[CTbrooktrout]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Not a bad deal. At least 4 in 7 are spared (2,000/3,500), plus it buys the state 5 years to come up with a bigger deal to try to retain them for a far longer period of time. Like it or not, these deals are how the game is played today.

And the Hartford Courant article states:

In July, New Jersey gave UBS $27 million in tax breaks after it threatened to move 2,000 jobs to either New York or Connecticut.

Amazing strategy!!! Establish offices in a location that is relatively close to 3 different states, threaten each one to move jobs from one state to the others, and collect incentives from them all.

We need to start voting in some poker players into office b/c our politicians are playing weak hands.

The building in Stamford is really excellent. They have a hard time recruiting investment bankers? RBS isn't complaining about location. Bridgewater, the world's largest hedge fund even further up the coast in Westport isn't complaining, they're thriving and expanding.

$20M is nothing compared to what a few good investment bankers can rake in. If it was really about recruiting employees they would have gone no matter what. The states got played here.

Every time I hear of bankers leaving UBS it's usually due to compensation. I don't think they know how to get a clue though.

The ol' cliche saying of UBS = "ur bonuses suck" sting rings true I guess.

[Kristin85]

Everyone who is upset about this happening should email our governor. Based on some statements he has made in the past, I don't think he "gets" that most Connecticut residents-Democrat or not-don't support most of the decisions he has made. He must not be hearing often enough from people who are aggravated. Regardless of what NY or NJ does (we don't live there so their decisions don't pertain to us), CT should be trying to solve its employment problems from the ground up, not by catering to businesses on a case-by-case basis. I emailed Malloy saying I would have wanted my tax dollars to go to training programs for the unemployed or tax cuts for small businesses that hire the unemployed, and that his choice to cater to his hometown of Stamford is shameful. I have not heard back and I probably never will.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

Everyone who is upset about this happening should email our governor. Based on some statements he has made in the past, I don't think he "gets" that most Connecticut residents-Democrat or not-don't support most of the decisions he has made. He must not be hearing often enough from people who are aggravated. Regardless of what NY or NJ does (we don't live there so their decisions don't pertain to us), CT should be trying to solve its employment problems from the ground up, not by catering to businesses on a case-by-case basis. I emailed Malloy saying I would have wanted my tax dollars to go to training programs for the unemployed or tax cuts for small businesses that hire the unemployed, and that his choice to cater to his hometown of Stamford is shameful. I have not heard back and I probably never will.

Wishful thinking. He doesn't care. He doesn't give one thought to what you or anyone else in this state wants. He cares about moving his agenda forward and that is taking from the rich, giving to the "poor" with social progressive ideas and making fat cat corporate connections to fund his future political career.

His vindictive moves with the state police should show everyone what kind of people we have in Hartford now. I'm sure taking those desk sargents LONG off active duty and making them patrol officers was a "prudent" decision that just had to be made. Please...

[mikelizard860]

All state taxes should be set by the feds. Basically there should be no state tax. Just a federal tax and let the feds send money to the states. It would stop these stupid games corporations are playing by seeing which state can give them more tax dollars. Basically playing one state against the other. This current situation has nothing to do with our current democratic governor. It's a pervasive problem.

[SVTJayC]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

All state taxes should be set by the feds. Basically there should be no state tax. Just a federal tax and let the feds send money to the states. It would stop these stupid games corporations are playing by seeing which state can give them more tax dollars. Basically playing one state against the other. This current situation has nothing to do with our current democratic governor. It's a pervasive problem.

I take it you're not a big fan of state's rights? Ugh. You honestly think the FEDERAL GOVT knows more about what each state needs than the state's own gov't? If anything, the money should be pushed lower (to the city level).

And it has 100% to do with this pinko governor. He's just like Obama. Whatever it takes to get reelected, he's willing to spend tax dollars on it.

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by SVTJayC

I take it you're not a big fan of state's rights? Ugh. You honestly think the FEDERAL GOVT knows more about what each state needs than the state's own gov't? If anything, the money should be pushed lower (to the city level).

And it has 100% to do with this pinko governor. He's just like Obama. Whatever it takes to get reelected, he's willing to spend tax dollars on it.

The feds do know what each state need and they should be setting the taxes. Dumb tea party mentality. If you don't believe in the feds...why even have a federal government to begin with? Why not make each state it's own country? Of course than each state would become the "feds". The feds will always exist. Somebody has to be in control.

[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

The feds do know what each state need and they should be setting the taxes. Dumb tea party mentality. If you don't believe in the feds...why even have a federal government to begin with? Why not make each state it's own country? Of course than each state would become the "feds". The feds will always exist. Somebody has to be in control.

The federal government's top priorities are to protect the country and to encourage interstate commerce to tie the country together as a whole (i.e. by building interstate highways). Practically everything else is a function of the state when it comes down to details, as it should be. If you don't like the governor's policies in Connecticut, you can move to a freer state like New Hampshire. State rights are a political wonder that have functioned exceptionally since the birth of our country. If you want something to really complain about, complain about the Fed overstepping boundaries. States can, for the most part, do what they want and you have the choice to leave. Just like UBS wanted to before being paid off!

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

The federal government's top priorities are to protect the country and to encourage interstate commerce to tie the country together as a whole (i.e. by building interstate highways). Practically everything else is a function of the state when it comes down to details, as it should be. If you don't like the governor's policies in Connecticut, you can move to a freer state like New Hampshire. State rights are a political wonder that have functioned exceptionally since the birth of our country. If you want something to really complain about, complain about the Fed overstepping boundaries. States can, for the most part, do what they want and you have the choice to leave. Just like UBS wanted to before being paid off!

Oh come one. The laws are basically set by the feds. A state can't even change it's drinking age to 20 or 18 because it will lose all it's federal highway funding. All the big issues are handled by the feds. State income tax is one that's not and should be handled by the feds. What's the difference between nh and ct? Very very little. No income tax(I think) and loose gun laws. That's about it. Hardly a culture shock like the difference between France and the U.S. or even the difference between quebec and the rest of canada. State rights is a relic of a bygone era. It was meant to limit federal power when it was written in the constitution.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

All state taxes should be set by the feds. Basically there should be no state tax. Just a federal tax and let the feds send money to the states. It would stop these stupid games corporations are playing by seeing which state can give them more tax dollars. Basically playing one state against the other. This current situation has nothing to do with our current democratic governor. It's a pervasive problem.

You should read the constitution.

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

The feds do know what each state need and they should be setting the taxes. Dumb tea party mentality. If you don't believe in the feds...why even have a federal government to begin with? Why not make each state it's own country? Of course than each state would become the "feds". The feds will always exist. Somebody has to be in control.

You REALLY should read the constitution, article 4 and the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

United STATES

[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Oh come one. The laws are basically set by the feds. A state can't even change it's drinking age to 20 or 18 because it will lose all it's federal highway funding. All the big issues are handled by the feds. State income tax is one that's not and should be handled by the feds. What's the difference between nh and ct? Very very little. No income tax(I think) and loose gun laws. That's about it. Hardly a culture shock like the difference between France and the U.S. or even the difference between quebec and the rest of canada. State rights is a relic of a bygone era. It was meant to limit federal power when it was written in the constitution.

If you think there's barely any difference between NH and CT, you are highly misinformed. Grossly misinformed, even. NH is almost its own country compared to how different it is from CT. Just read the box with changing graphics at the top of the page on Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime (near the green New Hampshire state image) to see how it is nothing like Connecticut. If the Feds controlled everything, NH couldn't be run as it is. Plus, it'd be unconstitutional as JViello pointed out. Anyway, I don't see how this has much if anything to do with UBS.