[blakesq]

maybe that should give liberals a clue that single payer is not a good thing?

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Single payer only works if it's done nationally so the Federal government can slash labor costs across the board. Vermont only has 630,000 people. It's not like they can tell Dartmouth-Hitchcock over the river they're only going to pay them 50 cents on the dollar. If they tell everybody at Fletcher-Allen/UVM that they're taking a 50% pay cut, they'd all leave the state.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

Higher taxes on the wealthy?????? Yeah great idea lets drive out even more rich people, because that worked so great that last two tax increases.

IIRC correctly the last income tax brackets for CT were

2010 6.5%
2011 6.7%
2015 6.99%

For single filers @500k income or 1 million for joint filers.

The change from 2010 - 2015 is only $4,900 per million dollars in income. (After the first 1million) You think $4,900 is going to make someone move ?

In 2015 CT had 99,965 millionaires. How many you think left over $4,900 ?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

IIRC correctly the last income tax brackets for CT were

2010 6.5%
2011 6.7%
2015 6.99%

For single filers @500k income or 1 million for joint filers.

The change from 2010 - 2015 is only $4,900 per million dollars in income. (After the first 1million) You think $4,900 is going to make someone move ?

In 2015 CT had 99,965 millionaires. How many you think left over $4,900 ?

This mindset always amazes me. People, for some reason, think that because someone makes $1m per year, that means they're okay with needlessly losing income?

Being in FFC, I know several > $1m earners. They are as frugal with their money as you or I.

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

IIRC correctly the last income tax brackets for CT were

2010 6.5%
2011 6.7%
2015 6.99%

For single filers @500k income or 1 million for joint filers.

The change from 2010 - 2015 is only $4,900 per million dollars in income. (After the first 1million) You think $4,900 is going to make someone move ?

In 2015 CT had 99,965 millionaires. How many you think left over $4,900 ?

Ok so why are tax receipts from the wealthy so much lower than prior years? Something has to give? Either the wealthy are moving out, or legally sheltering their money? Or both? Even malloy has acknowledged this.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

IIRC correctly the last income tax brackets for CT were

2010 6.5%
2011 6.7%
2015 6.99%

For single filers @500k income or 1 million for joint filers.

The change from 2010 - 2015 is only $4,900 per million dollars in income. (After the first 1million) You think $4,900 is going to make someone move ?

In 2015 CT had 99,965 millionaires. How many you think left over $4,900 ?

I don't think many people become millionaires with such a simplistic financial view. 4900 isn't a lot, no. But it's continued nibbling at the money THEY earned. It's also not 4900, right now 1mil income sees 65k in state income tax. Now THATS a lot of money. Especially since most people at that point have their money "working for them".

Compare 65,000 income tax in CT to...$0.0 dollars income tax in TN or TX. Mmmm. Don't know about you, but I think a high end financial advisor going to make that 65k do a lot more than the state of CT.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

Ok so why are tax receipts from the wealthy so much lower than prior years? Something has to give? Either the wealthy are moving out, or legally sheltering their money? Or both? Even malloy has acknowledged this.

My understanding is the 45% drop is only for the top 100 earners - which mind you resulted in a $200 million loss alone.

Some of it has to do with a retrenchment in the hedge fund industry. A few of the former top 100 may have moved out of state as well. They could also be using "safe harbor" provisions to have a one-time reduction in their taxes. And it's possible that changes in investment strategy - "parking" funds rather than withdrawing them over the past year - also affected revenue.

Ultimately any income tax system is gameable to some degree, and the wealthy will be most apt to find some way to game it. It's one reason a lot of European countries have shifted much of their taxation onto VAT.

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My understanding is the 45% drop is only for the top 100 earners - which mind you resulted in a $200 million loss alone.

Some of it has to do with a retrenchment in the hedge fund industry. A few of the former top 100 may have moved out of state as well. They could also be using "safe harbor" provisions to have a one-time reduction in their taxes. And it's possible that changes in investment strategy - "parking" funds rather than withdrawing them over the past year - also affected revenue.

Ultimately any income tax system is gameable to some degree, and the wealthy will be most apt to find some way to game it. It's one reason a lot of European countries have shifted much of their taxation onto VAT.

So if I'm understanding this right the consumer ultimately pays all of the VAT tax at the end, thus leaving the merchant not paying any of the tax? Either that or the merchant pays very little of the tax?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

So if I'm understanding this right the consumer ultimately pays all of the VAT tax at the end, thus leaving the merchant not paying any of the tax? Either that or the merchant pays very little of the tax?

Merchants pay VAT as well as consumers, however, they can deduct from their total the VAT paid on the raw materials and services they purchase. Therefore the VAT they pay is only on the value added to the product while in their production chain (hence why it's termed a "value added tax"). Thus for businesses it's effectively a tax on gross margin, but on end consumers it's a sales tax.

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Merchants pay VAT as well as consumers, however, they can deduct from their total the VAT paid on the raw materials and services they purchase. Therefore the VAT they pay is only on the value added to the product while in their production chain (hence why it's termed a "value added tax"). Thus for businesses it's effectively a tax on gross margin, but on end consumers it's a sales tax.

Appreciate the thorough explanation, but I don't know if this would be any better for CT? I guess it would depend on how high the tax rate is.

[BPt111]

Mill Rate going down in New Haven from 41.55 to 38.68 mills but it could go back to 41.55 mills or even higher it on state budget.

New Haven alders adopt $538.9 million city budget with mill rate reduction