[Mr_250]

I'll say it again..

No matter the outcome, Connecticut has a black eye in the business community. Don't expect any large companies to expand or come to this State. It'll remain stagnant.

I'll be interested to see the tweaks. To Jays point, I watched Face the State (on my lunch break) he made some pretty hard claims that, with a simple google check, can be disputed. The Looney Tune and Shark that are leading this charge sound bent on this being the best budget ever passed. My vote is that the tweaks they do ( if any) will be aimed at the upper class/wealthy. No business will change.

[FutureTown]

In Malloy's defense, the legislature doesn't need Malloy till the very end to come up wit a budget. Although, I'm sure transparency would be nice. A huge problem in our government system.

That's why I scorn at people blaming Obama for issues that are largely conducted by Congress. Obama only has so much power.

Nonetheless, I'm sure we can come to a compromise. I still think big corporations need to be taxed and pay their fair share to Connecticut. The companies arguing to death with our government are all Fortune 100 (GE, Aetna, UTC, and Travelers).

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by ctguy87

This thread is about the economic climate in CT, correct?

You can huff all you want about GE's profits, tax evasion, etc - but you cannot deny the fact that the new budget undermines the already depressed economic climate that CT 'touts.' The fact that GE has money in the bank tells me that they are fiscally responsible, which cannot be said about this state. .

Amen. This administration has been reckless. It is amazing it took so long for major corps to flee. These 3, no doubt, are at the beginning of the UTC ABC path.

Perhaps they should call pink slips, "Malloy slips". As the guy who signed this budget, this is HIS fault if any of these fine corps flee.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am not sure if anyone saw it but Governor Malloy was on Face the State yesterday morning. He was asked about the new budget and he basically laid all the blame on the legislature. He said the budget passed was not his budget, it was theirs. He knows the concerns businesses have but claimed our taxes on business are lower than New York's. He even mentioned an independent study that was done by a major accounting firm that showed our business taxes are lower than many states. I found this all to be questionable at best. I think you can find the interview on the WFSB website. Jay

He signed it. Perhaps Christie could explain to him what a veto is.

When he signed it, he owned it.

He was a coward to not state that explicitly.

[janster100]

Originally Posted by FutureTown

Nonetheless, I'm sure we can come to a compromise. I still think big corporations need to be taxed and pay their fair share to Connecticut. The companies arguing to death with our government are all Fortune 100 (GE, Aetna, UTC, and Travelers).

What is their "fair share"? What if the "fair share" is half the rate in some other state? What if the other state also throws in a nice incentive package as a sweetener? You can bet states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, etc. have already put in some calls to various companies here in Connecticut opening up the channels of communication.

So, what is the "fair share"?

[BobNJ1960]

Georgia, I read, was the 1st to contact GE.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by janster100

What is their "fair share"? What if the "fair share" is half the rate in some other state? What if the other state also throws in a nice incentive package as a sweetener? You can bet states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, etc. have already put in some calls to various companies here in Connecticut opening up the channels of communication.

So, what is the "fair share"?

Fair share? The same percentage the thousands of small businesses in Connecticut pay. Is it fair that my 12 person company-- founded here in CT and that employees 12 CT residents-- pays a tax rate dramatically higher?

Most businesses in CT-- and in the US-- are small businesses. Because they pay less, I pay more. Business-friendly starts with small business.

[BobNJ1960]

If Ct spent LESS, you would all pay LESS.

Business friendly states spend LESS. That allows them to tax LESS. That allows them to build the grand list faster than the nation overall.

Ct used to do that.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

If Ct spent LESS, you would all pay LESS.

Business friendly states spend LESS. That allows them to tax LESS. That allows them to build the grand list faster than the nation overall.

Ct used to do that.

Sure- Where do we cut? The thrust of the problem is retiree healthcare and retiree pension obligations. What is so easily cut from the CT budget? I'm all for cutting wasteful spending

At the same time, you're not addressing the "fair share" issue. I defined fair share as the same percentage a small business pays. You moved the goal posts-- Now it's about spending.

[BobNJ1960]

State pensions. Shift bottom 2 tiers to a defined contribution 401K , based on surveying Ct's top 50 employers, and using the median contribution.

Do the same with Health Care coverage, premiums, co-pays..index it to Ct Top 50 median employer cost plan.

The goal post was moved by Ct btw, and now they are finding out how many billions it will cost them to rectify their error and retain 20,000 or so jobs, plus 20k more at suppliers.

I do think had they first addressed egregious state employee cost , they would not face corps saying "enough is enough".

Malloy needs to stop promoting cost increases, and instead, cut internal costs.