To follow up on Andy's comments, Tennessee went through a period when
several "temporary"
increases were passed in the sales tax. All are
still very much with us. At least the legislature
finally stopped that nonsense, or else tar and
feathers would need to make a comeback.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Novobilski" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] FW: [UTCSTAFF] PARKING/INSURANCE


> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > > I recently returned from the University of Connecticut,
>
>
> Connecticut is a very interesting example of fiscal idealism.  I lived
there
> during the time the state moved to a "consistent revenue model" (i.e.,
> income tax).  Imagine all of the sudden taking a 4.5% hit on every dollar
> earned.  Also, the income tax was to be temporary. Right.  Three years
from
> its inception it counted for 65% of all state revenues.  Of course, in
order
> to get it to pass, the CT legislature removed the investment tax (so the
> very wealthy were happy), and made it graduated (so the majority of middle
> to lower-middle class families) so those most able to stop the tax from
> being enacted where placated.
>
> Also, while we're comparing apples and oranges, consider that property
taxes
> were twice in CT then (8 years ago) from what they are here now.  That is
if
> you could afford a house.  Housing costs (including rental on an
apartment)
> were easily three times the cost of things here and only got worse the
> closer you came to NYC.  So yes, there was no tax on food or clothing over
a
> certain price, but the other taxes and cost of living issues more than
made
> up for it (I believe CT is considered the 3rd most expensiv state in the
US
> in terms of total cost of living).
>
> There is one similarity, however, and that is in health care.  Connecticut
> has long enjoyed the reputation of one of the (if not the) best states to
> move to if you have serious medical problems as the welfare system places
> few restrictions on length of time in state when establishing who is
> eligible for benefits.  I am not saying that medical care should be
denied,
> only that people should recognize its relative cost to all the citizens of
a
> particular state and plan accordingly.
>
> Just wanted to shed some light and stop the mass exodus from TN to CT ...
>
> Andy
>
>
> ======================================
> Andy Novobilski, Ph.D.
> UT Chattanooga Computer Science
> 331 Grote Hall
> Voice (423) 755-4202