[bobtn]

HeadedWest, Look for Beekers new metric to be hailed by Wall Street, the P/T ratio (Price/Taxes). In the liberal fairy tale world, as we speak, corp execs are meeting all over America itching to uncover tax laws which would enable them to pay more taxes, declare less profit, and redistribute wealth.
LOL!
In recent months, UTC revealed their A(nywhere) B(ut) C(onnecticut) policy, bragged of their ability over the years to relocate ever higher percentages of their activities into low cost states, and nations, bragged that Sikorsky has a minority of its headcount in its home state, and called the Ct business climate the worst they'd encountered in the nation. AETNA's statements mirrored UTC's, and CBIA was unimpressed with Malloy's title of 2011 Governor who increased the most taxes. UTC's domino affect on jobs in the lower Ct counties is vital, many machine shops most likely fold without corps like Sikorsky at its present size or larger. AETNA's affect is vital, as is he CBIA's.

1990-2011 Ct only-no net job growth. It doesn't change with higher tax rates. Andrew Cuomo even understands that message in NY, so even an uber liberal can absorb it. AC's expressed willingness to cut jobs and government size will to some degree, mitigate the damage his dad did. Christie gets it, as do almost all of the new class of governors. Malloy raises taxes first-and what one does FIRST speaks volumes about their priorities. Follows that up with attending a labor rally railing aganist increased state worker insurance premiums (boo hoo) to 1/2 level of private scetor paying those state benefits, LOL, when the Ct unions protest his desires on 3/2, will Malloy hold signs with his image in effagy protesting the cutbacks?

[bobtn]

UTC Chief Financial Officer: Connecticut Too Expensive To Do Work | TradingMarkets.com (http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/utx_utc-chief-financial-officer-connecticut-too-expensive-to-do-work-844250.html - broken link)

[JViello]

Originally Posted by nep321

58% of CT residents have considered moving out of CT due to the tax increases! And Malloy's approval rating is 50%.

Malloy's Proposal To End Property Tax Credit Opposed In Poll; Survey Shows Support For Spending Cuts, Opposition to Tax Hikes; Malloy's Early Approval Rating Is 50 Percent - Capitol Watch

Interesting. I guess when mlassoff said "no one is moving" saying we are all chicken littles, he was - shocker, wrong.

As I said several pages back, this is the early 90's all over again. My only regret was thinking CT got the message the last time and was "fixing" things. Guess not.

Originally Posted by bobtn

Amen. Income Rediistribution has been practiced in Ct the entire 22 year period of NO net job creation. Its quite an achievement ranking below Michigan in job growth; analigious to finding an NBA team worse than Cleveland.
Insanity is the act of trying the same thing again and again, and expecting different results.

Haha...it's really pretty freakin sad when you think about it. I guess guys like Beeker are like the people on the titanic who were up to their ankles in water arguing there was absolutely nothing to worry about. After all THIS boat can't sink, the hull is made from x steel, and it has y bafflles, and they engineered z into the lower decks etc etc while the rats were smart enough to flee for their lives.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

You can get the results just as easily as I can. But what you continually fail to accomplish is how lessening those burdens make up for what is lost and exceed what is made here. So other areas had "good growth" but in reality it was bad and lame growth and now the whole country, and world, suffers. I'm sorry, but bringing the marginal costs down usually means you pay for it somehow, if there's actually a free lunch to be had show me in detail.

BTW I'm an independent contractor, so me getting employees is bad business sense. However, I talk to plenty of clients, leads, and fellows in the field and very few if any at all complain about what you do. For instance, a C/O that takes 30 days? Might be possible on an off chance, but really no one I've had the pleasure of meeting has had a similar issue enough times to bring it up. Cost of managing employees is high, but so is the quality of work.

So, in the end all that to say you can't answer these things and do NOT deal with them on a daily basis.

Par for the course for you folks on the other side. It's all theory and conjecture.

I for one will miss the state, but I won't miss this crap, I can assure you.

[nep321]

This state is in shambles. No wonder only 1% of the U.S. population actually lives here.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by nep321

This state is in shambles. No wonder only 1% of the U.S. population actually lives here.

Again, you make ridiculous uninformed statements.

Connecticut is actually the fourth most dense state in the country.

List of U.S. states by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering our land area is so small, it is actually a testament that 1% of the population lives here.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by bobtn

HeadedWest, Look for Beekers new metric to be hailed by Wall Street, the P/T ratio (Price/Taxes). In the liberal fairy tale world, as we speak, corp execs are meeting all over America itching to uncover tax laws which would enable them to pay more taxes, declare less profit, and redistribute wealth.

Actually it was the conservative side of this argument that was rolling out the ridiculous and farcical link between investment and corporate taxes. You guys claimed that:

[/quote]Whiiiiich makes the company less attractive to investors, capital funding disappears, layoffs ensue, product suffers, and the company ends up in chapter 13 with it's hand out because it's too big to fail.[/quote]

Another commented that higher corporate taxes would lead to hostile corporate takeovers (which ironically occur by PURCHASING stock, reducing demand and driving stock prices UP)....

While protecting corporations from a tax increase they can easily afford, you slit your throat and that of the rest of the middle class. At least you feel ideologically pure, I guess.

By the way, corporate tax rates don't really to change at all-- What needs to change are the enormous number and variety of tax loopholes that corporations use to pay little to no tax. This is a tax hike-- just not a change in the percentage.

Again, I also advocate reducing taxes on those making under 100K.

How many of you have worked for a publicly traded company? I have worked for four and was a corporate officer for two... So I am speaking from experience instead of ideology.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

... protecting corporations from a tax increase they can easily afford, ...

That's a bold assertion. Proof?

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

That's a bold assertion. Proof?

11/23/2010
Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/bu...my/24econ.html

I don't care if you don't like the source. The report is factual. Thanks for playing.

[ctwhitechin]

my wife has heard talk of a vote to absurdly raise her nursing license way above the $100 annual fee she now pays. We are putting our home on the market hopefully soon and are out. Moved here from NY a few years ago but this is getting no better. Not 100% sure where next, depends on job opps for me more, thinking Delaware, way south Jersey, eastern PA around Philly, even R.I. but this isn't going to work, for us any more.

A big corporation would have to be crazy to relocate here.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

11/23/2010
Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/bu...my/24econ.html

I don't care if you don't like the source. The report is factual. Thanks for playing.

So what is the metric for knowing profits are too high?

As the article states, most of these profits were earned outside the US; what would be your plan to grab those?