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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2019, 12:53 PM
 
1,852 posts, read 641,357 times
Reputation: 1911

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CamonYallCTaintThatBad View Post
As some of us know, there's a contract in place ratified in 2017. It includes higher contribution from employees toward pensions, higher cost of healthcare premiums, a new tier for the newest employees who's pensions won't be as good as the previous 3 tiers - among a few other things. Also however, employees are expecting a couple raises in the next 2 years as well as "step" increases. The average employee could be grossing an extra $5 or $6k a year come 2021. This on top of a master pension/healthcare benefits agreement that's locked in until 2027.

Unions are a powerful lobby in CT. CT is only 1 of 4 states that set their benefits through collective bargaining rather than state statute. So any changes to anything would have to be approved by union leadership. The legislature can't just step in and change benefits by themselves. Crazy right ?? So anything that Lamont may ask of the unions, would have to be agreed upon by the leadership. Unless the legislature passes a bill that limits collective bargaining and weakens union powers. But the new legislature is VERY blue right now - why would they pass such a law ? They wouldn't. If they did, there goes campaign donations from the unions come next election.

The unions already feel squeezed from the concessions asked of them in 2011 and 2017. However, in my opinion they got off pretty easy both times. Benefits from state employees are still fantastic - contrary to what a local union president may say. Unions could give up a little more and still be in really good shape. If only leadership saw this and stopped recommending CT's wealthy pay more in taxes. More taxes isn't the answer.

In order to get out of this fiscal mess CT is in, it needs more help from the unions. My spouse is a rank & file state employee as well as my friends and other relatives. Obviously I wish them wealth & success - however, they know that the union leadership in CT is greedy and out of touch when it comes to the financial crisis. Unfortunately they have to give up more for a better fiscal path in CT. But again - a contract is in place. Lamont can't just tell them they have to do this or give up that. How does he convince union leadership to agree to more concessions ? What does he ask of them ? Higher pension contributions ? Cancelling the upcoming raises for employees ? Buying out pensions of Tier1 employees ? What's your thoughts ?

Edit - here's a link to an article posted yesterday which is why I bring this topic up for discussion - https://ctmirror.org/2019/01/11/lamo...ening-address/
The only explanation is that the unions and the Democrats(one in the same) and the bond holders, quietly, believe that once CT goes belly up and can’t pay its bills the federal government will bail them out like they did GM and Puerto Rico, especially if there’s Democrat leadership at the time, so there’s no need to make major concessions. It’s totally irresponsible logic. Politicians from responsible states(the vast majority)should make it a point to say CT, Illinois, New Jersey we are NOT bailing you out when the chickens come home to roost so get your finances in order.

Last edited by cttransplant85; 01-12-2019 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2019, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
25,093 posts, read 40,807,150 times
Reputation: 7275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85 View Post
The only explanation is that the unions and the Democrats(one in the same) and the bond holders, quietly, believe that once CT goes belly up and canít pay its bills the federal government will bail them out like they did GM and Puerto Rico, especially if thereís Democrat leadership at the time, so thereís no need to make major concessions. Itís totally irresponsible logic. Politicians from responsible states(the vast majority)should make it a point to say CT, Illinois, New Jersey we are NOT bailing you out when the chickens come home to roost so get your finances in order.
I am not sure I agree with you that Connecticut (or the other states for that matter) will ever need Federal assistance BUT I do want to remind you that Connecticut has LONG been a donor state to the Federal government and it is in their best interest to protect that. Maybe it is time we got back some of the billions we have paid over the decades to support those other states that get a LOT of federal money each year. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 04:32 PM
 
17,155 posts, read 6,505,574 times
Reputation: 7355
I suspect States will never be bailed out regarding pensions. Illinois will come first, then NJ. Pension shortfalls gigantic.

A few municipalities have defaulted already, and their states did not assist.

I would be curious to see donor defined solely using cash transfers-not land value or services rendered also, btw, regarding states. In other words, donor (yes or no?) on a cash flow basis only.

Either way, post Illinois, I suspect government unions will be far more receptive to modifying long-term liabilities to avoid larger haircuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Fairfield County CT
1,719 posts, read 864,060 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Actually according to an article in this morning's Hartford Courant, Connecticut is now No. 50 in the amount it gets back from the Federal Government. We only get 74 cents for every dollar we send. Jay

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-...u3a-story.html
I am seeing a different article.

I think it will only get worse now that the SALT deductions are capped at $10,000. It will go lower than 74 cents back. And that will hurt our economy here in CT. I hope all the Republicans who will lament on Lamont and say he is making our economy worse remember we are going to have less money in our state SPECIFICALLY because of Trump and the Republicans and their new tax plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 05:55 PM
 
17,155 posts, read 6,505,574 times
Reputation: 7355
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTartist View Post
I am seeing a different article.

I think it will only get worse now that the SALT deductions are capped at $10,000. It will go lower than 74 cents back. .
We should not be paying so much more than 10k. That is the real issue.

Ct government spending has soared the last few decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 07:00 PM
 
543 posts, read 249,726 times
Reputation: 619
Current state retirees are collecting far better pensions than future retirees will receive. Every time state contracts have been re-negotiated for the last 30 years or so, pensions have gotten progressively worse for currently working state employees. But if course these new, worse pensions didn't hit people who were hired under the old pension plan. So the savings to the state is a slow, gradual process.

There's no pension crisis. It's already been taken care of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
14,936 posts, read 18,324,772 times
Reputation: 3437
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
We should not be paying so much more than 10k. That is the real issue.

Ct government spending has soared the last few decades.
There are many more states where a successful person pays more than $10k combined property and state tax than not, including red states.

The fact we pay more to the feds is insult to injury.

That part of the bill was a personal vendetta to blue states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,055 posts, read 13,615,469 times
Reputation: 6809
It's quite sad that some people view SNAP recipients as "freeloaders." SNAP serves a very important purpose; a safety net to prevent hunger and many people truly NEED it. You can't just look at those who are abusing it and assume that ALL recipients are abusing it. I like to ask....when was the last time you saw an honest person using their SNAP benefits? Huh?

Not to mention, welfare spending is a VERY small portion of the state and federal budgets. Even if they were abolished, it wouldn't do much to resolve the budget problems.

Living in a red state isn't all its cracked up to be. I live in one now. Wages are LOW. Rents are not any cheaper. There are more poor people and poverty, crime and schools are much worse overall. Obesity is higher. No income tax? Big deal. If 5% of your income is so critical to have, then fine, move to a no income tax state.

I still like Florida though and do not plan to move back to CT ever. I am thrilled that tomorrow will be 75 degrees and sunny. And six months out of the year, it's under 80 degrees. In fact, here in Jacksonville, even in the summer, it's usually under 90.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 11:17 PM
 
17,155 posts, read 6,505,574 times
Reputation: 7355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
There are many more states where a successful person pays more than $10k combined property and state tax than not, including red states.

The fact we pay more to the feds is insult to injury.

That part of the bill was a personal vendetta to blue states.

Taxes should not rise faster than the overall COL, in any state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 01:04 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
3,600 posts, read 2,794,676 times
Reputation: 2363
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Malloy left Lamont a mess by missing his golden chance.

He laid off 6k when they refused his "last, best offer", then let them accept a better one, rescinding all 6k layoffs.

He should have let the layoffs happen, or at minimum, waited 6 months to offer a weaker deal being accepted (much higher health care contrib on par with private sector) in return for rescinding HALF the 6k layoffs, with a state legislature PERMANENT cap on FTEs at that level.

Once Malloy folded, it was game, set, match. State Unions 1, State Finances 0.

I am not a Lamont fan, but no fleeing gov left any Ct gov such a bad hand as today.

Your memory is bad. Malloy issued lay off notices to 10k state employees, followed thru with **** canning 2,800. The 6,200 employees that were not laid off was a result of the various unions negotiating with Malloy. Also, as part of that negotiation the unions received a no lay off clause.



Your continuous spread of false information isn't helping.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top