[Mr_250]

Here we go again. CT financial health is rated 49th out of 50.

Study: CT fiscal condition ranks 49th | HartfordBusiness.com

The last paragraph in the Hartford Journal sums it up about right.

People are going to say "well...South Dakota, North Dakota blah blah blah." ok, fine, but if you want to see something truthful and scary take a gander on the last page of the actual report.

According the the numbers, and you can't dispute numbers, we are in some upside down waters.

Our long term liability per capita is the highest in the bottom 5. A whopping $8,035 per capita we, as tax payers in the CT, owe the State employees pensions.

Another shocking issue I noticed is that CT is upside down on expenses per capita vs. revenue per capita (I am not looking at tax per capita). The equation is total expenses/total population. Which means, we do spend a lot on children's education, but is it paying dividends in the end...NO! Look, shall we, at the revenue per capita.. It is LOWER than what we are paying out, so we are paying more and getting less. I disregard the tax per capita because it's an average and the wealthy are paying more in FFC than a janitor in New London. But the other two is what the State is receiving and what the State is paying.

Judging by these numbers and the fact that the Government is playing games with borrowing money to balance our budget, it is safe to say that CT is not headed in the correct direction.

The billions Malloy is giving out to MAJOR, INTERNATIONAL companies is not paying off. Mark my words, next January 2015 another tax hike will come and it will not be good.

[JayCT]

I am not doubting that Connecticut needs to address our fiscal issues, I wonder if any of these rankings take into account that our state has no county level of government and thus has to take on the responsibilities that other state use counties for. IF they are comparing state government to state government of course our libilities are going to be higher. But if you compare all governments in each state, I think we would fare better. Jay

[nep321]

How can these things even happen? I don't get it. It must be due to things like abuse, corruption, waste, lack of tax revenues, etc. I mean, if the government has a plan and sticks to it accordingly, things should work out, right? Kind of like managing your own personal finances. Right?

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by nep321

How can these things even happen? I don't get it. It must be due to things like abuse, corruption, waste, lack of tax revenues, etc. I mean, if the government has a plan and sticks to it accordingly, things should work out, right? Kind of like managing your own personal finances. Right?

well, different states have different plans and priorities. Connecticut probably cares more about clean water than West Virginia, for example, so probably spends more regulating it than West Virginia. Connecticut has 3x more "urban" highway than West Virginia, which probably costs more to maintain than rural highway (WV has 5x more rural highway than CT) And, our state employees (like CT's private sector employees) get paid more than their WV counterparts and likely have better, and more expensive, pensions and other benefits.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by NewJeffCT

West Virginia, for example.

Not sure why WV came to mind, but either way WV isn't the greatest example because they are not ranked too high.

But I do see your argument. I'm not going to compare States because every State is different and each offer different items which contribute to the bottom line.

Either way it makes me cringe when you look at pensions of professors who get $200K a year and companies like ESPN or Brigdewater who get hundred of millions to move one town over.

Rowland had a good point on his show about a week ago. He said (paraphrase) "If you want to spur creation, entrepreneurship and drive new business into the State, why don't we take the $300M we gave to large corporations to create jobs and give small businesses or start ups $100k each." I thought this was a great idea. Places like NH or Stamford would flourish. Some may fail and some may hit it big. By diversifying CT we have a better chance of success.

I don't blame business for taking money, if someone wanted to give me money today and say create 100 jobs in 10 years, I would take it.

Also, take a look at Sunlight.org. Very interesting sites related to State employees pensions, wages and other information. Public employees make very good money (in some cases double for the same work) compared to the private sector (at least in my industry).

[RA73]

How about you start with abolishing the personal income tax, and move on to separating general services vs. education in property tax bills, where people with kids in the schools ONLY are responsible for the education levy.

That would go a long way toward righting the ship.

Yes, this state spends far too much on education with absolutely nothing to show for it but outmigration. But as long as parents allow themselves to be terrorized by their local boards of education into believing that spending=better life chances, nothing will change.

Nothing.

Ever.

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Also, take a look at Sunlight.org. Very interesting sites related to State employees pensions, wages and other information. Public employees make very good money (in some cases double for the same work) compared to the private sector (at least in my industry).

is that CT state employees, or nationally? I can believe CT employees making higher wages, on average, than counterparts in the private sector. However, I know they did some extensive research of public vs private sector employees, and when you compare people with similar levels of credentials (degrees, certificates/licences, etc), public sector employees came up short vs private sector, even factoring in better benefits and pensions, when you compare people of similar level. i.e., you don't need a PhD to be a Wal-Mart cashier or to work in McDonald's, but you might to analyze if the chemical content of the public water is healthy or at least a master's degree to analyze how much sewer capacity is needed in an area.

[Mr_250]

[quote=NewJeffCT;33064593]

is that CT state employees, or nationally? I can believe CT employees making higher wages, on average, than counterparts in the private sector

Just CT Public Employees.

However, I know they did some extensive research of public vs private sector employees, and when you compare people with similar levels of credentials (degrees, certificates/licences, etc), public sector employees came up short vs private sector, even factoring in better benefits and pensions, when you compare people of similar level. i.e., you don't need a PhD to be a Wal-Mart cashier or to work in McDonald's, but you might to analyze if the chemical content of the public water is healthy or at least a master's degree to analyze how much sewer capacity is needed in an area.

I agree to a certain degree. But to me, as a public employee with a masters I would take a lower salary than my private sector counterpart with the fact that I KNOW I can retire at 60 (or whatever) and still get a pension. The counterpart employee is going to have to work until they are 70+ now a days. I'd take a 10% hit in pay for a couple years to collect a pension for 20 years.

[mrgmrg]

Originally Posted by RA73

How about you start with abolishing the personal income tax, and move on to separating general services vs. education in property tax bills, where people with kids in the schools ONLY are responsible for the education levy.

That would go a long way toward righting the ship.

Yes, this state spends far too much on education with absolutely nothing to show for it but outmigration. But as long as parents allow themselves to be terrorized by their local boards of education into believing that spending=better life chances, nothing will change.

Nothing.

Ever.

I'm not sure that this is a great idea. Connecticut has the highest achievement gap in the country. I suspect a big reason why is that we're a state organized into relatively small, socioeconomically homogenous cities and towns, and funding for schools is largely municipal. If you start forcing parents to directly pay for the education of their children through a property tax, it's only going to exacerbate that issue--rich towns will be just fine, and poor towns will be screwed. It also wouldn't work for renters, who don't directly pay property taxes.

[Mr_250]

How about you start with abolishing the personal income tax, and move on to separating general services vs. education in property tax bills, where people with kids in the schools ONLY are responsible for the education levy.

Not sure I agree. I have no kids (yet) in the school system and I do not mind paying taxes that go towards school. Why? Because it is an investment that I could possibly reap the benefits from.

Scenario: If my town has good schools and people want to move to my town. My town home prices go up and I make money selling my house (granted I didn't over pay to start with). So my taxes I am paying now are contributing to the constant incline of education which contribute to the overall value of town.