[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you look at the map you can see a clear pattern

States with Republican majorities are in much better fiscal shape. Spend less tax less the people in this state don't seem to get it. Just end up blaming the rich

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

If you look at the map you can see a clear pattern

States with Republican majorities are in much better fiscal shape. Spend less tax less the people in this state don't seem to get it. Just end up blaming the rich

I wonder how that map would look if states like Connecticut weren't subsidizing the red states...

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I wonder how that map would look if states like Connecticut weren't subsidizing the red states...

It would look the same

Your comment is a failed attempt at a comeback by someone with no argument in sight

Liberals have destroyed this state by their fanatical tax & spend policies

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

It would look the same

I don't know about that. And I'm no liberal.

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

It would look the same

Your comment is a failed attempt at a comeback by someone with no argument in sight

Liberals have destroyed this state by their fanatical tax & spend policies

So you don't acknowledge that most red states take more federal money than they put in while states like Connecticut give more to the Fed than is returned?

You don't think we're subsidizing Mississippi?

I am happy to argue opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I don't know about that. And I'm no liberal.

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

I am no liberal either and I the map is probably correct, somewhat.

1)The numbers are from 2005, I would like to see current (2011-2012) numbers. Post recession, but I suspect it will look the same.

2) As a commenter stated. The fact that the 25 top cities in this Country are all concentrated in Democratic held States AND that these 25 Citiies have more money than all of the rural United States combined. If a City like NYC (or MC..lol) was in Mississippi I suspect the map would be slightly different.

3) If we are paying so much in taxes and giving it that money to others States. CT keeps on taking loans out to pay bill which will eventually think would raise taxes. Let's be selfish and keep some.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

So you don't acknowledge that most red states take more federal money than they put in while states like Connecticut give more to the Fed than is returned?

You don't think we're subsidizing Mississippi?

I am happy to argue opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts.

The map is about states who are in poor financial state

My point is that: CT paying more in federal taxes then it gets back & Kentucky getting more than it puts in does not have anything to do with CT's poor financial state

You are coming up with excuses why CT & the other liberal states are all failing financially

They are failing financially not because they subsidize other states to some degree but that they TAX & SPEND!!!!!

Note to liberals - stop spending stop taxing and stop destroying jobs this hurts the economy!

You people are unbelievable

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

My point is that: CT paying more in federal taxes then it gets back & Kentucky getting more than it puts in does not have anything to do with CT's poor financial state

Uh, yes it does.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Uh, yes it does.

It is not the reason the state is in debt with a negative GDP

Malloy's 10% spending hike and the largest tax increase in state history is

Liberals ruin economies and they are ruining the state of CT's economy

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

So you don't acknowledge that most red states take more federal money than they put in while states like Connecticut give more to the Fed than is returned?

You don't think we're subsidizing Mississippi?

.

He is correct, mlassoff. States do not subsidize anyone. Now some states citizens pay more Federal tax than the value received back by the population, but the states themselves pay no federal income taxes at all.

The problem is overspending. Weicker promised the income tax would mean a solid state financial statement forever. What happened? Casinos added 300 mill a year after that? Still, deficits occured.

Several times, state employee buyouts were offered, and each time headcount went back up from the point after the buyout.

States running deficits simply overspend, just as some households do. The trick to stop it is to hold leaders accountable for it.