[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You can't go by the map. Those lines going straight through Secaucus Junction mean nothing. If you go to the schedule you will see most require a transfer. Jay

Um... No... I confess to not commuting into NYC so my experience is limited. From my understating trains passing Secaucus to Penn make a stop at the junction but do not require a transfer. Only trains passing through Secaucus to Hoboken require a transfer and this is ONLY when riders need to transfer to Penn Station.

No trains terminate (end) in Secaucus except the special event only MetLife Stadium trains.

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

As I said, you can't turn back the clock. All you can do is fix the problem today. Part of it is killing off public sector pensions completely starting now and shifting to defined contribution like the private sector did in the 1980's. The other part is establishing a schedule to fully fund the existing unfunded pension liability.

If I were emperor, I'd freeze all defined benefit pensions. What you're vested in today is what you get. You're now on a defined contribution plan. You don't like it and go on strike? We replace you. There are thousands of people lined up happy to take your job..

Then would need to get rid of the WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision). In CT public employees who do not pay into Social Security are subject to the WEP and would only be able to collect a portion of their Social Security (generally 40%) unless they have had significant earnings under Social Security for 30 years. So if you stop someone's pension and move them over to Social Security they will be receiving a reduced pension and less than half of the Social Security on their future earnings for the rest of their career. This is a penalty for working in the public sector. This is a problem the public sector employee faces who puts in 15 or 20 years in a public sector job either before or after working an equivalent amount of time in the private sector. It is also a reason why many people stay in the public sector even when they may be interested in going elsewhere.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

Um... No... I confess to not commuting into NYC so my experience is limited. From my understating trains passing Secaucus to Penn make a stop at the junction but do not require a transfer. Only trains passing through Secaucus to Hoboken require a transfer and this is ONLY when riders need to transfer to Penn Station.

No trains terminate (end) in Secaucus except the special event only MetLife Stadium trains.

Uh... Yes. If you go to the schedule and pick an outer station on each line and New York Penn Station as your destination you will see how many trains require a transfer. It is the vast majority. A lot of these trains go on to Hoboken or other places so you are right they do not technically end in Secaucus but they don't get you to Manhattan either.

The reason for this is that there is a MAJOR capacity issue in the tunnels under the Hudson River. New capacity has not been added in nearly 100 years. There are a lot more commuters now than there were back then. Governor Christie stupidly canceled the project that would have added the much needed capacity under the river because he did not want to pay for it. That project would have benefitted the State of New Jersey directly so why shouldn't the state pay for it? Instead of just canceling decades of planning and preparation (construction contracts were literally ready to go out to bid), he should have renegotiated the deal to fund the project and tried to keep it on track. Of course he is the worst kind of politician, all show and no follow through. And now and for decades to come the citizens of New Jersey will pay for his very poor shortsighted decisions. Jay

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by JayCT

And now and for decades to come the citizens of New Jersey will pay for his very poor shortsighted decisions. Jay

I can agree on this.

[civis]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

Generally speak the more affluent towns with lower populations have lower property taxes. The highly populated poor cities get slammed with high property taxes. This holds true for most of CT, NY, and NJ. MA sits aside with a legislated cap on property taxes, partly why MA gets hoisted up as a blue state success story.

I mentioned Bayonne NJ with it's insane 3.6% + property tax rate hence why development there is stunted to mostly rentals because nobody in a sane state of mind wants to buy a luxury home or condo there. CT cities like Hartford fall into this tax bracket trap, especially Hartford with that mind boggling 70+ mill rate. Utter insanity to consider buying an expensive home in a tiny 18 square mile city when just a town over the houses cost half as much in taxes.

I'm not sure why why they even call them "property taxes" in NY/NJ/CT, at current levels it's more like "extortion tax" or "racket tax", whatever one prefers. It looks very much that the only people who support such taxation system are banks and RE firms, they still make **** load of money on foreclosures, many of which are direct result of "extortion tax".
BTW nowhere else in the world such prop. tax rates can be seen, the US again is unique in a negative way.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by civis

I'm not sure why why they even call them "property taxes" in NY/NJ/CT, at current levels it's more like "extortion tax" or "racket tax", whatever one prefers. It looks very much that the only people who support such taxation system are banks and RE firms, they still make **** load of money on foreclosures, many of which are direct result of "extortion tax".
BTW nowhere else in the world such prop. tax rates can be seen, the US again is unique in a negative way.

You want services? Someone has to pay for them. Either it is going to come out of the local tax level, the state or the Federal government. In other countries many things are done nationally so their income taxes are high, sometimes very high. Like it or not, taxes are a necessary evil. Jay

[civis]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You want services? Someone has to pay for them. Either it is going to come out of the local tax level, the state or the Federal government. In other countries many things are done nationally so their income taxes are high, sometimes very high. Like it or not, taxes are a necessary evil. Jay

So, state of WA has no income tax and very manageable prop. taxes, great schools, great infrastructure, and somehow much lower debt. CT has both income tax and extortion level prop.tax, crumbling infrastructure, and with much higher GDP per capita yet still unable to meet the ends.
How come? Simple, it's called government corruption.

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by civis

So, state of WA has no income tax and very manageable prop. taxes, great schools, great infrastructure, and somehow much lower debt. CT has both income tax and extortion level prop.tax, crumbling infrastructure, and with much higher GDP per capita yet still unable to meet the ends.
How come? Simple, it's called government corruption.

WA has better scenery and powerhouse Seattle

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by civis

So, state of WA has no income tax and very manageable prop. taxes, great schools, great infrastructure, and somehow much lower debt. CT has both income tax and extortion level prop.tax, crumbling infrastructure, and with much higher GDP per capita yet still unable to meet the ends.
How come? Simple, it's called government corruption.

Funny because the biggest contributor to GDP in WA is the local government

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by civis

So, state of WA has no income tax and very manageable prop. taxes, great schools, great infrastructure, and somehow much lower debt. CT has both income tax and extortion level prop.tax, crumbling infrastructure, and with much higher GDP per capita yet still unable to meet the ends.
How come? Simple, it's called government corruption.

Well CT has the problem that we kicked the can with creative financing of debt, healthcare and pension obligations for more then 30 years. 15 Years ago when Roland gave every one a tax relief check he was really just kicking the debt down the road there was no surplus just creative accounting.

This means we have a lot to pay for what we avoided paying for in the past. This is similar to the problems in NJ and IL right now.

But there also differences in revenue streams.
WA both state and local government share in both property tax and sales tax (sales tax can be as high as 10%) While they don't have a corporate income tax the do have a business tax based on gross receipts not profits, this actually makes up 22% of their annual tax revenue vs CT Corp income tax being 9% of revenue. The real estate boom in Seattle also allows for better collection of property tax without high rates (kind of like Greenwich) Once you get out of the Seatac area Washington is a lot more rural then CT that makes it easier to build infrastructure. They also have huge growth resulting in large tax return (sales and business) receipts etc.