Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Malloy Tax Adjustments To Hit Wealthy Harder (CT Gov and his budget)
Ctnow.com ^ | 4-13-2011 | Christopher Keating

Posted on 04/14/2011 3:35:53 AM PDT by raybbr

After hearing complaints from taxpayers during 17 town hall meetings, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is expected to announce changes in his tax package as early as Thursday that would increase taxes on the wealthy and help the middle class.

Malloy is expected to drop his plans for eliminating the maximum $500 property tax credit that chiefly benefits middle-class homeowners, Capitol sources said. Instead, the level probably will be lowered to $300.

To help pay for it, Malloy would propose changing the income levels at which tax hikes take effect for the highest earners. Higher tax rates would kick in at lower income levels for those wealthiest residents.

SNIP

Republicans say that increased taxes like those on income and estates can reach a tipping point and cause wealthy residents to flee the state.

But Democrats and various advocates disputed that notion Wednesday, saying that Connecticut's standard of living is so good that the wealthiest residents would not bolt to other states. The Better Choices Coalition, which supports higher taxes, cited several studies Wednesday that indicated wealthy residents would not head to other states.

"Tax them, and they will not leave," Democrat Leo Canty, a longtime union leader and coalition supporter, said Wednesday. "There is no data that says they will leave.''

Canty disputed the notion that the rich, "like in 'The Grapes of Wrath,' would pack up the Mercedes and the Lamborghinis and load the Perrier up on the roof'" and flee to a lower-tax state.

(Excerpt) Read more at ctnow.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 04/14/2011 3:35:58 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raybbr
More of the same "soak the rich" mentality from this progressive. What most liberals don't get is it isn't someone else's taxes that are going up, it's theirs.

We're ALL the rich.

2 posted on 04/14/2011 3:39:20 AM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"Tax them, and they will not leave," Democrat Leo Canty, a longtime union leader and coalition supporter, said Wednesday. "There is no data that says they will leave.''

Hannity last night (paraphrase):"I pay over 55% of my income in taxes...live in Nassau county ,L.I., which has the second highest property taxes in the country..."

Juan Williams:" you choose to live in Nassau county." First words out of a liberal's mouth .

3 posted on 04/14/2011 3:45:50 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"There is no data that says they will leave.''

there soon will be

4 posted on 04/14/2011 3:49:17 AM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
To help pay for it

The idea that government has to 'pay for tax cuts' is ludicrous and should be attacked every time its mentioned.

5 posted on 04/14/2011 3:54:11 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Connecticut has no jobs you idiot! The biotech corps which were the lifeblood of the state moved north to avoid the crushing taxes and now the Dems are going to make it worse!

Pretty soon my state will be uninhabitable.


6 posted on 04/14/2011 3:55:54 AM PDT by Soothesayer (smallpox is not a person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"There is no data that says they will leave.''

There is no such data because no one dare gather that kind of data for fear of finding out that is the reason the "rich" have left the state.

Back in 2009, Cafero said, the income tax was boosted in the name of fairness.

Does this mean Republicans supported increasing the income tax rate on the "rich"?
7 posted on 04/14/2011 4:18:52 AM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Pretty soon my state will be uninhabitable.

Pretty soon? It is now!
8 posted on 04/14/2011 4:19:45 AM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

Taxes? Ever hear of Fla. Ya’ll come.


9 posted on 04/14/2011 4:23:29 AM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Doogle
"There is no data that says they will leave.''

This is of course is an utter lie by Democrat Leo Canty - which of coure is completely expected.

In 2007 Maryland, a socialist sh!t hole if ever there was one, passed a special income tax, doubling the tax on those making $1,000,000 or more annually. The Sun paper (considerably to the left of Pravda) and the Comptroller of Md (a democrat) both said "they'll grin and bear it."

When the law was passed there were 3000 filers who had that level of income. The first year that the tax was in effect and the returns were counted (2008) there were 1000 people who filed with that level of income. Between state and county income tax Maryland averages about 8%.

Prior to the passage of the law maryland was robbing the high achievers of $240,000,000 to be squandered by the democratic hacks in Annapolis. The year after they got $160,000,000. By screwing the rich they lost $80,000,000. Funny, the Sun paper's editors and the comptroller of Md did not have and smart assed comments to make when this was brought to light.

Personally I'd like to see every high achiever leave the state. Not sure where I'd want them to go though, I wouldn't wish them on Florida or Texas because after all they're most likely Democrats. Maybe Tennessee.

10 posted on 04/14/2011 4:26:49 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Ct, like other NE states, has had a flat population growth since the Weicker income tax was imposed in the late 80s. This means the outflow of immigrants were barely offset by the growth of illegal aliens.

When Malloy asked Ct unions for savings, they responded tax more.


11 posted on 04/14/2011 4:52:21 AM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Waco
If you ever wondered why so many New Yorkers and people from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey move to, or retire to, Florida.....

The weather is a boon, but the real benefits are the lower taxes, better bankruptcy law (homesteading exemption), and less government generally.

Virtually every estate planning client I have worked with over the past decade originally living in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut has purchased property in Florida and taken steps to change residence and domicile to Florida or another low tax state.

12 posted on 04/14/2011 4:53:42 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Persae Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

It’s still habitable by vermin.


13 posted on 04/14/2011 5:01:06 AM PDT by Soothesayer (smallpox is not a person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: y6162
When Malloy asked Ct unions for savings, they responded tax more.

When ANY group has the power to forceably extract hard earned wealth from another they are NEVER going to willingly give that up. Govt unions are basically gangs of thieves with the armed might of the state to be their enforcers. Actually you can apply that logic to all of government. Gang of thieves doing things to you that you don't want done (e.g. EPA, ATF, etc.) and robbing you to pay for it.

14 posted on 04/14/2011 5:02:20 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
To help pay for it, Malloy would propose changing the income levels at which tax hikes take effect for the highest earners.

So, let me get this right--if I think I should be paid $200K, but I only receive $100K, then I have paid my employer $100K?

Money never received is not money paid. I don't know how the tax and spend liberals keep getting away with saying things like this.

15 posted on 04/14/2011 5:03:57 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: y6162
Ct, like other NE states, has had a flat population growth since the Weicker income tax was imposed in the late 80s.

You do understand that Weicker's income tax was an essentially self-interested move to cut his own taxes by 60%....

As an heir to the Squibb fortune, most of Lowell Weicker's income was unearned (interest, dividends) income, which was at the time taxed at a 10% rate in Connecticut. Earned income was not taxed. The Weicker bill subjected all income, whether earned or unearned, to (up to) a 4% tax rate. Thus, Lowell's tax bill was drastically cut.

The only reason the bill passed was that a Wall Street state senator representing backcountry Greenwich, Republican Bill Nickerson, broke with the rest of the Republicans to support his personal friend and fellow rentier Lowell Weicker.

16 posted on 04/14/2011 5:06:59 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Persae Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Virtually every estate planning client I have worked with over the past decade originally living in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut has purchased property in Florida

Yes, and they bring their liberal attitudes and voting habits with them. They sh!t where they ate in NY, Ct or wherever ruining those states, and now the're busy ruining FL and TX because they're too stupid and too arrogant (dunno why, but NY, MA and NJ people seem to be a lot more full of themselves than the rest of the country ie. "flyover country") to realize that their attitudes are what caused the problem in their previous abode.

17 posted on 04/14/2011 5:07:20 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

I remember too well. I was there.

Weicker is/was the most loathe some piece of crap ever.


18 posted on 04/14/2011 5:11:11 AM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Yes, and they bring their liberal attitudes and voting habits with them. They sh!t where they ate in NY, Ct or wherever ruining those states, and now the're busy ruining FL and TX because they're too stupid and too arrogant (dunno why, but NY, MA and NJ people seem to be a lot more full of themselves than the rest of the country ie. "flyover country") to realize that their attitudes are what caused the problem in their previous abode.

Indeed. They're the ones who moved to California in the '50s and '60s (and since) and ruined that state completely. California was a really wonderful place before about 1970. Junior Brown really blew things up by allowing public employee unions.

19 posted on 04/14/2011 5:15:00 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Persae Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

As a soon to retire Cter, we have picked the Villages. Golf, lots to do, and I hear wild women galore.


20 posted on 04/14/2011 5:25:10 AM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Tax them, and they will not leave,” Democrat Leo Canty, a longtime union leader and coalition supporter, said Wednesday. “There is no data that says they will leave.’’

LOL! Fool!

Move here to Florida - the “data” are all around you and living here.


21 posted on 04/14/2011 5:32:08 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; nutmeg; campaignPete R-CT; Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; BlackElk

I said it once, I’ll say it again: I hope Malloy enjoys his single term. He sure is doing an excellent impersonation of Red Ned Lamont.


22 posted on 04/14/2011 3:41:00 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

I admire your optimism on his reelection prospects.

That epic fail dirtball in Maryland won a second term.


23 posted on 04/15/2011 12:27:08 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Impy; campaignPete R-CT; BlackElk

CT, however, has been used to electing GOP Governors over the past 2 decades (and Tom Foley just as likely lost due to Dem chicanery as Brady did in IL). MD isn’t used to electing Republicans statewide (after all, as for the Governorship, the last three times they won were in 1954, 1966 and 2002, with the prior two being outright liberal Republicans - Ted McKeldin and Agnew). Ehrlich’s win, it seems, in ‘02, alas, was a fluke, predicated on the visceral unpopularity of Parris Glendening (who stole the ‘94 race) and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend got the receiving end of it.

Even just looking at the other two offices for MD (excluding Lt Governor, which goes with the Gov, and Sec of State, appointed by the Gov) whom face the voters: Attorney General and Comptroller, the Republicans last won the AG office in 1919 with Alexander Armstrong (and that, only because the left split the vote allowing a narrow plurality win for our side, and he promptly lost 4 years later to the incumbent Dem Governor, Albert Ritchie, also his predecessor as AG). Even when Ted McKeldin appointed a Republican in 1952 when the Dem AG moved up to a judgeship, he lost in ‘54 even as McKeldin won a second term. Prior to that, only in 1895 was another Republican elected (and before that, only one other served in 1865 when the office was reestablished, and I don’t think he was formally elected statewide). And, yup, aside from the ‘94 performance, the closest race for AG was in that aforementioned 1954 race by the appointed incumbent, and he still lost 53-47%.

Comptroller is even worse, with our having last won the office in 1897 with future U.S. Senator Phillips Lee Goldsborough. Not since 1946 has a GOP candidate gotten near 45% of the vote and only once since have they broken 40%, when current occupant Peter Franchot beat Anne McCarthy (a niece of legendary IL Chicagoland Republican Ed Derwinski) by a 59-41% margin after knocking out the incumbent (ex-Gov) William Donald Schaefer in a brutal 3-way primary.

Connecticut has been a bit less hostile to Republicans running in downballot races (although still not great). Last elected a Sec of State in 1990 (though nearly held it in ‘94, losing by only 2,000 votes) and our side held the Dem to a 53-44% margin in ‘10, the closest race in 16 years. Last won the Treasurer office in 1994 (and almost did so again in ‘98, but Paul Silvester turned out to be a crook). Held the current incumbent (who beat Silvester in ‘98) to a 54-44% margin this time, the closet race since ‘98. Comptroller we haven’t won since 1970 (though we nearly took it in 1990, losing by 51-49%), and lost it by 54-43% this time. Only Attorney General is the worst, not having held it since 1955-59. Alas, even with the parasite Blumenthal vacating it, we still only did about as well as the other races, with our candidate losing 54-44%.


24 posted on 04/15/2011 1:26:57 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA; campaignPete R-CT; sickoflibs; BlackElk

Boy those downballot statewide races sure are pot stickers in rat states. Gee Maryland sucks. And didn’t you tell me the GOP last held the MD legislature in the 1910’s? Ick.

I’m quite relieved we at least got a Treasurer elected here in IL. (and Topinka but she/it doesn’t count)


25 posted on 04/15/2011 1:35:39 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Impy

1917 was the last time the MD Assembly had a GOP majority of 55R-47D (in those days, there were just 102 members, now there are 141) and Speaker (Herbert Wooden of Carroll County). The GOP numbers dwindled quite badly and actually by the 1958 elections, they held only 7(!) seats to the Democrats’ 116 (not even 6% of the body). Even in 1978, there were just 14 Republicans (and 127 Dems), which made it more like a Deep South state. We now are tied with the highest number of Republicans (43), which we previously had in 2002, although that is still just 31% of the body, at least 10%+ below where it ought to be.

As for the MD Senate, not since 1897 has the GOP won a majority there (John Wirt Randall of Anne Arundel Co. having been the last GOP Senate President). They came within 1 seat in 1917 and 2 in 1919, but otherwise dwindled after that, dropping down to just 3 members by 1958 (10% of the body) with the modern all-time low of 6 with the 1982 elections. We’re only at 12 seats now (or 26%), 2 below what we won even in 2006 (because the Dems narrowly won the open seat of the former Senate GOP leader Lowell Stoltzfus and beat Hispanic GOP incumbent Alex Mooney, now the state MD party Chairman, whom we’ve mentioned as a future successor to Roscoe Bartlett). I’m not definitively sure what accounted for Mooney’s singular loss (to a much older (by over 30 years) ex-Mayor of Frederick), although a cursory glance indicates that a lot of Republicans in his area (enough to tip the race) were quite angry with him, and he should’ve prevailed easily as the GOP won the area and other offices.


26 posted on 04/15/2011 2:53:27 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I didn’t know our numbers were ever that low in MD. Cripes. The current numbers are pathetic enough. Talk about entrenched.

4 year terms for the lower house probably isn’t helpful.


27 posted on 04/15/2011 3:08:55 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Impy

MD was always a politically peculiar state. I don’t feel like writing up a big history at this hour, though. It did behave more like a Deep South state after the Reconstruction era, but as it neared the turn-of-the-century, started to go more like its northern neighbors (albeit not heavily, but competitively). Baltimore itself, unlike nearby Philadelphia, was never a Republican city (occasionally electing a GOP Mayor). It remained competitive in the 1890s-1920s period, but clearly trended away back to the Dems, and almost overwhelmingly so by the 1930s (with a weird blip when in 1934 they elected a GOP Governor who was a strange fella named Harry Nice, only the 1st of the last 4 GOP Governors elected in the past 90+ years).

The Dems of that era, however, must be said that they contained a wide collection of across-the-board types, from the Baltimore Machine types (including Nancy Pelosi’s father, Tom D’Alesandro, Jr.) and execrable demogogue phonies like Millard Tydings and Conservative DINOs like the Byron family from Western MD.

The Republicans resurged at the federal level in the ‘50s (although not so well at the legislative level). Even in ‘58 with the near-bottoming out, they still had both U.S. Senate seats (occupied by Conservatives, IIRC), although the exiting Governor was the Baltimore ultraliberal RINO McKeldin (no surprise he left the state party in shambles). You had Agnew try to exploit the liberal Democrat vs. Conservative George Mahoney Democrat split to win the Governorship, and the GOP became more of the suburban party (although even when Nixon put Agnew on the ballot in ‘68, he did not carry MD). The GOP still did well in that all-too-brief period between 1966 to 1972 before Watergate smashed it.

Since then, of course, the Conservatives have drifted almost completely into the GOP, but have almost no presence in certain areas (Baltimore City, PG County), while a lot of the old liberal Republicans and suburbanites of DC have either drifted to the Democrats (or more Conservative elements moved away), and aside from race, vote scarcely differently than the inner-city types. Geographically, the GOP holds sway in more counties, but the sheer numbers of the gubmint worker parasites and welfare parasites in a handful of counties ensure that for the time being, the Dems will remain the majority party (and will never “realign” as it would’ve had it remained more Southern in character). Only if DC Blacks had remained there and MontCo & PG voted as they did during the Nixon era would MD have realigned.


28 posted on 04/15/2011 3:57:49 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I think Wallace may have cost Dick Maryland (and Texas).

Haha. This is like the good ole days, in a thread about one state I steer the convo to the political history of a completely different state! ;d


29 posted on 04/16/2011 3:26:21 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Perhaps so. Of course, I was comparing MD to CT, hence the shift. :-P


30 posted on 04/16/2011 3:46:22 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I love it.

Tydings sounds like a guy who would’ve loved hogging the camera if he was elected in the modern era.


31 posted on 04/16/2011 4:02:21 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Tydings was a jackass of the highest order. He also viciously maligned Joe McCarthy. I have yet to read M. Stanton Evans’s book (”Blacklisted By History”) from several years ago, but this describes Tydings role in investigating Communists in the State Department...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23388

McCarthy had a brief victory when he successfully helped defeat Tydings for reelection in 1950 (with the excellent Conservative Republican John Marshall Butler defeating him).


32 posted on 04/16/2011 4:35:07 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Pretty stupid.

Suburban Connecticut is, believe it or not, a tax refuge. You ride the train for an extra 15-30 minutes or more each way from Manhattan and pay lower income tax and MUCH lower property tax than closer-in suburbs in Westchester. There’s no reason to live in Westport if the taxes are the same as in Scarsdale, that’s for sure.


33 posted on 04/16/2011 5:04:38 AM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson