New Haveners Back Tax Hikes For Rich
by
| Mar 15, 2021 3:41 pm(37) Comments | Post a Comment | E-mail the Author
Posted to: State, Covid-19, True Vote
New Haveners traveled virtually to Hartford Monday to issue a call: Increase taxes on the wealthy who have thrived during the pandemic, and send money back to the poor and working class who have been hit hardest by Covid-19.
City residents offered that testimony during the first four hours and counting of an online public hearing hosted Monday morning by the state legislature’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. The virtual hearing was live-streamed on YouTube.
The New Haveners testified in support of a suite of such progressive tax proposals designed to achieve a “recovery for all” — as suburbanites slammed New Haven State Sen. Martin Looney’s proposed new “mansion tax” as “theft” by profligate big cities from frugal small towns.
The 12 New Haveners who showed up during the first hours of what promised to be a marathon public hearing all threw their support behind two related proposed bills.
Those are Proposed Senate Bill 821: An Concerning the Reformation of Certain Taxes and Tax Equity and Proposed House Bill 6187: An Act Concerning the Restructuring of Certain Taxes and Tax Equity.
The former was co-introduced by, among others, New Haven State Sen. Gary Winfield and Hamden State Sen. Jorge Cabrera. The latter has the backing of such local state representatives as Robyn Porter, Roland Lemar, Michael DiMassa, Michael D’Agostino, and Josh Elliott.
The two related pieces of proposed legislation would push forward a priority of local progressive tax reform advocates: transferring money from the wealthiest in the state towards the poor and working class in the form of expanded tax credits, direct payments, and fuller funding for state and local social services.
Some of the provisions included in the two nearly-identical bills are higher income taxes for those who make more than $500,000 a year, higher corporate taxes for companies that make more than $100 million a year, new taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest incomes, and $500 checks for everyone who received state unemployment benefits during the first nine months of the pandemic.
“There’s huge wealth in this city and state,” said Hill Alder Ron Hurt (pictured) during his public testimony before the committee. “Those who have that wealth have to pay their fair share.”
Democratic Town Committee Ward 27 Co-Chair Beryl Benson agreed. “New Haven is a city that has a lot of challenges,” she said Monday morning. “It is a city that needs more resources. It’s not fair that some of the wealthiest in our state have so much, while others have so many struggles.”
Former City Hall staffer and current SEIU representative Rick Melita spoke of how disparately people at different ends of the income scale have fared during Covid19.
“Because we live in a system deeply invested in maintaining income and racial inequality, it should come as no surprise that this plague hit low-wage workers and communities of color the hardest,” he said. “It doesn’t have to be that way. We can build a community that benefits us all. We can build Connecticut not only back, but better.”
Through these proposed tax changes, he said, the state legislature’s finance committee “can protect the economic wellbeing that a just society needs to fix a system that automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities.”
Tax Reform Supporters: “Austerity Is A Choice”
Proposed HB 6187 and proposed SB 821 include a range of mirrored proposals for changes to the state tax code. Those include:
• Establishing a surcharge of 5 percent on capital gains, dividends, and interest income.
• Increasing the corporate tax rate to 11.5 percent on companies with gross annual revenues of $100 million or more.
• Increasing the income tax rate to 8.82 percent for unmarried individuals who make over $500,000 and for heads of household and married couples who make over $800,000.
• Increasing the income tax rate to 12.696 percent for unmarried individuals who make over $1 million and for heads of household and married couples who make over $1.2 million.
• Expanding the state earned income tax credit to 50 percent of the federal EITC.
• Sending $500 checks to all individuals who “experienced economic hardships due to the COVID-19 pandemic” and received unemployment benefits between March 15 and Dec. 31, 2020. and received unemployment compensation benefits between” March 15 and Dec. 31, 2020.
• Establishing a state child tax credit.
• Establishing a 10 percent tax on digital advertising revenue generated in the state by any business with annual worldwide gross revenues exceeding $10 billion.
• Establishing a 2 percent tax on the portion of assessed value of any owner-occupied residence exceeding $1.5 million in value.
• Eliminating the $15 million estate tax cap and reducing estate tax exemption thresholds.
The New Haveners who testified virtually on Monday, including many from the local labor advocacy group New Haven Rising, backed these proposals as necessary remedies for the immediate economic shock caused by the pandemic and for longer-standing structural inequalities they said are baked into how the state collects revenue.
Nearly every N
ew Haven speaker criticized Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat and businessman from Greenwich, for opposing any kind of tax increase on the wealthy in this biennial state budget.
Unidad Latina en Acción member Guadalupe Garcia spoke in Spanish — translated into English by fellow immigrant rights advocate Meg Fountain — about how she’s lived in New Haven for 17 years, worked for a local hotel for 14 years, and was laid off last year due to the pandemic.
She lost not only her job and wages, but also her employer-provided health insurance.
“I have been scraping by with very little work and almost zero income” since then, she said.
Garcia said she also came down with Covid in December, causing her family to go into quarantine.
“We almost died of hunger.”
“These bills would make a difference between a state that excludes and a state that includes,” she continued. “You have an opportunity to be the heroes of the working class and to guarantee a dignified good life for the people of this state. … I want to have an economic stability so that I can guarantee the same good life to my children that you give to your children.”
New Haven Rising organizer and Leadership, Education and Athletics in Partnership, Inc. (LEAP) staffer John Lee spoke of working with students at King Robinson who told him that they were hungry during school, and that “being hungry was causing them to disrupt class and get into fights.”
LEAP started an after-school supper program that feeds 300 kids, he said. But the resources provided for such supportive services don’t match up with the need.
“That’s an abundance of resources and wealth in our city and state,” he said. “It’s just amassed by a few individuals and institutions.”
Benson agreed that the city needs more resources for additional after-school and youth employment programs.
“We know that violence increases during and after economic crises,” she said. “We cannot wait for more investment in our youth.”
Yale physics graduate student and Local 33 lead organizer Kimberly Cushman said that Yale’s $31 billion endowment and $203 operating surplus are evidence enough that the wealthiest in the state are doing just fine during the current pandemic, and can contribute more to cash-strapped cities like New Haven.
“Austerity is a choice,” she said. “By paying slightly higher income and property taxes, the richest in Connecticut would be able to contribute to racial and economic justice that our state needs.”
In separate testimonies, New Haven legal aid attorneys James Bhandary-Alexander and Sheldon Toubman detailed how their low-income clients would benefit tremendously from increased investments in reentry services, public transportation, rental assistance, and expanded state healthcare access, and would be disproportionately hurt by such Lamont-proposed cuts to the Medicare savings program and to the Connecticut Diaper Bank.
Connecticut does indeed face a challenging budget situation, Toubman said.
But this is a “self-imposed situation because of the unwillingness to consider reasonable revenue. We can do better. It is time to ask those with the highest incomes who have done very well during the pandemic to contribute their fair share to a meaningful post-pandemic recovery so that these kids of essential programs can be preserved and expanded.”
“Mansion Tax” = “Let’s Rob Peter To Pay Paul Tax”?
Suburban critics of New Haven-backed tax reform on Monday zeroed in on a different city-sponsored bill: a so-called “mansion tax”—Proposed Senate Bill 171: An Act Establishing A State-Wide Tax On Real Property—which has been proposed by New Haven State Sen. and President Pro Tem Martin Looney.
That proposed bill would establish a one mill state-wide tax on commercial and residential real estate worth more than $430,000. Looney has said that the new tax would require the owner of a $500,000 house to pay an additional $50 a year.
Suburban residents like Deborah Schultz of Woodbury were having none of it.
She said she has lived in Woodbury for 40 years. She and her husband live in a 2,600 square foot house, and bring in less than $100,000 a year on their combined fixed incomes.
She said calling such a proposed bill a “mansion tax” is an insult. “It’s more accurate to call it a ‘Let’s Rob Peter To Pay Paul’ tax.”
Schultz said that the state legislature’s plan for for filling budget deficits and supporting cash-strapped cities like Hartford and New Haven “seems to always be to steal more from the citizens and local towns who have been able to manage what they receive.”
She also criticized a related bill, Proposed Senate Bill 172: An Act Establishing A State-Wide Assessment To Encourage Affordable Housing In The State, as “an extortion bill.”
“We don’t need additional threats from big city legislators.”
Finance Committee House Chair and Guilford State Rep. Sean Scanlon (pictured) said that, regardless of whether or not one supports the proposed bills before the committee, one has to recognize that “the challenges that you face in Woodbury pale in comparison to the challenges that other communities in the state face.”
“These bills may not be the right solution,” he said. “But the problem still exists.”
New Canaan’s James Basch (pictured) was equally critical of the proposed “mansion tax.” He said that bills like these have only driven his fellow Fairfield County neighbors away from Connecticut to states like Florida, South Carolina, and Arizona.
“Homes are the foundations of everything,” he said. “It’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
He recognized that cities like New Haven face serious fiscal challenges.
“New Haven’s issues aren’t just passive,” he said. He noted that the city’s 49-year-old police chief is about to retire and will receive over $100,000 for his pension.
“Clean up your own governance and budget management and stop being beholden to special interest groups for votes,” he told New Haveners.
Kent resident Joseph Agli said he supports Lamont’s pledge not to raise taxes, and opposes bills like SB 171 that “target the so-called wealthy.”
The state is getting billions of dollars this year in federal pandemic-era relief, he said. “Senate Bill 171 is simply wrong and is not needed.”
The only person to speak up in support of the proposed “mansion tax” during the first four-plus hours of Monday’s hearing was New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker (pictured).
He praised the state legislature for approving a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) reform bill earlier this session which promises a tiered approach to distributing state aid to municipalities most in need.
That new tiered approach needs to be funded, he said, and SB 171 could provide one such way to support a beefed-up PILOT.
Cities like New Haven provide a host of employment, healthcare, and cultural services to wide swaths of the state, he said, and yet they’re hampered by a reliance on the local property tax—which is further exacerbated by hosting so many tax-exempt nonprofits.
“There’s not one perfect answer to this problem,” he said, “but Connecticut must act urgently to seriously reform the current system, where we continually leave our poorest areas behind.”
Tags: Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee, taxes, income tax, property tax, New Haven Rising, recovery for all
Post a Comment
You must be logged in to comment
If you already have an account, please log in here | If not, please .
Comments
posted by: Noteworthy on March 15, 2021 4:28pm
They all support taking money from the families of others….wow. How selfish.
posted by: CatDude on March 15, 2021 5:08pm
Taxing the business owners to give to the unions. Seems fair.
posted by: HeLayethOnHigh on March 15, 2021 5:15pm
Connecticut is the wealthiest state in the country in the wealthiest country in the world. It’s insane that we allow this much inequality to go on. Working people are poor people are really suffering, especially during COVID, and there’s nothing inevitable about that. Cushman says it right—austerity is a choice. Hoarding is a choice. Opportunity—for who? A recovery—for who? These bills are a good start. So is the mansion tax. The wealthy in Connecticut can afford to pay their fair share. It’s long past time that they do.
posted by: Michael22 on March 15, 2021 5:33pm
Just waiting on my wife to retire and we’re looking at moving to either New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, or Florida to name a few. 430,000 qualifies as a mansion? So fed up with CT and these lousy politicians. Can they do anything else besides make it more difficult to live here with further taxes?? Looney, are you listening??
posted by: Jp71 on March 15, 2021 7:59pm
Even these taxes will not help as well as Yale contributing more if you do not manage your finances. Bankruptcy is the only answer!
posted by: LookOut on March 15, 2021 8:23pm
bankrupcy might help but selling and moving to a tax with more rational thinkers is best.
posted by: owen@large on March 16, 2021 12:03am
Has any NH administration ever offered or even tried to cut something out of the city budget, personnel, services, contracts, etc., or seriously negotiated a leaner, cost-saving contract with any of the unions? It appears that NH has increasingly become an ever-widening fiscal sinkhole, into which no amount of money will ever be enough. The “rich” have left and will continue to leave, NH and then CT. “The wealthy in Connecticut can afford to pay their fair share.” What may I ask is the “fair” share that the wealthy should pay? I dare say that what is “fair” today, won’t nearly be enough tomorrow, and the next day, and so on and so on…
posted by: BevHills730 on March 16, 2021 8:23am
Ah yes. Those states with rational thinkers who have extreme poverty minimum wages, high uninsured rates, and terribly funded schools. I could see why the extremely wealthy would find such misery rational.
posted by: Bohica on March 16, 2021 8:40am
I think that those supporting this proposal believe the money will end up directly in their pockets, it won’t. I have worked for very poor cities, in the middle cities and very rich cities what I found is that in the very rich cities and towns the residents there don’t lift a finger to do manual labor. Someone paints their houses, cuts their lawns, clean their houses and take care of their children. They spend extravagant amounts of money on their hobbies and interests which all employ various tradesmen. The wealthy aren’t hoarding their money they
’re spending it and the crumbs that fall from their tables are employing a lot of people not looking for a handout.
posted by: ElmCityLover on March 16, 2021 9:31am
Connecticut has a spending problem. Our citizens are burdened with the 6th highest tax burden in the country, yet the state still can’t manage to cover its expenses. Since CT put the income tax in government spending has skyrocketed. Per Forbes “From 1991 to 2014, state government spending in Connecticut grew 71 percent faster than the rate of inflation.” No matter how much money the state takes from people and corporations (at least the ones who stay) it will find a way to spend more.
Taxes should be the means by which basic services (schools, roads, public safety) are funded. They should not be a vehicle by which to redistribute wealth, be it between towns nor individuals.
Baffles my mind how many people out there think that its greedy to want keep ones own money, but not to demand the government take money from others at gunpoint.
Also, can we drop the pretext that these proposals have anything to do with the pandemic? They were on the progressive wish list pre-Covid and would be if there was never a virus.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2016/08/24/ctincometax/?sh=783bdef40065
posted by: NHCritic on March 16, 2021 9:31am
CT has the second highest level of income inequality in US (only NY beats us on that). This is obviously overdue. Wealthy folks should also realize that increasing their taxes to reduce inequality will actually save society money in the long run, create a healthier populace, and reduce crime. In effect, tax increases on the wealthy will benefit the wealthy (even if they complain otherwise).
posted by: asj on March 16, 2021 9:32am
I keep hearing the same line over and over and over and over: rich people “can afford to pay their fair share.”
But here are a few thoughts (skipping the generality that life isn’t fair):
1. What exactly is a “fair share” and who decides that?
2. On the receiving end, can we expect people to put in their “fair share” of effort? Of responsibility?
posted by: robn on March 16, 2021 9:45am
Property taxes are the worst way imaginable to improve our state. Property is static and doesn’t yield annual income. Just tax income appropriately and try to keep costs (like state and municipal retirement benefits) under control.
posted by: pass the blame on March 16, 2021 9:52am
Shout out to all the taxer’s out there. Are you familiar with the Laffer curve. Read about it before you quickly tax more.
I notice that Multi- millionaires Dick Blumenthal and Rosa DeLauro are not holding any press conferences on the steps of City Hall when it comes to their tax rate increasing.
posted by: NHCritic on March 16, 2021 10:15am
Can we please leave the supply side economic arguments in a ditch where they belong? The last 40 years have taught us (repeatedly) that raising taxes on the wealthy stimulates the economy. The Laffer curve is laughable and has no data to back it up. Every tax increase (Bush Sr, Clinton) has spurred growth while tax decreases (Reagan, Bush Jr, Trump) have led to recessions and increased inequality.
posted by: pass the blame on March 16, 2021 1:25pm
@NHCritic. I would have to disagree with you on the laffer curve. If you keep up on the news, look at the volume of billion dollar companies that have left CA for TX (5 major in 2020). Look at the volume of billionaire companies that left NYC and CT for FL. When you take companies out of the local market it takes all the secondary and tertiary business that support those employees. That includes the local accountant, restaurants, gyms, nail salons to the local XYZ. If Yale left, what would bring someone to New Haven???
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/GE-s-impact-on-state-goes-far-beyond-taxes-6310284.php
posted by: NHCritic on March 16, 2021 3:58pm
Wealthy people leaving CT is not evidence to support the Laffer curve. In fact, there is no evidence to support the Laffer curve. Every tax increase, including when taxes were 90{56ef4555b1160ba09e855af6afd9aff20ca1ee0c32187e33609ae0a92f439672} for the wealthiest bracket in the 1950s, led to increased growth and tax revenue.
posted by: LookOut on March 16, 2021 4:43pm
The Reagan, GW Bush, and Trump cuts all created substantial economic growth. The second 2 were overcome by other issues (Housing finance crisis and COVID) a few years later. Going back further, JFK also instituted tax cuts that stimulated the economy.
The Laffer curve is supported by both logic and actual experience.
posted by: pass the blame on March 16, 2021 5:03pm
Why are the wealthy leaving CT, NY. NJ and CA for low tax states? If that is not the Laffer curve, then why
I guess the economist and CT post are just “fake news” .
posted by: NHCritic on March 16, 2021 5:13pm
No, they are not fake news. They just don’t say what you think they say. There is no study validating the Laffer Curve, and academic economists agree it’s not backed by evidence.
Paul Krugman has written on the Laffer Curve, and has noted that “…nothing in the experience of the past 35 years has made Lafferism any more credible. Since the 1970s there have been four big changes in the effective tax rate on the top 1 percent: the Reagan cut, the Clinton hike, the Bush cut, and the Obama hike. Republicans are fixated on the boom that followed the 1981 tax cut (which had much more to do with monetary policy, but never mind). But they predicted dire effects from the Clinton hike; instead we had a boom that eclipsed Reagan’s. They predicted wonderful things from the Bush tax cuts; instead we got an unim
pressive expansion followed by a devastating crash. And they predicted terrible things from the tax rise after Obama’s reelection; instead we got the best job growth since 1999.”
posted by: BevHills730 on March 16, 2021 5:15pm
“If Yale left, what would bring someone to New Haven?”
Can we stop with this nonsense? Yale had a hard time changing the name of a slavery advocate because of backwards alumni nostalgia. And yet, Yale is somehow going to abandon its history, its billions of dollars of buildings that have donors names attached to them, and iconic architecture? Yale will do this and move to some prefabricated shitty campus in a place like Texarkana all to save a marginal amount and avoid its moral obligations to New Haven?
Seems like a really solid plan cooked up by the most rational of all thinkers.
posted by: pass the blame on March 16, 2021 9:02pm
We can argue forever on the Laffer curve. In the end, the rich leaving CT, NY, NJ, and CA for lower tax states like TX, FL and NV. When they leave they take their money and the jobs with them.
The point I was making is Yale is not leaving. Hypothetically, if they did, who would fill the void? Without out Yale the City of New Haven would be Detroit . There would be no reason for anyone or any business to come here. When was the last time you went to Bridgeport? ( FYI Bridgeport has a lower crime rate than New Haven).
It is not Yale’s fault or requirement to fix the decades of mis management of the City of New Haven. It has been the elected officials who are to blame as well as the State for not funding PILOT. It is also not Jason fault that we are in the hole 10’s of millions. How quickly everyone has forgotten how our last mayor used the City’s coffers as her personal piggy bank with trips to China, coffee at DnD and fancy steak dinners. Should Yale have to pay that that as well?
Why is the BOA allowed to give every builder a tax abatement for decades? Should Yale have to pay for that as well? How many police chiefs has the city lost or had to buy our their contact, how many superintendent has the city had to buy out their contracts when they are fired. Should Yale have to pay for that as well? These are all inconvenient truths! FYI The moral obligation is a cheap shot against Yale.
Peace out 🙂
posted by: NHCritic on March 16, 2021 9:36pm
New Haven is not unique in its financial predicament. As such, I find it hard to believe that not just New Haven, but almost every large city in CT has had years of “mismanagement” that can fully explain where we are today. The city can only do so much with the money it has. Unfortunately, years of supply side economic thought-processes, like the ones you espouse, lead to self-propelling cycles of tax cuts for wealthy and services cuts for the poor. We end up with gross inequality and then blame scapegoats for the rise in crime and poor quality of the public schools. Yale is merely emblematic of this inequality as a multi-billion dollar corporation headquartered in the heart of an otherwise poor and neglected city.
posted by: Heather C. on March 16, 2021 9:41pm
For all you people who claim the wealthy are leaving CT, ask the realtors who will tell you as a result of the pandemic, people are moving here from NYC, Boston, California and other much more expensive real estate places around the country and are buying 2nd and 3rd homes with cash, above asking price, and with no inspections and they still own homes in their previous locations. They are discovering that they can get much more for their money in CT. Our state is changing and your same old tired arguments aren’t holding up anymore when held up to the actual facts. Fairfield, Litchfield, the shoreline communities and West Hartford are hot property for new state residents. New Haven real estate is being snapped up by the investors who are betting on its future as a science, medicine, pharmaceutical and technology based economy. The people who will be moving out of the state will be the people who can’t afford to live here anymore, the poor, the lower class, the lower middle class and middle middle class will be priced out, but the wealthy and upper middle class will be doing fine in the new state of CT. Those pesky poor and working poor will be forced into fewer and fewer communities and neighborhoods and there will be less need for social services when they can’t afford to live here anymore.
posted by: owen@large on March 16, 2021 11:51pm
For those who continue to think that the “rich” moving into CT will make up for the “rich” moving out of CT, the data just does not support this at all. In fact, more people; of all economic levels, are moving out of CT at a steady and alarming rate. Several recent studies confirm this exodus.
“United Van Lines released its National Migration Study on Monday and, despite the pandemic and a hot real estate market, Connecticut was once again in the top five states that saw more people moving out. According to the study, 63.5 percent of the state’s migration was outbound, compared to 36.5 percent inbound. Connecticut had the fourth-highest outbound rate in the country, with New York, New Jersey, and Illinois all faring worse.”
posted by: CityYankee on March 17, 2021 5:51am
Dear Bleeding Hearts—- what cuts for the poor have you noticed??? Are you crazy? Tablets for every student in NHPS, meals on wheels for all, don’t have to pay rent, can’t get evicted, 2 stimulus checks and counting, extra unemployment for those who ever bothered to have a job, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, and every other program that the real working folk probably don’t even know about…. tie the hands of police and the judicial system and it’s THE PURGE all day long!
Where are all the cuts that people are decrying in CT?????? There is MORE GRAVY TRAIN THAN EVER!!!!! Less rights—rule by executive order—The Dems are riding this to a total power grab and a giant communistic “welfare” state. If it was so great; why did so many revolt to overthrow communism?? Ever wonder about that? How many boat people are riding INTO CUBA??
NY, MASS, NJ, MD folk are moving here for cheaper housing. There is no tech renaissance coming, Tweed will bring no one to NH who wasn’t already coming here. They help themselves; not CT.
posted by: pass the blame on March 17, 2021 7:30am
Alders overwhelmingly approved a 17-year tax break for a failed Dwight housing co-op on the brink of demolition and reconstruction, amid objections that the affordable housing deal is too gen
erous for the project’s developer.
Mis management by our elected officials will cost the tax payers . I am tired of the Yale has 60{56ef4555b1160ba09e855af6afd9aff20ca1ee0c32187e33609ae0a92f439672} of the city tax free sob story. Should Yale have to pay for this as well?
posted by: pass the blame on March 17, 2021 7:39am
Census: Connecticut one of 10 states to shrink in population in past year
By RUSSELL BLAIR
HARTFORD COURANT |
DEC 31, 2019 AT 8:55 AM
Not sure I would call CT boom town.
The decline, the sixth year in a row Connecticut has lost population, was driven by people moving to other parts of the country, the figures show. The state lost 22,059 people as a result of state-to-state moves within the U.S. and gained only 12,323 residents from international migration over the July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 period. Births outpaced deaths in Connecticut over the one-year span, but it wasn’t enough to make up the difference.
You can believe what you want. Unfortunately its factually not true. Unless this is “fake news”
posted by: William Kurtz on March 17, 2021 10:27am
“For those who continue to think that the “rich” moving into CT will make up for the “rich” moving out of CT, the data just does not support this at all.”
At first, second, and third glance (reading your comment here, then clicking through two links to United Van Lines’ announcement of their ‘study’) there’s not really much ‘data’ here at all. Perhaps I’m wrong or missing something but it looks like this ‘study’ is just based on customers of United Van Lines:
“According to the study, which tracks the company’s exclusive data for customers’ 2020 state-to-state migration patterns”
So, for example, consider the phenomenon Heather C. mentioned, of people from NYC buying second or third homes in Connecticut suburbs. They’re likely not using United Van Lines to move their belongings, but rather furnishing new places completely. None of which is to say the overall number of people leaving CT is lesser or greater than the number coming in, only that it’s not proved or supported strongly by what you have cited.
The mansion tax seems like a no-brainer. Is a $50 increase on a half-million dollar house all it’s going to take to get some of the people living on obscene amounts of ‘private’ land to move and open that space up to more affordable and sensible housing options? Let’s go for it!
posted by: Heather C. on March 17, 2021 12:59pm
I would guess realtors statistics are a much better barometer of what is going on with home sales than a single moving company’s figures. Rich new residents with more than one home don’t move all their stuff from home to home as they purchase second and third homes, they furnish it with new stuff. Ask the furniture and mattress and appliance sales companies how much new stuff was being bought to furnish new purchases of homes this past year. The people moving out of CT are the working and middle classes who graduate from college and move on to new pastures, or young professionals starting families and those who still feel they can change employers or careers at this point in their lives who want to move to family and wallet friendly states, and the retirees who need to be able to afford their new fixed income status. The poor can’t afford to move and lose their community support systems, and the wealthy can afford to stay here and buy a second home somewhere else for vacations and eventual retirement.
posted by: pass the blame on March 17, 2021 2:43pm
Census: Connecticut one of 10 states to shrink in population in past year
By RUSSELL BLAIR
HARTFORD COURANT |
DEC 31, 2019 AT 8:55 AM
Not sure I would call CT boom town.
The decline, the sixth year in a row Connecticut has lost population, was driven by people moving to other parts of the country, the figures show. The state lost 22,059 people as a result of state-to-state moves within the U.S. and gained only 12,323 residents from international migration over the July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 period. Births outpaced deaths in Connecticut over the one-year span, but it wasn’t enough to make up the difference.
posted by: owen@large on March 17, 2021 4:16pm
@Heather C: I get your point but don’t downplay the moving companies info, because it does make another point, and at least it has posted some real data. Please be kind enough to share the actual statistics of the CT realtors and the corresponding wealth it has brought into our fair state. I would bet that CT has lost much more $ over the past five to ten years than any $ brought into CT from the NY, NJ, etc. transplants.
posted by: robn on March 17, 2021 5:45pm
The United Van Lines study is superficially interesting but its raw data shows that it only documents 1867 moves in CT. So if you just ,multiply that by CT’s census average of 2.55 persons per household, you get 4761 moving persons which is only 14{56ef4555b1160ba09e855af6afd9aff20ca1ee0c32187e33609ae0a92f439672} of the 34,382 moving persons mentioned by the Hartford Courant. So I’m not so sure if the income data could be considered statistically accurate. In any event, population decline in general doesn’t speak highly of CT.
posted by: pass the blame on March 17, 2021 6:35pm
Thank You ROBIN and OWEN@LARGE for recognizing the real numbers of population growth in CT.
HeatherC regardless what antidotal evidence you speak of, empirical evidence always supersedes. The census bureau has our net growth at .5, (point five). That is not boom town rich moving in to CT. There is not much difference between Litchfield & Fairfield county vs numerous NY State counties of similar affluence. It should be noted that NY state has higher taxes then CT.
According to a new report from the personal finance site WalletHub, New York has the heaviest burden, but Connecticut is not too far behind at No. 6, and New Jersey is seventh.
Unless you have supported evidence its hear say.
Peace out my friends
posted by: yim-a on March 17, 2021 6:36pm
Equal opportunity? 100{56ef4555b1160ba09e855af6afd9aff20ca1ee0c32187e33609ae0a92f439672}. All in. Sign me up,
Equity of outcome? Whoa, slow down, more than a faint whiff of poorly rehashed freshman year Marxism.
posted by: BevHills730 on March 17, 2021 6:58pm
“The point I was making is Yale is not leaving. Hypothetically, if they did, who would fill the void?”
Another important point! We should make policy d
ecisions based on hypothetical scenarios that we don’t believe have any chance of occurring.
I’m also very concerned about how we will survive, if hypothetically, we were all transported to Jupiter. Let’s start the preparations with a massive contract for Elon Musk!