[Lincolnian]

There are areas in Hartford, Tolland and New London counties where you can find housing that is reasonable while still having proximity to good-paying jobs. In the Hartford area, Windsor is very affordable, has a diverse population, and a nice center. The town also has many community events such as the Shad Derby, Chilli Fest and arts and crafts fairs on the green. I especially enjoy its beautiful library which is open Sundays and is a comfortable place to relax and read a book, magazine, or newspaper from their excellent collection. The overall cost of ownership is lower than many surrounding areas in terms of median housing prices and taxes. Windsor borders Hartford and is only 10 mins to downtown. There are walking trails by the river, excellent bus service as well as an Amtrak station in the center. IMHO it's a good value.

All that being said, Connecticut is a more expensive place to live than many surrounding states. The fact that New Hampshire has no income tax and food prices are substantially less while median household income is not much lower ($63,280 NH vs $67,276 CT) makes it quite an appealing alternative.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

There are areas in Hartford, Tolland and New London counties where you can find housing that is reasonable while still having proximity to good-paying jobs. In the Hartford area, Windsor is very affordable, has a diverse population, and a nice center. The town also has many community events such as the Shad Derby, Chilli Fest and arts and crafts fairs on the green. I especially enjoy its beautiful library which is open Sundays and is a comfortable place to relax and read a book, magazine, or newspaper from their excellent collection. The overall cost of ownership is lower than many surrounding areas in terms of median housing prices and taxes. Windsor borders Hartford and is only 10 mins to downtown. There are walking trails by the river, excellent bus service as well as an Amtrak station in the center. IMHO it's a good value.

All that being said, Connecticut is a more expensive place to live than many surrounding states. The fact that New Hampshire has no income tax and food prices are substantially less while median household income is not much lower ($63,280 NH vs $67,276 CT) makes it quite an appealing alternative.

No state income tax means no state tax deduction on your federal income tax return, which means a significantly smaller tax refund each year, which sucks.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by nep321

Don't use Fairfield County as an indicator of how CT living is in general. Fairfield County is the oddball county within CT. It is an extension of NYC, really. The rest of CT is so much different, much more affordable and has much less traffic and an easier life in general.

Originally Posted by papafox

^^this^^

Not really. You both may think so because you live here, but to someone who lives outside the Northeast, there is very little difference between Hartford and Fairfield Counties.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Not really. You both may think so because you live here, but to someone who lives outside the Northeast, there is very little difference between Hartford and Fairfield Counties.

I think the misperception outside the area is that ALL of Connecticut is like Fairfield county... There is no accounting for the actual diversity within the state.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Not really. You both may think so because you live here, but to someone who lives outside the Northeast, there is very little difference between Hartford and Fairfield Counties.

That's why I said "within CT."

[DrPizza]

:yawn: get me my beer

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by nep321

No state income tax means no state tax deduction on your federal income tax return, which means a significantly smaller tax refund each year, which sucks.

Given what you do for a living, that is a laughable post. So you would rather pay 5 percent of gross pay to get a deduction on your federal return worth , at most, 28% of that 5%. That leaves you upside down 3.6% (72% of the 5%).

Since I know many say "Hey, it lowers sales taxes": (Lets analyze the difference below)

At most, people spend 1/3rd of their net pay on stuff subject to sales taxes, or 20-25% of gross pay (depends on tax bracket). That means sales taxes would have to be raised 14.4% to equal the affect of that 3.6% state income tax you pay (after the federal deduction affect).

That is becase of the 75% of gross pay used on stuff (mortgages, rent, car payments, insurances) not affected by state sales tax rates, as it is never subject to them.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Given what you do for a living, that is a laughable post. So you would rather pay 5 percent of gross pay to get a deduction on your federal return worth , at most, 28% of that 5%. That leaves you upside down 3.6% (72% of the 5%).

Since I know many say "Hey, it lowers sales taxes": (Lets analyze the difference below)

At most, people spend 1/3rd of their net pay on stuff subject to sales taxes, or 20-25% of gross pay (depends on tax bracket). That means sales taxes would have to be raised 14.4% to equal the affect of that 3.6% state income tax you pay (after the federal deduction affect).

That is becase of the 75% of gross pay used on stuff (mortgages, rent, car payments, insurances) not affected by state sales tax rates, as it is never subject to them.

Totally wrong. Time to listen to me.

Let me walk you through from a purely income-side standpoint (forgetting about expenses), using Person A and Person B as a comparison example. To keep things simple, let's assume neither person has any pre-tax deductions in their paycheck, is filing as single, and does not own a home.

Person A lives in New Hampshire and pays no state income tax and earns a gross salary of $200,000. Since he can't itemize deductions (these must exceed $6,200 -- there are no state taxes to itemize), he must take the standard deduction. With a standard deduction of $6,200 (as official for 2014), his taxable income is $193,800. According to the 2014 federal tax brackets, Person A's total tax liability would be $47,813.

Person B lives in Connecticut and earns a gross salary of $200,000. Therefore, he pays state income tax of $11,050. Since his state tax paid exceeds $6,200, he can itemize deductions. With itemized deductions of $11,050 his taxable income is $188,950. According to the 2014 federal tax brackets, Person B's federal tax liability would be $46,212. Person B's total tax liability would be $57,262 (fed + state).

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by nep321

Totally wrong. Time to listen to me.

Let me walk you through from a purely income-side standpoint (forgetting about expenses), using Person A and Person B as a comparison example. To keep things simple, let's assume neither person has any pre-tax deductions in their paycheck, is filing as single, and does not own a home.

Person A lives in New Hampshire and pays no state income tax and earns a gross salary of $200,000. Since he can't itemize deductions (these must exceed $6,200 -- there are no state taxes to itemize), he must take the standard deduction. With a standard deduction of $6,200 (as official for 2014), his taxable income is $193,800. According to the 2014 federal tax brackets, Person A's total tax liability would be $47,813.

Person B lives in Connecticut and earns a gross salary of $200,000. Therefore, he pays state income tax of $11,050. Since his state tax paid exceeds $6,200, he can itemize deductions. With itemized deductions of $11,050 his taxable income is $188,950. According to the 2014 federal tax brackets, Person B's federal tax liability would be $46,212. Person B's total tax liability would be $57,262 (fed + state).

Bad example. Who making 200k would NOT be paying a mortgage? That alone would have them itemizing. As is often the case keeping it simple (per you) misrepresents American reality.

I think the reason you like paying income taxes, and than getting a better IRS refund (you said you're at 75K) is simply this: It (tax refund) is the lazy man's way to save money from his "paycheck". You are not alone; I've had crazy relatives not realize lending the IRS money interest free is a sheer act of stupidity.