[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Not the point. Correct premise is that CT is replacing “givers” with “takers.”

Please post your source on that information....thanks. I think we need to use 2019 statistics as Covid hit the northeast first so it will skew the information for all of the states. I will look for 2019 information.

On this list CT one of the LEAST dependent on the federal government.
https://lifesourcedirect.com/2019/03...pendent-states

Here is one for food stamps or SNAP. We are in the blue (or least food stamps per capita) for this one compared to other states.
https://www.zippia.com/advice/10-sta...le-food-stamps

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by CTartist

But CT did not lose a congressional seat like the other states. And that is my point.

I know. It likely will not until the 2030 census. I attached the link as most do not understand how seats are apportioned. They forget 50 are automatic. 385 are population based.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Not the point. Correct premise is that CT is replacing “givers” with “takers.”

Not to open up a can of worms but that you dramatically simplifying complete social economic concept. If you're trying to make the argument that there are those that are on social benefit systems in that are not working I would argue that we actually as a country lose more in the mortgage deduction then we actually spend on food stamps. Keep in mind mortgage deductions do not actually contribute to the production of anything as the housing market operates perfectly fine without them in places such as our neighbors Mexico and Canada. And Canada has actually has lower interest rates.

Better becomes a bit hypocritical because one could argue that if there are tax exemptions people will take them regardless of income so naturally somebody's low-income and we largely have an income tax base system but naturally they're going to be paying less as a percentage than those that make more. You can't blame things without looking at the overall system.

In today's age you should also look at those that might be working in one state and living in another and vice versa and this was true even before covid-19 you have a blurring of the lines in addition when you've got urban areas that transcend state lines.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

We have gone through this a number of times. The media loves to hype this but the truth is it’s not nearly as dramatic as indicated. In the 2010 Census, Connecticut’s population was set at 3,574,097. According to this estimate it is now 3,557,006. That’s a difference of just 17,091 residents. Statistically, that is insignificant and well under the margin of error for such estimates. Until the final 2020 number is published, we will not know the actual change in population. It could even go up. Jay

We are stagnant in population, but Jay the USA gains about 6-8% a decade, which means our share of the 385 seats up for grabs declines every ten years. That is why we dropped from 6 seats to 5 seats, while essentially keeping the population fairly flat. The nation was gaining.

In 2020, projections indicate we will maintain 5 total seats. In 2030, if we stay flat and nation gets usual 6-8% bump, we likely keep 4 of 5 seats.

Flat Ct vs increasing USA is the reason we once had 6, now have 5, likely have 4 after 2030 census.

[ConnecticutSir]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This is also not true. As data that CTartist has posted before indicates, our incom3 levels have gone up not down. I& you were correct that would not be the case. Jay

That has nothing to do with it. Income levels for every state rise almost every year because of inflation and cost of living. I posted data from the IRS last year that showed the average person leaving CT had a salary of over $100k and they were being replaced by an average of $60k salary. I seem to remember you said the source was from a CT hating website until I pointed out that they got their info straight from the IRS and even gave a direct link to the IRS website data. Just because CT's per capita income went up doesn't have anything to do with the FACT that higher income people are leaving CT and being replaced by people with lower incomes on average.

[CTartist]

[quote=BobNJ1960;60414967]We are stagnant in population, but Jay the USA gains about 6-8% a decade, which means our share of the 385 seats up for grabs declines every ten years. That is why we dropped from 6 seats to 5 seats, while essentially keeping the population fairly flat. The nation was gaining.]



I have said this on here time and time again. My husband is the peak of the baby boom generation. I am at the tail end. For decades and well over 100 years people from the north east have been retiring to Florida and points north. The northern states being flat or decreasing is a result of the baby boomers.

As much as people from a specific party want to stay it is about their political ideology that is INCORRECT. This is about the baby boomers retiring EN MASSE. I do not hit full retirement for another 7-8 years. So large numbers of people retiring will happen for at least another 10 years.

"The pace of Boomer retirements has accelerated in the past year
Millions of Baby Boomers retire each year from the U.S. labor force. But in the past year the number of retired Boomers increased more than in prior years, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of monthly labor force data. The recent increase in the share of Boomers who are retired is more pronounced among Hispanic and Asian American Boomers and those residing in the Northeast."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-the-past-year

If people who are not of retiring age were moving out you would not see the following. I am sure there are some young people but not a mass of those over 65 moving down south.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ersonal-income

#1 CT $79,087
#2 MA $74, 967
#3 NY $71,440
#4 NJ $70,979
#5 CA $66,661
(the states people are '"fleeing" are the top states for income)

You see a certain party has a "fleeing high tax" states narrative. If that were the case our income would not be going up and up and up....it would be going down. This is because baby boomers income drops in retirement and they are leaving. But that does not fit a certain party's narrative.

NC $46,803
SC $45,314
GA $48,119 (I personally know more retirees moving to SC and GA because FL is now getting too expensive, look at how the per capita income is right at the heels of FL)
FL $51,989

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by ObedientSir

That has nothing to do with it. Income levels for every state rise almost every year because of inflation and cost of living. I posted data from the IRS last year that showed the average person leaving CT had a salary of over $100k and they were being replaced by an average of $60k salary. I seem to remember you said the source was from a CT hating website until I pointed out that they got their info straight from the IRS and even gave a direct link to the IRS website data. Just because CT's per capita income went up doesn't have anything to do with the FACT that higher income people are leaving CT and being replaced by people with lower incomes on average.

I don't know the salary in and out averages, it may just be accurate I don't know, but I'm not exactly sure I'd call $60K personnel "takers".
The only thing NYC movers into Fairfield County are taking are luxurious baths in the 1M+ dollar home's jacuzzi.

[SteveM85]

[quote=CTartist;60416669]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

We are stagnant in population, but Jay the USA gains about 6-8% a decade, which means our share of the 385 seats up for grabs declines every ten years. That is why we dropped from 6 seats to 5 seats, while essentially keeping the population fairly flat. The nation was gaining.]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I have said this on here time and time again. My husband is the peak of the baby boom generation. I am at the tail end. For decades and well over 100 years people from the north east have been retiring to Florida and points north. The northern states being flat or decreasing is a result of the baby boomers.

As much as people from a specific party want to stay it is about their political ideology that is INCORRECT. This is about the baby boomers retiring EN MASSE. I do not hit full retirement for another 7-8 years. So large numbers of people retiring will happen for at least another 10 years.

"The pace of Boomer retirements has accelerated in the past year
Millions of Baby Boomers retire each year from the U.S. labor force. But in the past year the number of retired Boomers increased more than in prior years, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of monthly labor force data. The recent increase in the share of Boomers who are retired is more pronounced among Hispanic and Asian American Boomers and those residing in the Northeast."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-the-past-year

If people who are not of retiring age were moving out you would not see the following. I am sure there are some young people but not a mass of those over 65 moving down south.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ersonal-income

#1 CT $79,087
#2 MA $74, 967
#3 NY $71,440
#4 NJ $70,979
#5 CA $66,661
(the states people are '"fleeing" are the top states for income)

You see a certain party has a "fleeing high tax" states narrative. If that were the case our income would not be going up and up and up....it would be going down. This is because baby boomers income drops in retirement and they are leaving. But that does not fit a certain party's narrative.

NC $46,803
SC $45,314
GA $48,119 (I personally know more retirees moving to SC and GA because FL is now getting too expensive, look at how the per capita income is right at the heels of FL)
FL $51,989

Wonderful work here. Tremendous.

A huge loss the other day Artist, huh. RIP CC.

[BobNJ1960]

[quote=CTartist;60416669][b]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I have said this on here time and time again. My husband is the peak of the baby boom generation. I am at the tail end. For decades and well over 100 years people from the north east have been retiring to Florida and points north. The northern states being flat or decreasing is a result of the baby boomers.

As much as people from a specific party want to stay it is about their political ideology that is INCORRECT. This is about the baby boomers retiring EN MASSE. I do not hit full retirement for another 7-8 years. So large numbers of people retiring will happen for at least another 10 years.

It's a factor, but not all factors. 2nd factor is Ct does not keep its young adult population, starting to hit prime earning years, as well as lower COL states. Hence, we are not replacing aging boomers as well as other states. We are a net exporter of young adults, as well as a net exporter of college grads. Net meaning we lose more than we add, amongst those who change states.

Congressional seats is not about maintaining a stagnant population. It is about keeping pace with 49 other states. 50 are battling for as many of 385 as they can earn. Some say they do not want growth. That is their right to have an opinion, just as many like I have the same right to a different pov. We cannot , however, desire a stable population and stable representation in Congress. Those are mutually exclusive choices.

[ConnecticutSir]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I don't know the salary in and out averages, it may just be accurate I don't know, but I'm not exactly sure I'd call $60K personnel "takers".
The only thing NYC movers into Fairfield County are taking are luxurious baths in the 1M+ dollar home's jacuzzi.

I know $60k isn't considered a taker. I meant that there's quite a difference between $100k to $60k. 40% net loss is not good, needless to say.