[gmdealerguy]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Reasonable compared to a few counties in NY. Again, though, New York State overall is far less expensive (in taxes and house prices).

I guess if you count state overall, then I could see it because NY is so big. Me being born and raised in Westchester and not able to afford a house in Westchester caused us to leave....that and my Mom and sisters moved to CT 10 years before we moved to CT. Our house that we bought here would have been ALOT more in NY with taxes doubled. Trust me, we did look in NY. It would have been insane. And we have a 1600 sq foot place, not a mansion. NY also tacks on a NY State closing cost tax that would have added another $4100 to our closing costs.....while our closing in CT was ALOT cheaper. I dont hate NY but I dont miss living there and like I said, our quality of life is much better here. My backyard is a farm with rolling hills now with awesome views and sunrises and sunsets......instead of us living in an apartment building where we moved from with no views. Thats what we like.....everyone is different.

[ctwhitechin]

Agreed we moved here cause we couldnt afford anything on the island. Expensive yes, compared to long island no. Compared to the rest of the country, yes

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by gmdealerguy

I guess if you count state overall, then I could see it because NY is so big. Me being born and raised in Westchester and not able to afford a house in Westchester caused us to leave....that and my Mom and sisters moved to CT 10 years before we moved to CT. Our house that we bought here would have been ALOT more in NY with taxes doubled. Trust me, we did look in NY. It would have been insane. And we have a 1600 sq foot place, not a mansion. NY also tacks on a NY State closing cost tax that would have added another $4100 to our closing costs.....while our closing in CT was ALOT cheaper. I dont hate NY but I dont miss living there and like I said, our quality of life is much better here. My backyard is a farm with rolling hills now with awesome views and sunrises and sunsets......instead of us living in an apartment building where we moved from with no views. Thats what we like.....everyone is different.

Its not that NY is so big thats important, its that the expensive areas are a very small portion of it. People hear NY & think NYC, Westchester, Long Island ect. But the reality is that the vast majority of the state is nothing like the few expensive areas. True the taxes will still be higher than many other areas, because the cost of the existence of those metro areas is borne by everyone in NY to a degree, but they are nothing like Westchester or Fairfield CT. Most of my family moved from Westchester to CT in the last 40 years or so, most recently an uncle moved out of Port Chester into Danbury and was flabbergasted to only have a $4000 tax bill. In Port Chester on a 50X100 lot with a 3 Br house he was shelling out over $12,000 before he moved. But just because NT costs more doesn't mean CT is cheap or even justified. On the other extreme I have 16 acres in NH with a camp on it that runs me $700. Thats seems fair. But it makes me wonder why a town with only 900 people in it costs less that a city like Norwalk with 85+ thousand people in it, I pay $7000 here and all I get here that I dont in NH is city garbage pickup, for the $6300 I could haul away my own trash. It can ONLY be because up there everyone pays their fair share & down here many dont. Down here we make tax payers pay for many many things that have nothing to do with them. From subsidizing mass transit to houseing & feeding career criminals. The bottom line is if we taxed our property owners based on their property's burden on the municipality, which is the ONLY fair & just way, our taxes would be much much lower. But instead we let elected idiots decide how much money they need to throw away each year and place that burden on the taxpayers. Kinda bass ackwards but thats how its done & thats why the whole country is struggling.

[Beeker2211]

TinKnocker,

You're complaining about CT taxes yet complementing the taxes in NH? NH is the only state in the northeast that takes in more in federal transfers than puts in. And it gets WAY more than what it puts in. So you're benefiting there from what the vast majority of us are putting in here, but it has to be that we coddle criminals here. I don't get it.

[Arm&Hammer]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

TinKnocker,

You're complaining about CT taxes yet complementing the taxes in NH? NH is the only state in the northeast that takes in more in federal transfers than puts in. And it gets WAY more than what it puts in. So you're benefiting there from what the vast majority of us are putting in here, but it has to be that we coddle criminals here. I don't get it.

Which is why I'm glad we took half a billion dollar from the Fed for the busway. So I think it's fair but other state I would not be suprise that they get more Fed money than us. So our dollar going to these states mostly but not Connecticut? I dont get it.

Or is there republicans that is against Connecticut in washington or what.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by jane_sm1th73

Jay, that is an uninformed response and demonstrates that you did not look at the list you disparage. There are over 2000 high schools, nationwide, in the WaPo list. If you sort the list by rank, you are right that many in the top 50 are charter schools. However, I see plain old high schools as the majority below the top 50. As a fer instance, there's a high school in my old nabe in Falls Church that is a reg'lar neighborhood school, that is in 70th-something place.

If you throw ALL metrics out the window to support your view that everything is better in CT, you're disclosing your bias. YOUR bias: hype trumps facts every time, and facts don't count. For people who need to make decisions, facts count. Otherwise there is no basis for discussion other than political correctness and emotionalism - which is what CT runs on now. Thanks to an unwieldy majority, for whom it is easier and more profitable to manipulate, and to be manipulated, than to engage in the hard process of critical thinking.

BUT - facts count, and numbers count. That's NOT just my opinion. If you don't like the WaPo ranking methodology, state your basis, propose an alternative ranking methodology, and rank the contenders on your proposed methodology. Clue: your methodology has to be a little more rigorous than "Here's how I WANT it to turn out because it makes me feel better."

I did look at the list VERY CLOSELY and am not being biased. I am questioning the list which as you admitted has a lot of charter and magnet schools that are not open to everyone. Of course a school is going to look great if you only take the best students in the district and give them an education devoted strictly to their interests. These lists use criteria that is somewhat questionable as to determining what a good education is. That is all I am saying and have said every time a list like this is brought up in this forum.

To further question this list, Connecticut is consistantly ranked at or near the top in education by various education associations. Not all of which are biased. Jay

[Dallascaper]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Yeah, it's awful. However, I'd still say BETTER than LBJ or Reagan in Austin. Our worst are as bad as the worst anywhere.

But take the average high school here-- and the average high school in Texas... No comparison.

Texas demographics are different from CT – Texas has a lot more at risk students dragging down the average. Compare an "average" school in CT (suburban and relatively affluent) to its demographic/economic counterpart in Texas and you will see little difference academically. There are many very good schools in Texas, and most are located in areas that demographically look like CT - I'm sure that is no accident.

Of course, the TX school will also have a much better football team and a stadium to match.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Do we really have to go through this again???

I do not understand how they determine this. Our income tax rate is the lowest of the 5. Our sales tax is lower than New Jersey's, is only marginally higher than Massachusetts and we do not allow local sales tax on top of the state tax like New York does.

Our property tax per capita is lower than New Jersey and we do not have any county taxes which the others have. Also we do not have the large rural areas that New York, Maryland and Massachusetts have that offsets the per capita property tax for the entire state. Ask almost any former New Yorker who has higher property taxes and most will agree New York is higher than Connecticut by far.

It is also not clear how they determine the inheritance tax comparison but our top rate is no higher than Massachusetts or New York. It would be more appripriate to compare when the inheritance tax kicks in and what that rate is than just comparing the rates.

I am not saying we are not a high tax state but I do not see how we can be called the highest. Jay

Perhaps they are also taking into account corporate taxes? Not sure though.

[Lintu]

Originally Posted by Dallascaper

Texas demographics are different from CT – Texas has a lot more at risk students dragging down the average. Compare an "average" school in CT (suburban and relatively affluent) to its demographic/economic counterpart in Texas and you will see little difference academically. There are many very good schools in Texas, and most are located in areas that demographically look like CT - I'm sure that is no accident.

Of course, the TX school will also have a much better football team and a stadium to match.

Yeah, that's fair. The proportion of students from non-English-speaking households, for instance, definitely plays a role. But having grown up in TX and having had a public education there, I'd definitely prefer CT schools...even if only to have my child taught about evolution as scientific fact!

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Lintu

even if only to have my child taught about evolution as scientific fact!

But it's not. Why would you wish to bastardize accepted scientific principles to satisfy a personal bias. Both sides are theories.