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.
Re: county level, the problem in CT is wasteful spending. Independent police departments, fire departments, school districts with six figure administrators at each school. It’s unneeded and partially why the tax burden is what it is. We can jump up and down and clap our hands all day long about the quality of our wealthy suburban districts, when the highest taxed communities in CT have some of the worst performing schools in the western world.
The problem in Connecticut is spending on the bottom-20% of the population (safety net and propping up schools in low income places) combined with debt, unfunded pension liability, and public sector union contracts with no short-term escape. Most of us want the "good government" stuff where it's more efficient and makes better use of our tax dollars but that's not where most of the budget dollars are going. You can't do anything about the debt other than stop piling it up and start paying it down. Ditto the unfunded pension liability issue. The public sector union contracts can't be fixed in January after the election. That leaves the safety net as the 800 pound gorilla. Do you adopt red state Medicaid rules? Do you let the school systems fail in the low income areas? If you want to slash spending, it's going to be the dollars spent on poor people. That includes grandma in the nursing home where Medicaid foots the bill since that's now 35% of Medicaid spending and growing quickly. A bunch of hospitals fail. That's a really tough choice.
It may be wasteful money-wise but do you really want decisions made about your community to be made by some regional agency far away from where you live? I don't. Also I have seen how well regional emergency services work for my family down south. It was not good and likely life-threatening. And while yes, Connecticut has some of the worst performing school districts (mostly in our cities), we also have some of the best and those in number and performance FAR outweigh the bad ones. As has been documented on this forum numerous times, overall our schools are a LOT better than other states. Again what these evaluations have nothing to do with the author of the article, anymore than the other rankings have to do with the posters here who cite them do. Jay
The actual evaluations don’t have anything to do with the author, but the way he presents them, with his opinions, do. Again, one look at the guy’s past and it’s clear he has ulterior motives. Anyway, all I’m reading now are reasons why CT’s tax rates are so high. Lots of attempts at justification.
I’m curious to hear more on how regional first responder agencies are life threatening, though.
The problem in Connecticut is spending on the bottom-20% of the population (safety net and propping up schools in low income places) combined with debt, unfunded pension liability, and public sector union contracts with no short-term escape. Most of us want the "good government" stuff where it's more efficient and makes better use of our tax dollars but that's not where most of the budget dollars are going. You can't do anything about the debt other than stop piling it up and start paying it down. Ditto the unfunded pension liability issue. The public sector union contracts can't be fixed in January after the election. That leaves the safety net as the 800 pound gorilla. Do you adopt red state Medicaid rules? Do you let the school systems fail in the low income areas? If you want to slash spending, it's going to be the dollars spent on poor people. That includes grandma in the nursing home where Medicaid foots the bill since that's now 35% of Medicaid spending and growing quickly. A bunch of hospitals fail. That's a really tough choice.
You’re correct. I should’ve said “mismanagement” instead of “wasteful spending”. It’s funny how the author of the article wrote a separate piece on how he feels spending and money management have been appropriate since the 80s. That should tell everyone how much worth today’s article has.
As I said, garbage. Better yet, political garbage.
The actual evaluations don’t have anything to do with the author, but the way he presents them, with his opinions, do. Again, one look at the guy’s past and it’s clear he has ulterior motives. Anyway, all I’m reading now are reasons why CT’s tax rates are so high. Lots of attempts at justification.
I’m curious to hear more on how regional first responder agencies are life threatening, though.
If you must know, I have family in Florida. They are in an area with county law enforcement and emergency services. When my elderly aunt got sick, the response time was almost 2 hours. This affected her health the rest of her life. Also there was a fire at an adjacent home that took a long time for a fire response. IF my cousin had not been home that day and did not take her hoses and wet down her house and property, her home could have caught fire too. I have already relayed their story of a key road they use taking years to be repaired causing them to have to drive extra distances because the road was not a high priority to the county.
Again the article may present his opinions but they are based on evaluations made by others. Does not change the results or the facts given. Jay
If you must know, I have family in Florida. They are in an area with county law enforcement and emergency services. When my elderly aunt got sick, the response time was almost 2 hours. This affected her health the rest of her life. Also there was a fire at an adjacent home that took a long time for a fire response. IF my cousin had not been home that day and did not take her hoses and wet down her house and property, her home could have caught fire too. I have already relayed their story of a key road they use taking years to be repaired causing them to have to drive extra distances because the road was not a high priority to the county.
Again the article may present his opinions but they are based on evaluations made by others. Does not change the results or the facts given. Jay
Their situation was unacceptable and is not at all the norm. Regional services in FL (such as sheriffs office and dispatch communications) boast quick response times overall. That said, CT has major response time issues also, because they don’t have regional full time services in the immediate area. Many small towns have volunteer ambulance and fire, leading to similar response times as your family experienced. I can tell you firsthand in northern FFC, in a community with volunteer EMS, it wasn’t uncommon to wait for well over an hour. Again, unacceptable.
Re: the article, you can manipulate statistics to fit any agenda. That’s what’s happening here.
Their situation was unacceptable and is not at all the norm. Regional services in FL (such as sheriffs office and dispatch communications) boast quick response times overall. That said, CT has major response time issues also, because they don’t have regional full time services in the immediate area. Many small towns have volunteer ambulance and fire, leading to similar response times as your family experienced. I can tell you firsthand in northern FFC, in a community with volunteer EMS, it wasn’t uncommon to wait for well over an hour. Again, unacceptable.
Re: the article, you can manipulate statistics to fit any agenda. That’s what’s happening here.
Sorry but I have other family member here who in emergencies have had responses in minutes, not hours. I agree there are other places in Florida where I am sure the response times are lower but those are not necessarily regional systems. I can see having regional 911 response centers (which we do have) but not fire and police departments.
And you are right statistics can be manipulated to fit an agenda. Apparently the often cited Tax Foundation has been doing that too and these studies call them out. Makes you wonder. Jay
Sorry but I have other family member here who in emergencies have had responses in minutes, not hours. I agree there are other places in Florida where I am sure the response times are lower but those are not necessarily regional systems. I can see having regional 911 response centers (which we do have) but not fire and police departments.
And you are right statistics can be manipulated to fit an agenda. Apparently the often cited Tax Foundation has been doing that too and these studies call them out. Makes you wonder. Jay
And most areas of FL also have responses in minutes. But we are getting off topic.
These studies call nobody out. They’re just another study. As you know, and as I’ve said numerous times, you can mold statistics to fit whatever agenda you want to push. That’s the case here. An extra “lol” at the author.
And most areas of FL also have responses in minutes. But we are getting off topic.
These studies call nobody out. They’re just another study. As you know, and as I’ve said numerous times, you can mold statistics to fit whatever agenda you want to push. That’s the case here. An extra “lol” at the author.
I think you are right. Its kind of complicated and you practically have to be a government accountant to read all this but he seems to be manipulating the numbers.
For instance, one of his arguments is that many studies only look at taxes, which makes Connecticut and other high tax Northeast states look pretty bad. He says that many studies do not take into account "non tax revenue (such as fees, tolls and charges) as part of total own source revenue. He has a point. Or does he?
Because he says that Connecticut is one of the lowest states with "non tax revenue" making up only 16% of Connecticut's total own source revenue compared to a national average of 31% (and South Carolina about 45%). At first that makes Connecticut look good so I decided to compare Connecticut to her nearest states in population.
State ------ Population ----- Budget ---- Credit Rating --- Approx. $$ collected from non- tax revenue
Iowa --------- 3,135,000 -- $ 8.5 Billion -- - AAA ------------ $2.6 Billion (.31 x 8.5)
Connecticut -- 3,576,000 - $20.5 Billion -- AA minus ------ $3.28 (.16 x 20.5)
Oklahoma --- 3,923,000 - $ 6.8 Billion - -- AA plus --------- $2.1 Billion (.31 x 6.8)
Note that I am estimating Iowa and Oklahoma as the National average of 31%. But the point is that even though Iowa and Oklahoma are taking a higher percentage of their budget as non-tax revenue (fees and tolls), 31% instead of 16% it is still less than Connecticut because Connecticut has such a large state budget for its population size. In other words, Connecticut is not only taking more income taxes from her residents, she is taking in more "non tax revenue" as well, compared to states her own size.
I think you are right. Its kind of complicated and you practically have to be a government accountant to read all this but he seems to be manipulating the numbers.
For instance, one of his arguments is that many studies only look at taxes, which makes Connecticut and other high tax Northeast states look pretty bad. He says that many studies do not take into account "non tax revenue (such as fees, tolls and charges) as part of total own source revenue. He has a point. Or does he?
Because he says that Connecticut is one of the lowest states with "non tax revenue" making up only 16% of Connecticut's total own source revenue compared to a national average of 31% (and South Carolina about 45%). At first that makes Connecticut look good so I decided to compare Connecticut to her nearest states in population.
State ------ Population ----- Budget ---- Credit Rating --- Approx. $$ collected from non- tax revenue
Iowa --------- 3,135,000 -- $ 8.5 Billion -- - AAA ------------ $2.6 Billion (.31 x 8.5)
Connecticut -- 3,576,000 - $20.5 Billion -- AA minus ------ $3.28 (.16 x 20.5)
Oklahoma --- 3,923,000 - $ 6.8 Billion - -- AA plus --------- $2.1 Billion (.31 x 6.8)
Note that I am estimating Iowa and Oklahoma as the National average of 31%. But the point is that even though Iowa and Oklahoma are taking a higher percentage of their budget as non-tax revenue (fees and tolls), 31% instead of 16% it is still less than Connecticut because Connecticut has such a large state budget for its population size. In other words, Connecticut is not only taking more income taxes from her residents, she is taking in more "non tax revenue" as well, compared to states her own size.
Exactly. As I stated, this snake has a vested interest in state politics. All it takes is a small amount of research to see his pattern of attempts at downplaying the tax wrath of his party. And to think people fall for it.
I think you are right. Its kind of complicated and you practically have to be a government accountant to read all this but he seems to be manipulating the numbers.
For instance, one of his arguments is that many studies only look at taxes, which makes Connecticut and other high tax Northeast states look pretty bad. He says that many studies do not take into account "non tax revenue (such as fees, tolls and charges) as part of total own source revenue. He has a point. Or does he?
Because he says that Connecticut is one of the lowest states with "non tax revenue" making up only 16% of Connecticut's total own source revenue compared to a national average of 31% (and South Carolina about 45%). At first that makes Connecticut look good so I decided to compare Connecticut to her nearest states in population.
State ------ Population ----- Budget ---- Credit Rating --- Approx. $$ collected from non- tax revenue
Iowa --------- 3,135,000 -- $ 8.5 Billion -- - AAA ------------ $2.6 Billion (.31 x 8.5)
Connecticut -- 3,576,000 - $20.5 Billion -- AA minus ------ $3.28 (.16 x 20.5)
Oklahoma --- 3,923,000 - $ 6.8 Billion - -- AA plus --------- $2.1 Billion (.31 x 6.8)
Note that I am estimating Iowa and Oklahoma as the National average of 31%. But the point is that even though Iowa and Oklahoma are taking a higher percentage of their budget as non-tax revenue (fees and tolls), 31% instead of 16% it is still less than Connecticut because Connecticut has such a large state budget for its population size. In other words, Connecticut is not only taking more income taxes from her residents, she is taking in more "non tax revenue" as well, compared to states her own size.
You are making an assumption that those states are at the national average but they could be higher. Remember Oklahoma is an oil state so I would guess they get a high percentage from their oil production. Iowa is a farm state which gets massive federal subsidies. Plus the incomes of those states are both significantly lower. Iowa’s median income is $56,000; Oklahoma is $49,000 while Connecticut is $73,000.
On top of this you are making the same mistake the Tax Foundation made. You are only looking at the state budget. As I said, our state does not have counties and takes on many of the duties that counties in those other states do so you need to add the county budgets to the state budgets if you are even to come close to an equatable comparison. Jay
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.
Jay
