Jump to content

Subsidy-Choked Hartford


Whaler0718

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Not really saying your wrong. But places like NYC & Fairfield County don't have any issue attracting businesses with high taxes. I'm certainly pro tax cut but I think there so much more we could do aside from or along with cutting taxes. Offer incentive for business to come and subsidising research in growing industries so that would could finally start on the ground floor of an industry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hartford and New Haven poor blacks and Latinos beware, the government's going to try and kill you again!!

And while tax cuts were beneficial in the Reagan era, it went to such an extreme that the government went into a recession in the early 90s. Not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hartford and New Haven poor blacks and Latinos beware, the government's going to try and kill you again!!

And while tax cuts were beneficial in the Reagan era, it went to such an extreme that the government went into a recession in the early 90s. Not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they stimulated the growth later in that decade. Reagan let spending get out of control because of the Cold War arms race and a democrat-controlled Congress that wouldn't give up its spending. Now Reagan wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but a recent Wall Street Journal article notes that for something like every dollar the government taxes, it's the equivalent of taking $1.50 out of the economy.

Thus, the opposite is true as well: cut taxes by $1.00 and it's like putting $1.50 back into the economy. The theory is--and it hasn't been disproved--that you can make up for revenue losses by stimulating new growth through tax cuts.

In the Hartford paradigm, the equivalent would be slashing the mill rate, which would generate new investment in the city, which would increase the grand list, which would both keep the mill rate low and yet provide for higher overall revenue. Of course, there's some increased cost with an increased grand list, so the budget would have to go up as well, but overall, a higher grand list for Hartford would be a good thing especially considering that from a pure "value" standpoint, there is no increased pressure on the budget; all things being equal, it costs as much to patrol a neighborhood of million dollar homes as it does one of quarter-million dollar homes.

Thus, I firmly believe that if you have a billion dollars to "spend" you're better off not to spend it subsidizing development, but rather to cut taxes to stimulate that development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what development in hartford has been purely private money? i think only 55 on the park/metropolitan/american airlines building. trumbull on the park - subsidized. new marriot - subsidized. h21 - subsidized. civic center remodel - subsidized. Sage Allen - subsidized. science center - subsidized. front street - subsidized. CT Taxpayers from Greenwich to Woodstock have every reason to be fedup with the large sums of tax revenue that poor into the city of hartford. every time eddie poorez opens his mouth it is either to lambaste the governor or to ask for another handout at tax payers expense, constantly biting the hand that feeds him. he is first and foremost an incompentent idiot. listen to him speak, he has a 4th graders command of the english language. He made his Christmas card a photo of NYC, rather than one of hartfords treasures. Secondly, he is incompetent. His housing inititives have been backed by state money, either directly or indirectly. In his term he has yet to do anything meaningfull as mayor except let ING/MET/WFSB/MassMutal flee the city. Oh, wait, sweatheart parking deal for buddy - check. MassMutual left over concerns for the saftey of their employees. Hartford is hooked on the economic methodone called state subsidies. It is time for the state to ween the city off the subsidies and allow it to be self sufficient for better or for worse.

We also provide the residents of hartford with too many excuses, the neighborhoods are dirty because the people are poor so you can't blame them. maybe the people in the neighborhoods are disrespectfull slobs and should live in their filth and the city should stop sweeping their streets. maybe the kids that don't show up for school should be kicked out and resources deployed to those that actually want to learn and better themselves. You can't help everybody. Crack addicts on their 5th relapse, let them live in a train tunnel so you can get the 7 year old out of his abusive parent's house. this city needs a republican mayor without concern of re-election. that way he/she could go about cutting social spending, cutting taxes, and attracting businesses and ignoring the economic deadweight from the northend. In that one term they would do more good for the city than a 3 term bleeding heart liberal democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what development in hartford has been purely private money? i think only 55 on the park/metropolitan/american airlines building. trumbull on the park - subsidized. new marriot - subsidized. h21 - subsidized. civic center remodel - subsidized. Sage Allen - subsidized. science center - subsidized. front street - subsidized. CT Taxpayers from Greenwich to Woodstock have every reason to be fedup with the large sums of tax revenue that poor into the city of hartford. every time eddie poorez opens his mouth it is either to lambaste the governor or to ask for another handout at tax payers expense, constantly biting the hand that feeds him. he is first and foremost an incompentent idiot. listen to him speak, he has a 4th graders command of the english language. He made his Christmas card a photo of NYC, rather than one of hartfords treasures. Secondly, he is incompetent. His housing inititives have been backed by state money, either directly or indirectly. In his term he has yet to do anything meaningfull as mayor except let ING/MET/WFSB/MassMutal flee the city. Oh, wait, sweatheart parking deal for buddy - check. MassMutual left over concerns for the saftey of their employees. Hartford is hooked on the economic methodone called state subsidies. It is time for the state to ween the city off the subsidies and allow it to be self sufficient for better or for worse.

We also provide the residents of hartford with too many excuses, the neighborhoods are dirty because the people are poor so you can't blame them. maybe the people in the neighborhoods are disrespectfull slobs and should live in their filth and the city should stop sweeping their streets. maybe the kids that don't show up for school should be kicked out and resources deployed to those that actually want to learn and better themselves. You can't help everybody. Crack addicts on their 5th relapse, let them live in a train tunnel so you can get the 7 year old out of his abusive parent's house. this city needs a republican mayor without concern of re-election. that way he/she could go about cutting social spending, cutting taxes, and attracting businesses and ignoring the economic deadweight from the northend. In that one term they would do more good for the city than a 3 term bleeding heart liberal democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really saying your wrong. But places like NYC & Fairfield County don't have any issue attracting businesses with high taxes. I'm certainly pro tax cut but I think there so much more we could do aside from or along with cutting taxes. Offer incentive for business to come and subsidising research in growing industries so that would could finally start on the ground floor of an industry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

subsidizing firm moves is nothing more than a synthetic tax cut for a particular firm and often times the incentives offered included significant tax breaks. These breaks are made up from gross receipts and do not help to lower taxes paid by everyone else, but maybe you'll pick that up in freshman economics. nyc and Fairfield county do not have to offer incentives to attract firms - the exception being nyc immediatly after 9/11.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they stimulated the growth later in that decade. Reagan let spending get out of control because of the Cold War arms race and a democrat-controlled Congress that wouldn't give up its spending. Now Reagan wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but a recent Wall Street Journal article notes that for something like every dollar the government taxes, it's the equivalent of taking $1.50 out of the economy.

Thus, the opposite is true as well: cut taxes by $1.00 and it's like putting $1.50 back into the economy. The theory is--and it hasn't been disproved--that you can make up for revenue losses by stimulating new growth through tax cuts.

In the Hartford paradigm, the equivalent would be slashing the mill rate, which would generate new investment in the city, which would increase the grand list, which would both keep the mill rate low and yet provide for higher overall revenue. Of course, there's some increased cost with an increased grand list, so the budget would have to go up as well, but overall, a higher grand list for Hartford would be a good thing especially considering that from a pure "value" standpoint, there is no increased pressure on the budget; all things being equal, it costs as much to patrol a neighborhood of million dollar homes as it does one of quarter-million dollar homes.

Thus, I firmly believe that if you have a billion dollars to "spend" you're better off not to spend it subsidizing development, but rather to cut taxes to stimulate that development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove this.

I do know one thing for fact, Hartford is responsible for the great majority of income produce in our county.

You have to provide some numbers and also stats about other towns and prove that they do need recieve subsidies or help from the state funds.

Your opinion is odd, considering most people in Avon & Simsbury incomes are produce here in Hartford. Saying watch the news or the Mayor press conferences doesn't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the city of hartford is responsible for a great deal of drain, the corporations in hartford are responsible for the income. there is a reason people who work in hartford don't live there, but in avon, farmington, and simsbury. they go out and live in and run sucessful towns. Now, I do not have the time to teach you basic finance and how subisidies work, go pick up a book. look at the state budget and the towns that the majority of tax receipts come from and where the expendetures go. don't expect me to spoon feed you everything, you need to go out and educate yourself. you must live in hartford, because it sounds like you have a that false sense of entitlement that we all need to do everything for you....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope you made the statements therefor it is up to you to prove them period, back up what your saying. So prove no town aside from Hartford has received subsidies and prove that Hartford doesn't provide the vast majority of the counties earnings. Of course you can't because you can do nothing better than rant.

It is likely I've done far better than you life, I don't feel entitled to anything, further I have just about everything one my age needs and desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're funny. I never said no town other than Hartford receives subsidies, most cities in CT do, however I will not spoon-feed you that information. Go to CT.gov and look at the governor's budget proposal. Lots of big numbers, and I don't know if you can handle it but surprise me. Let me know how much the state is giving to the city in grants - to clarify, a grant is money that doesn't have to be paid back. Then look at what the wealthy suburbs I mentioned are getting. Oh, what the heck, Hartford 220+ million, Greenwich & Avon don't combine for more than $8.1 million. I do my research before posting here, don't ever question that, however, I have much better things to do than spell everything out for people to lazy to look it up when given direction as to where the information was found. There is some general knowledge you need to get the most out of this board, which I have provided you with the directions to obtain, so do it. Also, don't resort to personal attacks, you have no clue who I am or what I have accomplished. If still decide to try to attack me personally, run a spell check or read your post first, otherwise you could expose yourself as a moron.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Hartford though, we have way more tax exempt land that is used for State Governance and other functions that do benefit those in the wealthy suburbs. Also we house the vast majority of social services for the region, so we get the crack heads from Avon, Canton, South Windsor, etc once they can't make it in their own towns any longer. Not saying that you're completely wrong, but it should be put in perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idea what is the fair market value of property tax on state owned properties in Hartford vs. grants/subsidies Hartford get from the state? Also, social services for the region, are there numbers that show needy folks suburbs send to Hartford a year?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the FMV of state-owned property, I've been wondering this myself, especially given that the state continues to underfund the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) program. I'm going to try to find these numbers... it's simply a question of contacting the assessor's office for the value of state buildings and then comparing that lost tax revenue to what the state funds (which is roughly half of the city's budget, which is just shy of half a billion dollars).

As for the needy suburban folks ... I don't understand how poverty is a municipal problem and not a state one. Suburbs were designed to exclude poor people, so it's absurd to look at a suburb and a city and say, well what is the suburb doing that the city's not? The answer is providing no public transportation and requiring that houses be built on acre lots so that (a) you have to have a car and (b) the house will be too expensive for poor people from the city. To expect a city that actually provides the type of infrastructure that shelters less advantage people--and bears the social costs--to bear all of the financial burden is unfair. The suburbs have a choice as I see it: absorb some of the less advantaged so that they are equally dispersed throughout the region, or pay Hartford to keep them out of your hair. So far, suburbs seem to choose the latter. So it isn't a question of how many of those needy folks were from the suburbs, but how many needy folks there were, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everybody villify the suburbs? Shouldn't somebody who educates themselves and gets a good job be able to afford - and deserve - more than an uneducated individual? People want a sense of community and tend to gravitate towards people with like interests and pursuits. An investment analyst making 200k/yr is not going to live on Homestead Ave, but in a suburban neighborhood populated by other likeminded and educated individuals. I currently live in downtown hartford, but prefer the burbs to living here for numerous reasons including; taxes, unresponsive PD, crime - I have had friend's cars get broke infront of my building on Trumbull St and cars have been stolen from the 'locked' parking garage attached to my building, one of the worst school systems in the state with no more than 36% of students meeting goal on state mastery tests and, a sense of community I can identify with. As more than 30% of the city lives below the poverty line, I don't fit in outside of the 6 or so square blocks of downtown. Hartford does not have the feeling of boston or NY with each neighborhood being tightknitt, at least not downtown anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everybody villify the suburbs? Shouldn't somebody who educates themselves and gets a good job be able to afford - and deserve - more than an uneducated individual? People want a sense of community and tend to gravitate towards people with like interests and pursuits. An investment analyst making 200k/yr is not going to live on Homestead Ave, but in a suburban neighborhood populated by other likeminded and educated individuals. I currently live in downtown hartford, but prefer the burbs to living here for numerous reasons including; taxes, unresponsive PD, crime - I have had friend's cars get broke infront of my building on Trumbull St and cars have been stolen from the 'locked' parking garage attached to my building, one of the worst school systems in the state with no more than 36% of students meeting goal on state mastery tests and, a sense of community I can identify with. As more than 30% of the city lives below the poverty line, I don't fit in outside of the 6 or so square blocks of downtown. Hartford does not have the feeling of boston or NY with each neighborhood being tightknitt, at least not downtown anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously my experiences are different being born and raised here. I feel at home pretty much anywhere in Hartford. That doesn't mean I don't notice what's wrong, but I think it's easier for me to notice what is decent. Plenty of decent hard working folks in Hartford. That's a fact. Why do people villify the entire city when the vast majority of residents are good people? You can disagree all you want or even believe that my definition of decent is beneath your own if you wish. This is my opinion. I'm not villifying the suburbs in my opinion, just stating facts. Greater Hartford, with a population of over one million, obviously has people with problems who do not live in the city but who do contribute to the drug and gun violence here either directly or indirectly. Is that not a fact? Hartford as the state capital obviously has vast amounts of state owned tax exempt land, so the state has an obligation to fund the city in that respect at least for what ever amount the taxes would constitute. So other municpalities can't justify being mad at that. I understand that you do not like uneducated people and pretty much blame anyone who is uneducated for their plight. That's an idealogical difference between you and I. I grew up with money as well, but it did not stop me from identifying with like minded people whether or not they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth as I was. I have friends my age that make $140,000 a year at some of the top law firms in Hartford and Boston and I have friends who make minimum wage. Not sure I'm really making any points here, but these are just some thoughts that come to mind in response to your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand there are some reasons people remain uneducated, however believe those that with knowledge and skills should be better off than those that do not have those tools. if these individuals choose to live in nicer areas, so be it, otherwise why invest in yourself if you are not going to better your life? i doubt our definitions of decency are very different. I think the guy who works the 6pm-4am shift cleaning my office building deserves all the respect in the world getting up everyday and thankless job. he should be better off than the guy living on the public dime, however that is not always the case. as you have grown up in hartford i can see why you would feel at home here, it is your home. your friends making 140k at hartford law firms, they don't have kids and live in hartford, do they? if not, have you asked them why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.