[NewJeffCT]

Now, this would hurt Connecticut far more than GE moving to Boston - 6,000 jobs vs 200-300.

Aetna Discussing Boston Move With Massachusetts Officials - Hartford Courant

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by NewJeffCT

Yes, I saw that as well. The problems are mind boggling until the 2030s.

From the article - almost nothing contributed to pensions for about 45-50 years.

Connecticut saved nothing between 1939 and 1971 — and very little until the mid-1980s — to cover pensions promised to state employees and teachers. For example, between 1979 and 1988, the state never contributed more than 40 percent of the recommended payment for the teachers’ pension.

Article also says that we are digging an even deeper hole:

"Yankee Institute officials note that Connecticut still is promising benefits to today's workers without saving enough to pay for them."

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by NewJeffCT

Now, this would hurt Connecticut far more than GE moving to Boston - 6,000 jobs vs 200-300.

Aetna Discussing Boston Move With Massachusetts Officials - Hartford Courant

Here is an interesting article about MA jumping ahead of CT in the last several years

MA Overtakes CT, Jobs on Horizon for EB – Bad News, Good News for State Economy | Connecticut By The Numbers

[Henry10]

Solutions to CT economic woes are surprisingly simple -- more Capitalism, less Socialism. For those who dismiss our American lessons, they can follow Sweden's example.

Sweden best country in the world for business: Forbes ranking

[NCOriolesfan]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Here is an interesting article about MA jumping ahead of CT in the last several years

MA Overtakes CT, Jobs on Horizon for EB – Bad News, Good News for State Economy | Connecticut By The Numbers

Guess everyone can stop bashing Eastern Connecticut for a while.

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Solutions to CT economic woes are surprisingly simple -- more Capitalism, less Socialism. For those who dismiss our American lessons, they can follow Sweden's example.

Sweden best country in the world for business: Forbes ranking

Sweden is still far to the left of anywhere in the United States and never joined the EU because they feared it would lead to them cutting their very generous benefits. The top income tax rate in Sweden is 56% and it would apply to anybody making over about $75,000/year here in the US - their tax is very flat, but starts off really high. (They also have a 25% VAT)

It's also a country of about 10 million people in an area that is about 25% larger than California in terms of square mileage.

Back in the 80s, Connecticut had no personal income tax, but the corporate income tax was higher. Now, we have a personal income tax, but the corporate tax is lower - it was 11.5% when the income tax was enacted in 1991 and now it's at 9.0%.

[MrGompers]

With all this talk of Aetna let us not forget the following, which hasn't been widely reported on by the CT press to my knowledge.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna deceived the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare - LA Times

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

Read more: //www.city-data.com/forum/healt...#ixzz4XYla0lCp



Taken from this thread

//www.city-data.com/forum/healt...t-reasons.html


I hope the Mass Governor knows who he is potentially dealing with here. If Aetna and their CEO are willing to go to these lengths to get what they want, there's no telling what else they may try.

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

With all this talk of Aetna let us not forget the following, which hasn't been widely reported on by the CT press to my knowledge.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna deceived the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare - LA Times

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

Read more: //www.city-data.com/forum/healt...#ixzz4XYla0lCp

Come on - those weren't lies, those were alternate facts.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by NewJeffCT

Sweden is still far to the left of anywhere in the United States and never joined the EU because they feared it would lead to them cutting their very generous benefits. The top income tax rate in Sweden is 56% and it would apply to anybody making over about $75,000/year here in the US - their tax is very flat, but starts off really high. (They also have a 25% VAT)

It's also a country of about 10 million people in an area that is about 25% larger than California in terms of square mileage.

Back in the 80s, Connecticut had no personal income tax, but the corporate income tax was higher. Now, we have a personal income tax, but the corporate tax is lower - it was 11.5% when the income tax was enacted in 1991 and now it's at 9.0%.

I am not comparing US to Sweden. I am comparing CT to Sweden. CT has a lot more in common with Sweden than with Mississippi. Overall tax burden in CT is over 50%. CT also offers very generous social programs.

The idea is that at time of economic malady, Sweden turned into economic development, privatization, deregulation, lowering of high taxes, reducing welfare -- these things slingshot Sweden to the top of the heap of Capitalistic countries. CT is where Sweden was, and the blueprint is very clear -- rinse and repeat.

Sweden also has a very high rating of Economic freedom and entrepreneurship.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

I am not comparing US to Sweden. I am comparing CT to Sweden. CT has a lot more in common with Sweden than with Mississippi. Overall tax burden in CT is over 50%. CT also offers very generous social programs.

The idea is that at time of economic malady, Sweden turned into economic development, privatization, deregulation, lowering of high taxes, reducing welfare -- these things slingshot Sweden to the top of the heap of Capitalistic countries. CT is where Sweden was, and the blueprint is very clear -- rinse and repeat.

Sweden also has a very high rating of Economic freedom and entrepreneurship.

Ummmm, so if you earn 100k single filer here in CT you will pay around 20% in income and payroll taxes on average after deductions. You will then pay 6% state income tax. Now you may pay property tax as well so lets say 7k in property tax. So now were up to 33% tax. Sweden for that income would be 51% income tax. We have a 6.35% sales tax Sweden has a 25% VAT. I fail to see how Sweden has a more free market friendly system of taxation other then a lower corporate income tax.