It's so bad you have to pay people to move to Vermont

[abc]

If Democrats win, taxpayers in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Montana, etc... will be paying the expenses of a financially irresponsible liberal state like New Jersey or Illinois.

New Jersey or Illinois, instead of Vermont?

 

[BenedictGomez]

New Jersey or Illinois, instead of Vermont?

Vermont has only recently (in a relative use of the word) adopted financially destructive policies. States like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, etc... have been practicing them for decades. But yes, Vermont will eventually achieve economic ruin, but there are other states which will get there first.

 

[abc]

Vermont has only recently (in a relative use of the word) adopted financially destructive policies. States like New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, etc... have been practicing them for decades. But yes, Vermont will eventually achieve economic ruin, but there are other states which will get there first.

If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list.

Besides, why not New York and California?

 

[EPB]

That's how it's done. Hell, lying to supporters is 100% what the Sanders & Warren campaigns are all about. Financially impossible promises layered on top of more literally financially impossible promises.



You keep saying this, but havent explained what you mean by it.

I have a feeling I know what you mean, and if so, it's a horrendous idea.

You keep saying this, but havent explained what you mean by it.

I have a feeling I know what you mean, and if so, it's a horrendous idea.

There are a few potential solutions I've considered that might not suck as much as what we've got. Not sure if/how they'd be possible though: EITHER set up a more utility-like pre-negotiated remuneration structure; OR figure out a way to negotiate "best pricing" clauses into contacts whereby the US automatically gets dragged along into a better deal negotiated by another country. The latter is my preferred solution. Would help keep RoW from freeloading.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[thetrailboss]

If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list.

Besides, why not New York and California?

California (and I imagine NY to some extent) is an interesting situation. When I was there a few years back I was talking with an expert on a project and his observation was quite simple: in CA with the tech industry and Hollywood, when the economy is good, things are REALLY good there. The State then has tons of money. When things go south, the State goes broke. Ideally, you'd want the State to be saving funds to use on infrastructure projects, spending, whatever when the economy is bad because of lower costs and employing people.

 

[ghughes20]

I have to tell you NH has a much different take on State pensions. Now public safety workers (firefighters/police) and teacher pensions are a bit different from each other in NH. I know the teacher side as that is what my wife does. NH pays pensions based on your last 5 years of BASE SALARY only. Any stipend pay for coaching, etc DOES NOT count towards pension. Accordingly, NH teacher pensions are some of the lowest in the country. Oh yeah, and bother teachers and safety workers have mandatory contributions they have to pay into the system as they work!

The flip side to this is, all pension systems are rated on a scale of how likely they are to meet their obligations to retirees. Guess what, NH's system rates tops in the Nation. Give and takes to everything. And don't try to tell me a government can just tax its way out. There have been some big cities that have gone bankrupt in this country due to pensions among other financial failures.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

What you've described, ...pension based on your last 5 years BASE salary..., is know as a "defined benefit plan". The private sector has ditched those over 30 years ago, and replaced them with "defined contribution plans"; aka 401k with company match.

Whenever governments try to pull back defined benefit plans and have employees contribute to their own retirement, the unions explode in an uproar and government usually doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the unions.

There is a reason why the private sector has switched to defined contribution plans. It also puts skin in the game for employees to manage their retirement.

I'm 51 years old and have worked for 8 private sector employees and have never been eligible for a defined bene plan. My wife did, but 8 years ago they cashed her out of that plan and her had roll over the lump sum payment into a 401k or IRA.

Things that can't go on forever, wont. Defined benefit plans can't go on forever. There's just too much uncertainty as to the ultimate obligation. The private sector learned this decades ago. Government is always slow to react.

On the bright side, looks like rain again this weekend.

 

[mister moose]

Things that can't go on forever, wont. Defined benefit plans can't go on forever. There's just too much uncertainty as to the ultimate obligation. The private sector learned this decades ago. Government is always slow to react.

Here in CT they not only did the last 3 years top salary thing (with friendly overtime), and the full defined benefit with premium health care, they didn't fund it for the last 30 years or so. There is a huge reckoning coming, large deficits are the norm in a state that constitutionally requires a balanced budget, and the only solution being discussed so far is tolls on interstates.

 

[abc]

You & I are subsidizing them. Yes, it's a problem.

And I dont know what the solution is, short of with-holding critical medications from XYZ country unless they "pay up", which is an instant PR nightmare, and a big part of the reason why phama just bows down & takes what they can get. That doesnt happen in America.

Also, what are going to do, tell a 3rd-world nation that none of their thousands (literally) of suffering patients can have literally life-saving HIV medications because they obviously cant afford to pay for it? Guess what, most HIV pills swallowed in Africa you're paying for here in America. That's something you'll never here the pharma-hating politicians tell you. Even the generic cost is more than many Africans will make in an entire year, and remember, there was a time when no generics existed. Imagine the cost 15 years ago!

Drugs, are to some degree like computer software, books, music, movies. Once it's "created", making copies are DIRT CHEAP!

So people always screams why are the "creators" continue to receive payment well above the reproduction cost!

Bootleg DVD/CD/books abound. People don't feel guilty making illegal copies because of that believe.

Unlike DVD & books, drugs and computer software are often essential. So people scream the loudest on those.

Bottom line is, the TOTAL reward, worldwide, need to be attractive for anyone to "create" a product, be it drugs or movie!

When a drug is developed in the US, it become available to American first. When it's developed in Canada, it become available in Canada first. Lots of drugs NEVER got approved in the US because the cost of getting a drug, even though it's widely used in Canada or Europe, approved in the US is too high. (I've had to, in multiple instances, get drugs from Canada that's "not approved by FDA").

Once the drug company kind of sort of recoup its development cost, they would sell it to African country for a song. It's a song that they otherwise won't get if they want to keep a high price worldwide. I don't see what good it would do by NOT selling at low price to poor country.

 

[NYDB]

If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list.

Besides, why not New York and California?

I can't don't know about California, but NY is actually one of the best at fully funding their pension obligations. They play games, but not as bad as some of our other neighboring states. It is one of the reasons our property taxes are so (relatively) high. They actually pay the bills for that.

Kentucky actually is the worst at that by % of obligation, but Ct, Il and NJ are right up there. NH ain't doing a great job either.

 

[machski]

What you've described, ...pension based on your last 5 years BASE salary..., is know as a "defined benefit plan". The private sector has ditched those over 30 years ago, and replaced them with "defined contribution plans"; aka 401k with company match.

Whenever governments try to pull back defined benefit plans and have employees contribute to their own retirement, the unions explode in an uproar and government usually doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the unions.

There is a reason why the private sector has switched to defined contribution plans. It also puts skin in the game for employees to manage their retirement.

I'm 51 years old and have worked for 8 private sector employees and have never been eligible for a defined bene plan. My wife did, but 8 years ago they cashed her out of that plan and her had roll over the lump sum payment into a 401k or IRA.

Things that can't go on forever, wont. Defined benefit plans can't go on forever. There's just too much uncertainty as to the ultimate obligation. The private sector learned this decades ago. Government is always slow to react.

On the bright side, looks like rain again this weekend.

I agree but unlike many states, NH has reduced it's guarantees in the past decade (teachers used to get pensions based off the final 3 years TOTAL compensation including stipends) and they upped the mandatory contribution by employee from IIRC 4% to 7% of pay. I would still much rather have the state match into her 403b account, but very happy NH's pension system is the highest rated to actually meet it's obligations without that option.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[x10003q]

This is going to be the next major political fight in America, and it will make Obamacare seem like patty-cake. Sometime in the next 10 years, a liberal state is going to try to declare bankruptcy. Democrats will be for it, Republicans will be against it.

Like Obamacare, the fight will take several years go all the way to the Supreme Court. If Democrats win, taxpayers in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Montana, etc... will be paying the expenses of a financially irresponsible liberal state like New Jersey or Illinois.

You heard it here first.

Iowa, Florida, Montana are all takers and have been long Federal government takers. NJ has been one of the largest donor states for years. If NJ got some kind of equal return from the Federal govt, it would not be in such horrible financial shape.

"The ten donor states with the largest negative balance of payments per capita (the biggest givers) are:

Connecticut (- $4,000)
New Jersey (- $2,368 )
Massachusetts (- $2,343)
New York (- $1,792)
North Dakota (- $720)
Illinois (- $364)
New Hampshire (- $234)
Washington (- $184)
Nebraska (- $164)
Colorado (- $95)

The ten states with the largest positive balance of payments per capita (the biggest takers) are:

Virginia ($10,301)
Kentucky ($9,145)
New Mexico ($8,692)
West Virginia ($7,283)
Alaska ($7,048 )
Mississippi ($6,880)
Alabama ($6,694)
Maryland ($6,035)
Maine ($5,572)
Hawaii ($5,270)"
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/donor-states/

 

[Orca]

 

[BenedictGomez]

Iowa, Florida, Montana are all takers and have been long Federal government takers. NJ has been one of the largest donor states for years. If NJ got some kind of equal return from the Federal govt, it would not be in such horrible financial shape.

You are confusing State fiscal policy with Federal Income taxation. It's like comparing a Ford F-150 to a Black Forest Cake. One has little to do with the other, and the conclusion you are drawing is not correct.

 

[BenedictGomez]

If Michigan hasn't, New Jersey is long way down that list. Besides, why not New York and California?

AFAIK, unless things have changed for the worse recently, Michigan is pretty far down the list.

In better financial shape than NJ, NY, CA, CT, IL, etc....

 

[Edd]

Don't always make everything about politics.

He literally seems incapable of that.

 

[Orca]

"The Vermont Legislature returns in January with a long list of daunting challenges, all with potentially astronomical price tags for Vermonters, who are already some of the most highly taxed people in the United States.
...
There are only about 320,000 taxpayers in Vermont. This ever-growing burden on so few shoulders is crushing. It has to stop. It would be one thing if we were getting our money’s worth out of all this, but the existing programs outlined above, apart from being wastefully expensive, are all examples of gross mismanagement. Can we realistically expect any better from the proposed programs?"

-- Rob Roper, VTDigger, 5 January 2020

 

[x10003q]

You are confusing State fiscal policy with Federal Income taxation. It's like comparing a Ford F-150 to a Black Forest Cake. One has little to do with the other, and the conclusion you are drawing is not correct.

Right. Like having $2368 per capita coming back to NJ from the Federal govt would not help NJ.:-o

 

[thetrailboss]

"The Vermont Legislature returns in January with a long list of daunting challenges, all with potentially astronomical price tags for Vermonters, who are already some of the most highly taxed people in the United States.
...
There are only about 320,000 taxpayers in Vermont. This ever-growing burden on so few shoulders is crushing. It has to stop. It would be one thing if we were getting our money’s worth out of all this, but the existing programs outlined above, apart from being wastefully expensive, are all examples of gross mismanagement. Can we realistically expect any better from the proposed programs?"

-- Rob Roper, VTDigger, 5 January 2020

320,000 taxpayers. Wow. That is a medium-sized city at best.

 

[kbroderick]

320,000 taxpayers. Wow. That is a medium-sized city at best.

That's a least a slight understatement.

There are 335-336 thousand employed people in Vermont according to the federal stats (https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt.htm). While some of them are presumably working poor and getting back their income taxes, I think it's safe to say they're all paying taxes of some sort (whether that be sales tax, property tax via rent, etc). I'd guess that retired folks are probably paying taxes, too; some will still have taxable income, and almost all of them are probably paying other-than-income taxes in some form or another.

According to Google, the state population is about 630k. 335k employed people out of 630k does sound like a lot of non-working folks, but the ratio isn't particularly different nationwide (327 million employees with a workforce about about 160 million).

 

[Orca]

That's a least a slight understatement.

There are 335-336 thousand employed people in Vermont according to the federal stats (https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt.htm). While some of them are presumably working poor and getting back their income taxes, I think it's safe to say they're all paying taxes of some sort (whether that be sales tax, property tax via rent, etc). I'd guess that retired folks are probably paying taxes, too; some will still have taxable income, and almost all of them are probably paying other-than-income taxes in some form or another.

According to Google, the state population is about 630k. 335k employed people out of 630k does sound like a lot of non-working folks, but the ratio isn't particularly different nationwide (327 million employees with a workforce about about 160 million).

2017: 318,674 Vermont personal income tax returns filed with 64,333 of them owing no tax. (Additionally, 52,047 out-of-state returns filed with 8,047 owing no tax.)

https://tax.vermont.gov/research-and-reports/statistical-data/income-tax