Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-28-2016, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,700 posts, read 56,496,602 times
Reputation: 11162

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
The big picture folks miss is while Ct pays greenmail to retain existing corps, other states use their economic incentives not to retain, but to get more to come to them.


What Malloy has to do paying greenmail is like you paying your boss every payday a bribe to keep your job.
Not many companies move without incentives from the state. Massachusetts and Boston are paying a lot for the 200 GE corporate jobs. So Connecticut has a choice, either play the game or lose out. That simple. Jay

 
Old 08-28-2016, 02:05 PM
 
33,800 posts, read 16,800,480 times
Reputation: 17106
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Not many companies move without incentives from the state. Massachusetts and Boston are paying a lot for the 200 GE corporate jobs. So Connecticut has a choice, either play the game or lose out. That simple. Jay


Big difference, JayCt: (Offense) Ma paid to gain a corp hq. Not just to keep one (Defense).


Other states are playing offense with economic stimulus; Ct is playing defense. Must return to a position where Ct can play offense. It did, decades back, when being income tax free then, it lured Westchester County corps across the state line.
 
Old 08-28-2016, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,700 posts, read 56,496,602 times
Reputation: 11162
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter View Post
That isn't true at all. Look at it this way, taxes and location are two parts of the equation of where GE decides to go.

They saved money going to MA AND they get a better location. The point is that if CT wants to retain businesses they have to have a better tax structure if their location is inferior.

MA has a better location and tax structure so it was a no brainer. If politicians want to keep businesses from leaving there has to be a reason to stay, and their isn't.

You can't raise taxes and expect nothing to happen. This scenario reminds me of Aetna's decision to drop out of 70% of the Obamacare exchanges. Its the same principle, they are losing money and are better off getting out of the market.

In this case businesses are better off leaving CT for greener pastures for either tax or location reasons. Its very simple, but we need to stop the constant lying about why companies are choosing to go.

All I ask is that the lying stop
No one has argued that Connecticut does not need to reduce its taxes BUT when GE announced that it was moving its corporate headquarters to Boston, it's official statement said NOTHING about taxes. As kidyankee said, if it was really about tax savings they would not have moved to Massachusetts. In fact, if it was taxes, they would have moved more than 200 of the 800 corporate headquarters jobs that they have here. Jay
 
Old 08-28-2016, 02:43 PM
 
789 posts, read 698,602 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
No one has argued that Connecticut does not need to reduce its taxes BUT when GE announced that it was moving its corporate headquarters to Boston, it's official statement said NOTHING about taxes. As kidyankee said, if it was really about tax savings they would not have moved to Massachusetts. In fact, if it was taxes, they would have moved more than 200 of the 800 corporate headquarters jobs that they have here. Jay
When an MLB pitcher signs a $100m deal to play in another city and at the press conference he says "it wasn't about the money" you can be sure it was about the money. It always is. I can assure you corporate planners at GE were salivating at what seems like a "small" tax difference but to GE means a boatload of savings. You can't find an article on the subject that doesn't mention the taxes as a major reason. I fail to understand why admitting this is taboo.
 
Old 08-28-2016, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,700 posts, read 56,496,602 times
Reputation: 11162
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
When an MLB pitcher signs a $100m deal to play in another city and at the press conference he says "it wasn't about the money" you can be sure it was about the money. It always is. I can assure you corporate planners at GE were salivating at what seems like a "small" tax difference but to GE means a boatload of savings. You can't find an article on the subject that doesn't mention the taxes as a major reason. I fail to understand why admitting this is taboo.
GE had no reason to not say it. In fact, it would have been a good excuse for them. A ball player has to at least try to look humble. If not, they come off as arrogant and will never build a large fan following. That is what sells tickets and gets them the big contract to begin with. Sorry but there is nothing to suggest GE cared about taxes when making their decision. Jay
 
Old 08-28-2016, 05:10 PM
 
789 posts, read 698,602 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
GE had no reason to not say it. In fact, it would have been a good excuse for them. A ball player has to at least try to look humble. If not, they come off as arrogant and will never build a large fan following. That is what sells tickets and gets them the big contract to begin with. Sorry but there is nothing to suggest GE cared about taxes when making their decision. Jay
Nothing accept they announced the move stating:

(From WSJ): GE first publicly threatened its move in June, blaming a Connecticut budget deal that raised corporate taxes and what company officials described as an inhospitable business climate.

There were many factors but the tax climate was one of the biggies.
 
Old 08-28-2016, 05:10 PM
 
33,800 posts, read 16,800,480 times
Reputation: 17106
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
No one has argued that Connecticut does not need to reduce its taxes BUT

pigs will fly before Malloy and Looney cut corporate taxes, in a meaningful, change the State Business Climate ranking, kind of way.


Step 1 is admitting that this gang is not going to do what you said is needed above. EVER.
 
Old 08-28-2016, 07:42 PM
 
1,679 posts, read 3,005,758 times
Reputation: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
GE had no reason to not say it. In fact, it would have been a good excuse for them. A ball player has to at least try to look humble. If not, they come off as arrogant and will never build a large fan following. That is what sells tickets and gets them the big contract to begin with. Sorry but there is nothing to suggest GE cared about taxes when making their decision. Jay
GE discussed taxes in the link I provided.

You can google it
 
Old 08-28-2016, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Woburn, MA / W. Hartford, CT
6,006 posts, read 4,987,806 times
Reputation: 4040
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter View Post
GE discussed taxes in the link I provided.

You can google it
If you're referring to the National Review article you linked to earlier...I'm not seeing GE discussing taxes anywhere. There is a statement in the article, "It’s also no surprise that GE CEO Jeff Immelt began talking publically about a corporate relocation right after Connecticut passed its gigantic tax hike last summer" which is purely circumstantial. A relocation of this type would have to have been in planning for much longer than that.

And keep in mind, GE was also strongly considering Atlanta for its HQ, where its Power division has a strong presence. If taxes were a factor, Georgia would have been WAY more attractive than Massachusetts.

GE has a recent track record of making investments in new facilities according to where the talent pool is. That's why their Digital division opened a big R&D center in the Bay Area (probably the most expensive area of the country) and their Oil & Gas division opened a new R&D center in Oklahoma City.
 
Old 08-28-2016, 09:17 PM
 
33,800 posts, read 16,800,480 times
Reputation: 17106
Quote:
Originally Posted by htfdcolt View Post
GE has a recent track record of making investments in new facilities according to where the talent pool is. That's why their Digital division opened a big R&D center in the Bay Area (probably the most expensive area of the country) and their Oil & Gas division opened a new R&D center in Oklahoma City.

So GE could not find enough talent in Ct per the above. Interesting. More distressing than a tax/cost issue, too.
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top