LordConnecticut t1_jefu0xd wrote

I wouldn’t recommend continuing this. Think of it this way, town/state aside, you’re essentially committing fraud against your auto insurer. If you ever have to make a claim, say someone rear-ends you tomorrow, they will instantly find out and will deny you coverage. Then, of course you’ll face the double whammy because this will cause the state to find out as well.


LordConnecticut t1_je4t1iu wrote

Who says I’m informing that? Of course it does. I’m saying the article has clearly poorly interpreted the NH data because no one, out of the dozen or so people I know in NH, have every paid as little as it states, even for a 20 year old beater. That’s the point of this discussion that you stepped into, you answered me.

CT car registration is a fixed fee bi-annually. My point is noting that three people including my fiancé, who have moved from NH to CT, now pay less for their car registration in CT then in NH, even if you recognise that NH registration is essentially equivalent to our car property tax and add ours into that calculation. Yes it varies by town in both states. My mill rate is currently 32 which is upper middle I believe, (and car property rates are now capped here).

You’re trying to turn this into a conversation about overall tax burden, of which CT’s is obviously higher, but that’s not what I was answering.

Anecdotally, in case you’re curious, CT generally still comes out ahead (why I know several people that moved from NH) despite the increased tax burden, because housing costs are generally lower now, and incomes are much higher. For example, my fiancé makes 20k more as an RN in CT vs NH, so while about 5-7k of that goes to taxes that NH does not have, she’s still better off. I would have to take about a 30k pay cut in my field to move to NH, so obviously saving the much smaller amount in taxes is not worth it.

Now working in MA/Boston and living in NH is a different story, although you have to pay MA income tax, but that’s what so many in southern NH do that; because salary is much higher.


LordConnecticut t1_je4piq4 wrote

You’re confused. The article is about tax burden. I responded to someone who posted an article about car registration fees did you read it? That does not include sales tax.

Do you have a source for the “NH rate drops three points”? That doesn’t make sense because there are two parts the the NH reg, state and town, and the town portion can vary, so it’s impossible to be fixed that way.

Yes CT property taxes on vehicles are based on the NADA guide which is market based, however it’s 70% of that value.

The NH rate is not a fixed decline. You must be looking at the state portion. Town portions are tied to mill rate which uses a value tied to the market.

I say insurance is cheaper because I’ve had two cars registered in both states lol. That article is interesting but again misguided. I’m paying the cost of “minimum” coverage in CT for full coverage and two cars. So again, their methodology must fail to split between good and bad drivers, age, etc. it may be that bad drivers are more expensive in CT, for example, which will drive up the data.


LordConnecticut t1_je2zl59 wrote

Correct, property taxes on cars also drop as the car ages. This is true of any fee or tax tied to something of diminishing value. The NH registration fee is tied to the value of the car the same as a tax.

Your decline in the fee is too extreme, it doesn’t drop that quickly unless the vehicle in question is a luxury vehicle purchased new, which depreciates very fast. Your logic is suggesting a $17k car is worth next to nothing after 6 years, which is certainly not the case.

So the cost of registration is similar to the cost of registration in CT (every two years) and the property tax every year.

We’re not talking about sales tax, that’s entirely separate and obviously a state without a sales tax will be the cheaper proposition. The article is strictly about registration costs and mentions only a tiny fraction of the actual cost in NH.

Lastly, insurance is cheaper in most of CT save for the panhandle. (Southern) NH is too close to Boston to be very cheap, and thus has a higher population density then much of CT.


LordConnecticut t1_je0w7y6 wrote

Hmm something isn’t right here… it seems they don’t have a way to properly account for states that don’t levy flat fees. NH is listed as $31, which is absolute bullshit. NH registration is scaled to the value of the car (literally like a property tax). When my fiancé lived there, she paid ~$500 per year for a three year old car valued around $17k. Even her previous car, a ten year old Subaru valued around $8k was costing her $200 a year in registration.

All this to say…they simply did an average and “forgot” many people don’t own cars…


LordConnecticut t1_jci41jo wrote

Reply to comment by Sum_Mo in CT Paid Paternal Family Leave by Sum_Mo

Two separate acts essentially combine for income replacement and job protection. CTPL is for income replacement, and CTFMLA for job protection (and unpaid leave entitlement). To my knowledge you can use both concurrently. I would reach out to DOL to get info on the latter.


The important section:

Pay While on Leave

Q9. Is my employer required to pay me when I take CTFMLA leave? Generally, CTFMLA leave is unpaid. However, an employee’s accrued, paid leave time with the employer, such as vacation, sick leave, personal leave or paid time off, may be applied to the leave if required by the employer or requested by the employee. An employee may choose to preserve up to 2 weeks of their accrued, paid leave time.

Additionally, wage replacement benefits under Connecticut’s Paid Leave program may apply, as well as short-term or long-term disability benefits, or workers’ compensation depending upon the eligibility requirement for those leaves. More information about Connecticut’s Paid Leave program is available at https://ctpaidleave.org/.


LordConnecticut t1_jayduf6 wrote

Reply to comment by Bobinct in CT number 1 in taxes? by dubauoo

Wow, it looks like the city mill rate is to blame, property and auto are far above the average.

Side note though, looks like that data is 20 years old…the article is from 2003.


LordConnecticut t1_jawpqgz wrote

What even is this chart? As opposed to states that don’t rely on taxes for revenue? (There are zero).

This is meaningless, and especially so without a nominal value for the x axis. A state could have a budget that is the smallest in the country, but have 100% of revenue come from tax sources, and be at the top of the chart.


LordConnecticut t1_j9phkqt wrote

It was by no means in the past! There’s a very strong manufacturing presence in CT, but the sector ebbs and flows. One reason for that is because a large portion of manufacturing in CT is tied to the defense and aerospace industries. When companies in CT win new contracts these companies and their upstream smaller contractors and suppliers that you noticed everywhere, also get a boost. But even if we won all the contracts, the Pentagon operates on a cycle, they’re not going to replace the entire nuclear sub fleet every year, for example, more like every 30 years, so the very nature of the industry is cyclical, nationally.

As it happens though, EB is gearing up for another round of this and hiring like mad, we’re entering a strong cycle again there.

Historically, of course, CT has had other manufacturing as well. Firearms, automobiles (briefly) and consumer goods like clocks and watches, bells, and textiles. Today our manufacturing is high-precision high-tech industries that our highly skilled labor force support.


LordConnecticut t1_j8wu60t wrote

There’s a lot of assumptions in this post that are simply untrue. It’s a massive expensive to construct a new building from top to finish.

There’s a reason why people that flip houses don’t demolish them, they gut them and renovate the interior. The vast majority of the cost to construct a building is in the exterior, especially a commercial grade building, the excavation, the foundation, the fireproofed stairwells and outer shell.

You realise they pay someone to do everything for a new building too right? The fact that things take 10+ years should be an indication that there’s a problem.


LordConnecticut t1_j8wit9q wrote

This theory is dead in the water, a huge amount of waste occurs in purely administrative areas, that students never see or interact with.

UConn spends more in certain administrative categories then Ivy League schools do, so no none if it is warranted.

They even fleece their students for egregious amounts. For example, parking costs to park in agricultural Storrs, are far higher then what Yale charges to park in downtown new haven. There is plenty of space in Storrs, yet they charge like they couldn’t fit one more car in, not to mention pushing student parking to the periphery of campus while keeping central parking for administration. It’s disgusting.


LordConnecticut t1_j8winm9 wrote

I have seen this waste first hand. To add you your “spend money like a drunken sailor”, it’s true. They renovate and re-renovate buildings, pave and re-pave roads and redesign them, construct new buildings with lavish materials etc.

They recently had completely renovated a space in the central warehouse building for the parking services department. Less then a year later, they tore it all out and renovated again for the planning department. It looks like it’s out of a danish furniture style magazine. This is repeated around the university and most of it is in non-student spaces.

UConn spends money like it’s Yale or Harvard, and has a multi-billion dollar endowment to tap.


LordConnecticut t1_j5vlacr wrote

That’s my thought, and I think that’s their plan. Lose long standing employees, pay some college grads pennies to live with 5 roommates.

Their location is barely in CT even, it’s more Springfield area then Hartford (if you can split the two), and I think this matters because Hartford is the higher paying market with the nicer suburbs (Federal GS adjustment is the same as Boston). So Lego’s people in Enfield are probably getting paid even less being closer to Springfield.


LordConnecticut t1_j5m1qn5 wrote

I’ve been saying this all COVID. People forget Amazon has owned Whole Foods for awhile now, and the entirety of what that means.

Just like any other business under the Bezos empire, Whole Foods is now the king of loss leaders…in the grocery space. Food staples like eggs, beans, milk, in the store brand are often cheaper then what I see anywhere except Aldi, and haven’t shifted significantly with inflation. Amazon is attempting to use the current environment to grab market share.

Not to mention the fact that the Whole Foods store brand is better quality then other store brands, and equivalent or better then many boutique brands in other chains, like S&S, BigY, or Shop Rite.