[JayCT]

Oz Griebel is proposing to stop contributing to the state’s pension fund for two years in order to balance the budget and lower taxes. I am not sure this makes sense or is realistic. Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2018/09/13/off-...icit-solution/

[ads94]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Oz Griebel is proposing to stop contributing to the state’s pension fund for two years in order to balance the budget and lower taxes. I am not sure this makes sense or is realistic. Jay

https://ctmirror.org/2018/09/13/off-...icit-solution/

And that kills the tiny bit of me that would vote for him if he gained traction in the polls. What happens at year 3? Taxes shoot back up, even worse than before. Stefanowski and Griebel have lost their minds and trying to peddle attractive snake oil to the voters.

Connecticut is smarter than this.

[RunD1987]

Makes sense
Basically Oz is saying listen we got this huge deficit looming ahead of us for 2 years. Have to make some hard choices. Instead of raising taxes on CT residents and businesses let's try to lower taxes and reduce spending.

We are going to have to make hard choices pensions and rainy day fund will assist with the deficit.

Oz is being realistic and a Centrist.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

What was the last estimate for installing tolls?
What percent of collections is lost to the admin/maint of the system.
If that number is much greater than a single digit it might not be worth it.
I recall the old school toll systems had like an 8 to 11 yr break even.
These should be much less. But then the govt is involved so....

I believe break even is 2-3 years dependent on legal costs and construction time.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Tolls have been a more than adequate source of transportation revenue for centuries and every state along the east coast have them. Also many Midwest and West coast states have them. If they cost more than they take in, they would not be so popular. And the costs to implement open road tolls would be less than building and maintaining toll plazas which those states have. One of the most expensive parts of implementing tolls is the communication network needed for the open road toll system. Connecticut already has much of that network established for their incident management system. There is no way we will take in less money than it would cost to build the system needed. Jay

It will make money no doubt but it will likely be a tax burden for CT citizens. In the end what's raised by out of state people will mostly go to overhead and construction. Not to mention that it will take years to implement. An increase in the sales tax could have revenue earmarked for infrastructure in a year. Tolls would likely be closer to 7 years.

[ads94]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

Makes sense
Basically Oz is saying listen we got this huge deficit looming ahead of us for 2 years. Have to make some hard choices. Instead of raising taxes on CT residents and businesses let's try to lower taxes and reduce spending.

We are going to have to make hard choices pensions and rainy day fund will assist with the deficit.

Oz is being realistic and a Centrist.

How is that being realistic? The entire reason why are in this mess is because this is EXACTLY what the state government did for decades. Connecticut had some good times during that period, all while the pension fund nightmare loomed. Now it's finally blowing up and the "realistic" and "centrist" position is to?... do the exact same thing that got us here in the first place?

We defer payments for two years, the budget is in another billion dollar hole and then we gotta start the payments again, meanwhile the pension fund disaster got even worse. Burying our head in the sand has done nothing but harm us. Delaying this by another two years is living in fantasy land. At least Bob's plan of "Drop Dead" is clear.

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by ads94

How is that being realistic? The entire reason why are in this mess is because this is EXACTLY what the state government did for decades. Connecticut had some good times during that period, all while the pension fund nightmare loomed. Now it's finally blowing up and the "realistic" and "centrist" position is to?... do the exact same thing that got us here in the first place?

We defer payments for two years, the budget is in another billion dollar hole and then we gotta start the payments again, meanwhile the pension fund disaster got even worse. Burying our head in the sand has done nothing but harm us. Delaying this by another two years is living in fantasy land. At least Bob's plan of "Drop Dead" is clear.

Raising taxes isn't the answer, false promises aren't the answer, and lowering taxes isn't the answer. Oz gives it to us straight. I trust Oz in making the right choices and doing the best he can for this State as Governor.

[RunD1987]

Oz tax plan:
Tax Policy Objectives

*

Hold the line on the personal income tax as key component of revenue with a focus on more people paying taxes rather than more taxes at higher rates

Reduce personal income tax rate steadily to original 4.5% of 1993 in conjunction with progress toward goal of 200,000 net new jobs by 2028

Eliminate 50% of the $250 business entity tax on July 1, 2019 and the remaining 50% on July 1, 2020

Reduce the gift and estate tax to 0% by June 30, 2022 via incremental reductions effective on July 1st of 2019, 2020, and 2021

Eliminate gross receipts taxes on certain for-profit entities

[auggie22]

Originally Posted by ads94

And that kills the tiny bit of me that would vote for him if he gained traction in the polls. What happens at year 3? Taxes shoot back up, even worse than before. Stefanowski and Griebel have lost their minds and trying to peddle attractive snake oil to the voters.

Connecticut is smarter than this.

I think it makes sense provided that this includes an assumption that we will end collctive bargaining and structurally change pension benefits as soon as the state labor contracts are up.

This is the responsible thing to do, lock in the pension reform assumptions now so that future governors can be less easily tempted to give concessions to government unions.

[auggie22]

I find it funny how all of the “centrists” on this board will be up in arms over Oz’s suggestion ( defund pensions in order to facilitate pension reform down the road ) when Malloy has essentially done the same thing in reverse TWICE now: he has negotiated two generous government pension contracts that were fiscally irresponsible without locking in future, major tax hikes to support them.

There was literally nobody with any understanding of numbers at that time who thought tthe contractual agreements were possible without an influx of new revenue. Yet apparently when Malloy did it, it was not quite as unrealistic and Ill-advised.