[MrGompers]

This story was published a few days ago, doesn't seem to have received much attention though.

CT to join coalition in challenging tax reform constitutionality | HartfordBusiness.com

Quote

"Connecticut, New York and New Jersey are joining nine other states within weeks to sue the Trump administration in federal court over the constitutionality of the new tax reform law."

Looks like we're in for some fun times.

[CTartist]

I read in a different article that if they lose the case they are going use a scheme to send the state tax directly to the state from the companies thereby reducing the amount of state tax from the employees income. Kind of like health insurance. Or something to that effect.

I think I read it in the CT Post but on Sunday but can't find it online. Here is a different article that describes what the states like CT might do.

https://www.theday.com/editorials/20...tate-rebellion

"More promising are discussions among blue states to change the way they collect taxes, replacing the income tax with a payroll tax paid by employers. Companies would reduce workers’ pay by the amount of their state tax liability. Companies are not subject to the new federal tax code cap on deductions, and so would not lose any money.

Taxpayers, meanwhile, would effectively be paying the same to their states but see their federal tax obligations, along with their taxable incomes, lowered."

[clutchrider]

So they want my company to reduce my pay rate so they can still reap in their tax dollars?!?!?! How about just reign in your spending and stop trying to find ludicrous juxtapositions to fund your habits.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by clutchrider

So they want my company to reduce my pay rate so they can still reap in their tax dollars?!?!?! How about just reign in your spending and stop trying to find ludicrous juxtapositions to fund your habits.

You need to re read this part "Companies would reduce workers’ pay by the amount of their state tax liability"

They're not proposing to take anything from your precious business.

[clutchrider]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

You need to re read this part "Companies would reduce workers’ pay by the amount of their state tax liability"

They're not proposing to take anything from your precious business.

I don't own a business, what I'm saying is they would be essentially pushing companies to reduce wages. Meanwhile they are trying to force business to pay people more (minimum wage hikes) so what do they want? Pay people more or pay people less because based on this logic they are at odds with each other. Again, just reign in and be fiscally responsible with their spending would be a great start. Otherwise the only way a business with hourly workers would have to pay a higher minimum wage governed by the state while the state is saying pay your people less to adjust for the taxes? Guess they will just have to lay off workers to compensate.

Also everyone knows that costs to businesses trickle down to product/labor increases so instead of paying people less, most companies may just raise their prices and then those that do have their wages decreased won't be able to afford said products. I know these are all worst case scenarios and I'm probably soap boxing a bit but why is this even being considered, stop trying to recoup money you never should have had in the first place and adjust your budgets accordingly.

[Stepfordct]

As a business owner the devil is in the details.
When the govt. tells me not to worry this won't hurt you one bit......yeah not so fast.
Seen all the liberal studies before claiming min wage increases wouldn't affect profitability. ( Math much!?)
Oh of course Obamacare....well enough said! Love that fiasco.

The issue is a spending problem.
Look how creative the state can become when someone takes away the drug called money.
Like some sophisticated crooks who steal instead of putting thier ingenuity towards really addressing the problem.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

The issue is a spending problem.
Look how creative the state can become when someone takes away the drug called money.
Like some sophisticated crooks who steal instead of putting thier ingenuity towards really addressing the problem.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

Look how creative the state can become when someone takes away the drug called money.
Like some sophisticated crooks who steal instead of putting their ingenuity towards really addressing the problem.

Touche

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

The issue is a spending problem.
Look how creative the state can become when someone takes away the drug called money.
Like some sophisticated crooks who steal instead of putting thier ingenuity towards really addressing the problem.

Blue states spend more than 50% of their budget on the safety net. The state part of Medicaid/CHIP kid Medicaid is normally about half of that. The Medicaid heavy hitter these days is elderly people in nursing homes and that's growing like crazy as the Boomers with no savings age. Tossing Granny and Grandpa out on the street is ingenious but not exactly great public policy. Chronic medical problems is the other heavy hitter for Medicaid. All those people on SSDI riding around on the Walmart carts with the expensive chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, and emphysema. Do we just pull the plug and let them die? More Ayn Rand public policy.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Blue states spend more than 50% of their budget on the safety net. The state part of Medicaid/CHIP kid Medicaid is normally about half of that. The Medicaid heavy hitter these days is elderly people in nursing homes and that's growing like crazy as the Boomers with no savings age. Tossing Granny and Grandpa out on the street is ingenious but not exactly great public policy. Chronic medical problems is the other heavy hitter for Medicaid. All those people on SSDI riding around on the Walmart carts with the expensive chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, and emphysema. Do we just pull the plug and let them die? More Ayn Rand public policy.

We should dissect the 50% into what Grandpa receives personally vs our outrageous fully loaded state employee costs who administer the programs.

The latter is where the fat is.

Include their present costs, salary and benefits, plus what we should be accruing annually for their legacy costs.

Compare our employee to recipient ratio vs the USA ratio overall. Compare our per employee cost to the USA overall.

That fat cost is why the state employee unions spin the message as you did. Hide those facts, please.