoming too expensive and a good portion of us are feeling the squeeze. I don't want to speak for everyone but as I continue to have this conversation with others they mention that the cost of living is too high for many people in this state and that there barely making it by. Not everyone's in this situation. Some people are making it by well while others are struggling. Would you ever think that the state will lower its taxes / cost of living or continue to raise taxes little by little every year?

[newerabuzz]

in central Connecticut the cost of housing is considered 20% undervalued. The only place you may find suitable for your desires for very low taxes, and economic growth that is rapid is in low cost states of the south and great plains.

Many of those fast growing states rely heavily on the production of energy products. also the 'quality of life' in many of these states is something to be desired. remember this CT right now has a good economy that is improving- in fact economic growth this year has been one of the most rapid of all the states.

granted property taxes are high here, as are gasoline taxes. energy costs are higher then average. Property taxes needs to be addressed. Health care costs in Connecticut towns for local employees adds much to the burden of those taxes. But then again we have a health care system that is based on ever increasing profits.

[JayCT]

There is already a thread discussing this topic. I am closing this one down and will merge it into the other. JayCT, Moderator.

[BPt111]

"That’s the argument for the raises, but they will cost taxpayers $1.4 million, and the state faces projected budget deficits of a billion dollars for the next two fiscal years.
“I really don’t think it’s the right time,” said Jeannie Lage. “We have too many other problems right now”
Commissioners who joined the administration at the beginning 4 years ago got 12% raises, those who just recently joined got no raises, everybody else got something around 3% a year. The biggest raise was for the OPM secretary, Ben Barnes he’ll make about 22 and a half thousand dollars more next year."





http://wtnh.com/2014/12/30/residents...staff-raises/]

[Ericthebean]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Malloy won't raise taxes. He legit seems to be cutting spending which is good to see. However, some services might have to be cut or scaled back.

I actually beleive he won't raise taxes.

He doesn't have much of a choice. I would like to see the benefits of the higher taxes without the burden, not because I wouldn't agree to make sacrifices and take on the burden, but because I know other businesses that create all the jobs in the state won't stay here if it comes to higher taxes. So it's not up to me. We are backed into a corner. The only option that is in the best interest of all persons in the state is to cut spending and maybe we concerned citizens can start programs on our own to volunteer charitable giving to the state? It's our best bet.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by Ericthebean

He doesn't have much of a choice. I would like to see the benefits of the higher taxes without the burden, not because I wouldn't agree to make sacrifices and take on the burden, but because I know other businesses that create all the jobs in the state won't stay here if it comes to higher taxes. So it's not up to me. We are backed into a corner. The only option that is in the best interest of all persons in the state is to cut spending and maybe we concerned citizens can start programs on our own to volunteer charitable giving to the state? It's our best bet.

THE option is to transition state employees (even current) to a DC style pension plan as opposed to the Ponzi-like defined benefit system in place today. Current employees receive a rollover lump sum of accumulated cash balances in the pension to be invested in a rollover IRA and future dollars will include both employee and employer contributions. We will have no fiscal woes if this is implemented. Period, full stop. Nothing else will make an impact including raising taxes. We've already seen the highest tax increase in state history and are again looking at a deficit despite record revenues.

[bobtn]

Wilton2ParkAve, Sounds good. I'm not familiar, is DC then I assume defined contribution, not a defined pension payment for life plan? That , if so, is the way to go.

[Ericthebean]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

THE option is to transition state employees (even current) to a DC style pension plan as opposed to the Ponzi-like defined benefit system in place today. Current employees receive a rollover lump sum of accumulated cash balances in the pension to be invested in a rollover IRA and future dollars will include both employee and employer contributions. We will have no fiscal woes if this is implemented. Period, full stop. Nothing else will make an impact including raising taxes. We've already seen the highest tax increase in state history and are again looking at a deficit despite record revenues.

How many people are still actually on the Ponzi-like defined benefit system? Majority are already investing in IRAs and/or receive employer-matching 401k plans. I think this deferred income has had a neutral impact on the state. It has been good news for all 50 states really so it doesn't change the playing field Connecticut vs other states. Passive income earnings have been high since 2009. What is more pertinent to attracting people into Connecticut I think would be more the maximizing of people's after-tax non-deferred disposable income levels.

What I propose for Connecticut is a system where people can be given a choice between 2 separate tax liabilities:
1) the minimum required and

2) The tax liability the state recommends you should pay if you want to save your institutions. The dollar difference between 1) and 2) should be small enough that a conscientious resident would not be painstaked to go with the 2) over 1).

Then people in the state can Choose which one they would like to pay, without penalty or reward for their choice. And the idea here is we can then in our towns and in our freedom of speech and assembly, can encourage our peers to go with the higher tax liability much like we succeeded in getting people to do that ICE bucket challenge. And because the higher amount isn't compelled, you will see people will feel more comfortable living in the state.

And under my proposal, you would be liable up to the minimum in any tax year, unless you already paid the recommended and it's past April 15th then it's too late to change your election for the most recent tax year. Every year you make a new election "minimum or recommended".

[Henry10]

Some problems:

That tax scheme becomes a gimmick, although I would love to see it. I can see election time -- politician X wants to raise taxes on middle class, yet himself only paid the minimum. I definitely do not like the spin -- "pay more to save the institutions." In fact, more taxes only empowers politicians to play God -- take it from this guy and give it to my buddy.

Secondly, most people will not pay the optional. No one in its right mind would pay more tax than necessary. People in fact go to great lengths and expense to not pay one cent more.

Thirdly, its hard enough to budget with the mandatory tax, let alone an optional one.

Fourth, no one is stopping anyone paying more tax than necessary. I would be happy to provide the Payee Name and address where to send your money.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Ericthebean

How many people are still actually on the Ponzi-like defined benefit system? Majority are already investing in IRAs and/or receive employer-matching 401k plans. I think this deferred income has had a neutral impact on the state. It has been good news for all 50 states really so it doesn't change the playing field Connecticut vs other states. Passive income earnings have been high since 2009. What is more pertinent to attracting people into Connecticut I think would be more the maximizing of people's after-tax non-deferred disposable income levels.

What I propose for Connecticut is a system where people can be given a choice between 2 separate tax liabilities:
1) the minimum required and

2) The tax liability the state recommends you should pay if you want to save your institutions. The dollar difference between 1) and 2) should be small enough that a conscientious resident would not be painstaked to go with the 2) over 1).

Then people in the state can Choose which one they would like to pay, without penalty or reward for their choice. And the idea here is we can then in our towns and in our freedom of speech and assembly, can encourage our peers to go with the higher tax liability much like we succeeded in getting people to do that ICE bucket challenge. And because the higher amount isn't compelled, you will see people will feel more comfortable living in the state.

And under my proposal, you would be liable up to the minimum in any tax year, unless you already paid the recommended and it's past April 15th then it's too late to change your election for the most recent tax year. Every year you make a new election "minimum or recommended".

Interesting idea, but no one will ever pay the "recommended tax"

This sounds like something John Galt would propose.