[JayCT]

Originally Posted by AntonioR

The Gold Coast is aptly named.

Connecticut’s Gold Coast back on top for personal income

No,it can't be. The wealthy are fleeing Connecticut, aren't they??? �� Jay

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by JayCT

No,it can't be. The wealthy are fleeing Connecticut, aren't they??? �� Jay

NYC and Westchester County is expensive so why not FFC it close. it just little NYC wealth spill into FFC

[NewBritainCT_native89]

Nice

Large pasta producer expands, building facility in South Windsor | WTNH Connecticut News

[clutchrider]

Konica Minolta plans to move hundreds of jobs out of CT - WFSB 3 Connecticut

And another hit.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by AntonioR

The Gold Coast is aptly named.

Connecticut’s Gold Coast back on top for personal income

Thanks Antonio.

To all the naysayers about my post #9088 where I stated.... "I (CTartist) live in Fairfield County (in the I-95 and Merritt Parkway corridor) and we are not being driven into the ground, we are growing."

Told you so.

I have hundreds of relatives/friends in Fairfield County and just about everyone is doing well or VERY well.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by clutchrider

Konica Minolta plans to move hundreds of jobs out of CT - WFSB 3 Connecticut

And another hit.

Lost to NJ. Like Bayer once was.



Appears this will be a loss several times the size of Carla Pasta gain, in the same region.

[CTartist]

The entire Fairfield County is coming back!

A few years back our county fell out of the top 25 for income. I remember I was shocked. We are now #11 on the Forbes list of counties with the highest earners. Go FFC Go!

http://www3.forbes.com/business/wher...ers-cluster/21

[RunD1987]

Odd question about CT taxes. What if CT made towns replace tax with a lump service fee. So say anyone who owns property a house or car or etc...The highest property value is taxed at a certain percentage. So if you make $1,000 to $20K taxed at .005. If $20K to $40K taxed at .01. If $40K to $60K .015. $60K to $80K .02. Then $80K on .025.

Think it would be good or bad for the State?

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

Odd question about CT taxes. What if CT made towns replace tax with a lump service fee. So say anyone who owns property a house or car or etc...The highest property value is taxed at a certain percentage. So if you make $1,000 to $20K taxed at .005. If $20K to $40K taxed at .01. If $40K to $60K .015. $60K to $80K .02. Then $80K on .025.

Think it would be good or bad for the State?

Running a quick estimate your proposed rates would result in towns receiving only about 1/4 of the amount they currently receive. Take an average property tax rate of $6,000 (not including cars) and the median household income of say $75,000 at your proposed rate of 2% and you get $1500/$6000 = 25% of current tax amount.

About 60% of most town's budgets are for education. I can't see how any town would be able to absorb a 75% reduction in their collected revenue and maintain anywhere close to the level of services and infrastructure they currently provide. Regionalizing can reduce some costs but not eliminate the majority of them. Additionally, for many towns, the cuts implemented in the recently-approved state budget, especially in education, are putting additional costs on the towns to absorb. The national trend in education, clouded in euphemisms, is moving toward a homogeneous-defined curriculum (Common Core) aided by educational software developed by large corporate educational firms for delivery and assessment. Ultimately this product will be delivered by new college graduates paid significantly less than current teachers who will only spend 3 to 5 years in education. The belief is that this will bring the costs of public education down significantly. Assuming salaries for teachers are 40% of the education budget that would translate into an opportunity to reduce a component that accounts for about 24% of the town's overall budget. If the salaries could be brought down to half the current rate that would account for at least a 12% savings plus reduced healthcare exposure for self-insured municipalities and pensions costs for the state. I am not endorsing this plan or judging the pros and cons just stating what I see emerging nationwide. Even if these savings in education are realized it will take several years to translate into savings in town budgets. These changes along with regionalization could eventually translate to possibly a 20% savings for some municipalities. In any case, it's not something that can take significant costs out of the current budgets without significantly impacting class sizes, offerings and services.

[RunD1987]

I could see it pushing housing cost down. If you made $75K and own a $500K house paying close to $10K.

Actually probably work better if tier was based off property value than income. So it take a percentage of your highest property value.
So $1K to $25K taxed at .5% with a .1% rebate back from the town/city of amount paid.
$25K to $75K taxed at 1% with a .5% rebate back from the town/city amount paid.
$75K to $500K taxed at 2.0% with a 1.5% rebate back from town/city of amount paid.
$500K to $1 Million taxed at 2.5% with a 2% rebate back from the town/city amount paid.
$1 Million + 3.0% with a 5% rebate back from the State of amount paid.

Then cities of 75 000 or more can add a 10% tax or lower to service fee to cover school's and municipalities in various cities in CT.

So say you have a $200K house it cost $4,000 in taxes + another $400 if in a larger city in CT.