Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 05-23-2016, 06:58 PM
 
2,333 posts, read 1,475,599 times
Reputation: 922

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey View Post
The original source with the nationwide map is fascinating and I recommend checking it out:

IRS Tax Migration | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

When you drill down into a state you can see how wealth migrates by county. Middlesex and Litchfield counties are actually gaining wealth. Overall though, the northeast, midwest, and CA are losing wealth while the south, southwest, and pacific northwest gains it. You could make an argument that, with the exception of CA's cost-of-living related losses, people are simply moving to milder climates.
Great map.. thanks for sharing. Funny to see that OR/WA are in the top 5 places stealing CA's wealth... thought it was just a running joke around here.

 
Old 05-23-2016, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
5,104 posts, read 4,781,559 times
Reputation: 3636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Cabeza View Post
This is what happens when you give, give, give to get votes. The chickens are coming home to roost.
I think I know the answer already, but I will ask any way.

When you say giving, giving, giving is that to the wealthy or to the poor ?
 
Old 05-23-2016, 07:43 PM
 
610 posts, read 528,103 times
Reputation: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey View Post
The original source with the nationwide map is fascinating and I recommend checking it out:

IRS Tax Migration | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

When you drill down into a state you can see how wealth migrates by county. Middlesex and Litchfield counties are actually gaining wealth. Overall though, the northeast, midwest, and CA are losing wealth while the south, southwest, and pacific northwest gains it. You could make an argument that, with the exception of CA's cost-of-living related losses, people are simply moving to milder climates.
My thanks for that as well. I went to the link on the left "See how much moving will cost you in taxes". That went to another site that calculates the income tax differential between states for an individual situation. While it can't be perfectly accurate, it's a good starting point to evaluate these things. Funny, the resulting map was almost all green (ie, save taxes by moving almost anywhere) for me.
 
Old 05-23-2016, 08:00 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,402,713 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey View Post
The original source with the nationwide map is fascinating and I recommend checking it out:

IRS Tax Migration | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

When you drill down into a state you can see how wealth migrates by county. Middlesex and Litchfield counties are actually gaining wealth. Overall though, the northeast, midwest, and CA are losing wealth while the south, southwest, and pacific northwest gains it. You could make an argument that, with the exception of CA's cost-of-living related losses, people are simply moving to milder climates.
Thanks for the cool link, but your latter theory has a lot of holes in it just from the simple map visual. Not to mention the authors who analyzed, studied and wrote a book based on terabytes of IRS tax data already answered the question:

--"And the answers suggest a simple correlation: the key to accumulating working wealth for any state is a pro-growth tax policy, and that means not taxing personal income."
 
Old 05-23-2016, 08:07 PM
 
610 posts, read 528,103 times
Reputation: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeker2211 View Post
The money would've been spent anyways, as all that Weicker and the GA at the time was shift the burden from investment earnings (which were notoriously unreliable) and the tolls to the income system. What were the benefits though:

- Much more stable year to year estimates for revenue.
- CT becoming one of the few metropolitan states with zero inter- and intra- state tolls, at a huge daily savings to every commuter on tolls (although this may have increased urban sprawl, though even toll roads built at the same time in similar areas are strained so who knows).
- No bridges collapsing from lack of rational funding killing people.

The downside was that almost everyone had to put more skin in the game, not just the richest of 1%.

I'm not crazy about the Income tax, but the reasons it was put in when made sense. All the while complainers never have an appropriate working solution/alternative other than somehow cutting modest social programs. It's maddening.
As far as the first advantage (tax revenue stability), I do remember Weicker going on about tax predictability and reliability which were badly needed and it did sound plausible (he also got some younger more naive people to support the tax by promising to clean up and save LI Sound and of course the casino money was going to education). But the stability and predictability have been blown away. Apparently all Hartford anxiously awaits the periodic reports of the Revenue Dept on each estimated tax payment date to see how much tax revenue has come in (usually less than expected). And that starts a new fiscal crisis. Yep, it's the estimated taxes on capital gains by those evil rich people that are counted on to keep the fiscal ship afloat. I do believe that the Gov and legislature don't have a firm grip on things. In December 2015, Malloy went to Greenwich and told a bunch of rich old folks "don't die"--we're going to fix the gift/estate tax situation very soon! Very next month, revenue numbers come out, and that promise is out the window. I read that the legislators were "shocked" when the estimates came in much lower in January than projected (although some of that may have been Republican or Captain Renault-type posturing).

Between the inability to run state finances and the insults hurled at the "rich" and large corporations by some legislators and their union masters, I can understand why there's no trust in the government of this state. And that probably causes more to flee than just the level of taxes--there's less confidence in the ability of the government, compared to, say, Massachusetts, which seem well-run by comparison. Connecticut deserves better.
 
Old 05-23-2016, 09:14 PM
 
2,313 posts, read 2,142,402 times
Reputation: 1313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert137 View Post
As far as the first advantage (tax revenue stability), I do remember Weicker going on about tax predictability and reliability which were badly needed and it did sound plausible (he also got some younger more naive people to support the tax by promising to clean up and save LI Sound and of course the casino money was going to education). But the stability and predictability have been blown away. Apparently all Hartford anxiously awaits the periodic reports of the Revenue Dept on each estimated tax payment date to see how much tax revenue has come in (usually less than expected). And that starts a new fiscal crisis. Yep, it's the estimated taxes on capital gains by those evil rich people that are counted on to keep the fiscal ship afloat. I do believe that the Gov and legislature don't have a firm grip on things. In December 2015, Malloy went to Greenwich and told a bunch of rich old folks "don't die"--we're going to fix the gift/estate tax situation very soon! Very next month, revenue numbers come out, and that promise is out the window. I read that the legislators were "shocked" when the estimates came in much lower in January than projected (although some of that may have been Republican or Captain Renault-type posturing).

Between the inability to run state finances and the insults hurled at the "rich" and large corporations by some legislators and their union masters, I can understand why there's no trust in the government of this state. And that probably causes more to flee than just the level of taxes--there's less confidence in the ability of the government, compared to, say, Massachusetts, which seem well-run by comparison. Connecticut deserves better.
No way. What is faced in CT is what is faced by states all over the country and probably better long term than those. A tonnnn of states based a lot of 15 year projections over a boom and bust industry and now are in much more dire straights than we face. And bringing Mass into this? Boston is a glimmer of hope for the state but much of it faces worse local conditions than we do here. The reason why CT doesn't have "it" right now is purely PR. Unfortunately PR matters but here we are.
 
Old 05-23-2016, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
503 posts, read 525,584 times
Reputation: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
Thanks for the cool link, but your latter theory has a lot of holes in it just from the simple map visual. Not to mention the authors who analyzed, studied and wrote a book based on terabytes of IRS tax data already answered the question:

--"And the answers suggest a simple correlation: the key to accumulating working wealth for any state is a pro-growth tax policy, and that means not taxing personal income."
I guess any simplistic explanation is likely wrong then, because the effective state & local tax rates are quite low in CA (8th lowest) which hemorrhages wealth, while WA and TX both have higher than average tax rates (34th and 29th respectively) and are gaining:

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst...taxpayer/2416/
 
Old 05-23-2016, 09:31 PM
 
2,313 posts, read 2,142,402 times
Reputation: 1313
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey View Post
I guess any simplistic explanation is likely wrong then, because the effective state & local tax rates are quite low in CA (8th lowest) which hemorrhages wealth, while WA and TX both have higher than average tax rates (34th and 29th respectively) and are gaining:

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst...taxpayer/2416/
Property values. That's really the only difference. But that's a double edged sword for most. Most Americans worth is wrapped up in the property they live in... but are trying to settle places that value barely (if at all) increases due to low zoning regs.
 
Old 05-23-2016, 10:07 PM
 
2,333 posts, read 1,475,599 times
Reputation: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey View Post
I guess any simplistic explanation is likely wrong then, because the effective state & local tax rates are quite low in CA (8th lowest) which hemorrhages wealth, while WA and TX both have higher than average tax rates (34th and 29th respectively) and are gaining:

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst...taxpayer/2416/
Though there is no personal income tax in WA and TX. That to many people will be more valuable than property or sales tax, if we're just comparing taxes.
 
Old 05-23-2016, 10:26 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,402,713 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey View Post
I guess any simplistic explanation is likely wrong then, because the effective state & local tax rates are quite low in CA (8th lowest) which hemorrhages wealth, while WA and TX both have higher than average tax rates (34th and 29th respectively) and are gaining:

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst...taxpayer/2416/
Correct, but the author points specifically toward "pro-growth tax policies" and "income tax". I don't doubt that property tax compounds the problem (it does for me personally), but the authors whom are no doubt more expert than either of us seem to believe income and "pro growth policy" are primary culprits driving the phenomenon (at the population level).

CA situation is similar to FFC. You have a lower than average tax rate, but due to exorbitantly priced real estate the tax burden is the same, if not, higher (lower rate applied to higher value).

Ultimately, people go where the jobs are. Companies, ultimately go where the "pro-growth policies" are. When that is combined with low-no income tax, it's only more attractive to prospective labor market. Throw in low property taxes too and you have cities stealing businesses and talent from the likes of NYC and SF. A household with 200k income in nashville suburb likely has the same disposable income as a household making 400k in Darien or Westport.

Last edited by Sigequinox; 05-23-2016 at 10:42 PM..
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top