 KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2
 ·Comcast
| Connecticut Income Disparity Widens »www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar···_widens/
The wage inequality gap between high and low wage earners in Connecticut has widened over the last five years, according to a recent report by the Connecticut Voices for Children.
The study, which compared wage gains and losses before and through the economic recession, found that wages for the highest-paid workers grew while pay for the lowest paid bracket generally remained stagnant.
Those in the 90th percentile of earners saw their income increase by more than 14 percent while those in the 10th percentile saw an increase of only 1.3 percent, the report found. Very high income earners saw their hourly income increase by about $6 per hour from 2006 to 2010. Very low earners saw their income increase by about 11 cents per hour during the same period with a 20 cent per hour decline from 2009 to 2010, the report said.
“Generally, those who were at the high end of the wage ladder in 2006 have experienced the greatest gains in recent years, while those who were at the low end have seen declines or little improvement,” the report said.
The report found that median weekly and hourly wages actually increased in Connecticut since 2006, but said that’s likely not good news. The increase may be a result of higher unemployment levels in the lower earning sector which ran parallel to the increase in median earnings, it said.
“The movement in average annual earnings better captures the true declines in income for most workers, declines which are not captured by apparently increases in median weekly wages that are driven by shrinking employment in low-wage jobs,” the report said.
in 2010, Connecticut’s ratio of income between very high and very low earners surpassed by the national ratio and the average ratio of its surrounding states. In Connecticut, very high earners made about 5.37 times as much as very low earners, compared to the 4.71 national average and the 5.17 peer state average, the report found.
The report, which also examined income gaps between different demographics, found that women in the state make 76 percent of what men do on a weekly basis, a gap that is slightly larger than it was before the recession.
The median weekly income for women grew by 9.4 percent, while the median for men grew by 11.3 percent, the report said.
“The positive direction of this trend in women’s weekly wages is promising. However, the fact that women’s wages grew less quickly than men’s suggests that women are moving backwards in terms of obtaining wage parity with men,” it said.
Connecticut’s gender gap is larger than the national and regional equivalents. The report found that on average nationally women make 81 percent as much as men and 82 percent as much in nearby states.
On a more positive note, the report found that the average income for black and Hispanic workers in Connecticut was higher than the national average. However, it noted that the increased income may be offset by the higher-than-average cost of living in Connecticut.
The report said the wage gap between white and black workers is significantly larger in Connecticut than nationwide. On average a black worker in Connecticut makes 67 cents on the dollar compared to white workers. Nationwide that ratio is about 78 cents on the dollar, the report said.
By contrast Hispanics in Connecticut fared slightly better than the nationwide average, earning 69.4 percent of the average white workers income compared to the national average of 68.7 percent.
“Since 2006, the Hispanic wage gap has narrowed by 7.6 percentage points, while the black wage gap has widened by 0.6 percentage point. Both groups saw increasing wage disparity as a result of the recession, and improving wage equality as the recession ended,” the report said.
The report found that education levels significantly impacted incomes in Connecticut. Workers with a four-year college degree earned on average twice the as much as those with a high school diploma. College educated workers saw their incomes increase by 8 percent since 2006 while high school educated workers watched theirs decline an average of 5 percent, the report said.
“The returns to a college degree were very significant – the median college graduate earned more than the highest paid high school graduates ($30.76 vs. $29.03),” it said.
The report concluded that education will have to be central to Connecticut’s economic strategy in the future. It notes that a higher percentage of the state’s white population has a formal education than its minority population, a fact that contributes to racial income inequalities.
“That inequality is unlikely to be reduced without addressing the underlying sources: closing our achievement gaps and improving access to higher education,” it said.
CT Voices for Children suggested the state look to reforming its public schools and increasing access to both higher education institutions and early childhood education in an effort to solve the problem. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| Oh no,
The middle class is moving out, the poor enjoy their subsidies and the rich so far refuse to leave Fairfield County. Whatever will we do?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Kommie
And how is it a surprise or a bad thing? It's clear that hard work and making the right decisions in life finally pays off.
As far as race/gender comparisons go, they are biased from the start. You have to compare different categories doing the same job to say there is a race/gender gap.
Also as far as regions go.. what jobs do you have in the Stamford area and what jobs do you have in Willimantic? Again, compare apples to apples... |
|
|
|
 gregamy
join:2003-05-22
Middletown, CT
·Comcast
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Kommie
This is excellent news! As Kommie so eloquently pointed out in another thread, the inevitable result of this is state budget surpluses, which benefit everyone. The more they make, the more "revenue" gets collected, and the State's tide lifts all boats.
Keep it up, Connecticut! Glad to see we're doing SOMETHING right... |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| I looked at the report. It doesn't occur to the report authors (or Kommie) that the means testing our government does on benefits forces low income earners to keep their income down.
If you make more than 1.5 times federal poverty limits in Connecticut, you can lose $600 a month in food stamps, $1,800 a month in HUD housing, $2,000 a month in Medicaid, and a host of other "non income" benefits.
Those who don't take from the government aren't concerned about loss of means tested rewards for staying poor.
Kommie, the greatest cause of income disparity in Connecticut is government benefits and means testing.
Lets either cut the programs or drop means testing. It's unfair to reward failures with $1,800 a month for housing and $600 a month in extra food. Why not pass the benefit to all regardless of demonstrated ability to fail.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
| said by pandora:$1,800 a month for housing and $600 a month in extra food. Why not pass the benefit to all regardless of demonstrated ability to fail.
Geeze, After health care, ct tax, fed tax, retirement, medicaid tax, that's just 300 less than I take home every month.
It'd almost make sense for me to "fail" and then sell stuff on ebay all day, while heading out on the boat as my "job" |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| said by CTMustang:said by pandora:$1,800 a month for housing and $600 a month in extra food. Why not pass the benefit to all regardless of demonstrated ability to fail.
Geeze, After health care, ct tax, fed tax, retirement, medicaid tax, that's just 300 less than I take home every month. It'd almost make sense for me to "fail" and then sell stuff on ebay all day, while heading out on the boat as my "job" Then Kommie would love you. And you could work off the books, which won't bother Kommie one bit. 
Though this may bother Kommie ... Merry Christmas!
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
 DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | I know folks in the rural Midwest who could live like royalty on $2,400 a month. Yet that's about the minimum required to scrape by in CT.
Means testing, at least at the frequency and with the zeal practiced by CT DSS, probably costs the state quite a lot. As an experiment, there should be a one-year moratorium on means testing.
Unless you're listening to Reagan's ghost raving about welfare queens in welfare Cadillacs, it might work out very well. At the very least it would provide an infusion of cash at the bottom of the economy, where it would do the most good. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| said by DrStrange:Means testing, at least at the frequency and with the zeal practiced by CT DSS, probably costs the state quite a lot. As an experiment, there should be a one-year moratorium on means testing.
Unless you're listening to Reagan's ghost raving about welfare queens in welfare Cadillacs, it might work out very well. At the very least it would provide an infusion of cash at the bottom of the economy, where it would do the most good.
We have so many back door subsidies, so many bureaucrats who oversee and make great livings managing means tests and what not. I'd love to see everyone get free breakfast and lunch at their local school (student or not, once people see how bad student lunches are things may improve).
We may as well guarantee every person in the U.S. food stamps, housing and energy subsidies.
I'd rather see people get $500 per month per person in a family instead of a mortgage deduction. It'd be more honest than the tax nonsense we do. Same with food stamps, if everyone got $150 per month, it'd be easier than applying and no stigma for anyone.
Yeah, we'll go belly up doing that, but we are going to go belly up anyway. Why not let as many as possible join the party.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
| reply to DrStrange
said by DrStrange:I know folks in the rural Midwest who could live like royalty on $2,400 a month. Yet that's about the minimum required to scrape by in CT.
I hate to tell you, but I've been scraping by on just about $9K a year income for the past couple of years... I just don't pay the property taxes in full. If I didn't pay anything at all in taxes, I could live like a king on $9K. |
|
DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | That's exactly my point. The property taxes on 40 acres in the rural Midwest are much less than we pay on a small fraction of an acre.
I think property taxes should be capped at a percentage of net income, but then again I'm a lefty wierdo. |
|
| Capping helps, but fundamentally, Americans living in a supposedly free country, should be able to own land. We don't.
I'm a classical liberal, who believes in limited government.
One eye opener about the US: we are the only other country, besides NORTH KOREA, who taxes income of citizens no matter where they live and earn their income in the world. |
|
KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | reply to DrStrange
How about getting rid of the property tax all together? Just have a VAT. |
|
DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | I don't like VATs. They're regressive. The poor, and especially the middle class, end up paying a much higher percentage of income in taxes than the rich. The 'fair tax' helps the 1% at the expense of the 99%.
The property tax should be retained, but only for property valued over $500,000 or $1,000,000.
The key to revenue should be a progressive tax on net income. I favor the pre-Reagan income tax rates, indexed for inflation. That increase in revenue, along with a serious look at military contracts and Medicare billing practices, should give us enough to finance a major infrastructure project and a single-payer healthcare system.
We do need to have a serious look at waste and inefficiency all through the system, however. I hope some genuine conservatives will be willing to help the progressives keep an eye on things. |
|
| Since my view is that property OWNERSHIP should mean just that--not a fraudulent title in which you own the LIABILITY for the property but not the property itself, I am for completely abolishing property tax. It is the most regressive of all because it is due even if you don't have an income. It fails to respect the right of Americans to live the lifestyle they choose, which could be farming and not owning a motor vehicle, thus not engaging in the fraudulent Federal Reserve System of 'commerce'.
Government is too damned large anyway. It should be about 1-2% of what it is now. It's into every damned aspect of our lives as a result of its ability to steal funding from it's subjects/slaves. (We stopped being citizens in 1913 when we became slaves to the banking cartels and in 1933 when all property in the US was turned over as collateral for the national debt).
Basic services should be an insurance contract that is bought voluntarily. Most citizens will see the value and buy this. Why do we have taxes? Two reasons: because what the government is 'offering' no one in their right mind would buy on the free market. 2: Taxes remove power from the people and place control in the hands of the rulers. |
|
DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | Our politics may differ on a few issues, but I think we're in agreement here.
I think I'd reserve the right to tax someone's five mansions in Greenwich if I thought they bought them to avoid paying income tax. Otherwise, yes. It's regressive and should be done away with. It certainly discourages farming, and that's something we desperately need to preserve if we want to keep eating. You can't eat the wood and drywall chips from a shredded subdivision or the grass from a golf course green. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by DrStrange:I think I'd reserve the right to tax someone's five mansions in Greenwich if I thought they bought them to avoid paying income tax. Otherwise, yes. It's regressive and should be done away with. It certainly discourages farming, and that's something we desperately need to preserve if we want to keep eating. You can't eat the wood and drywall chips from a shredded subdivision or the grass from a golf course green.
Taxes are proportional to the [more or less market] value of the property, so I think it's fair how it is now. A farm worth 100k won't be taxed nearly as much as a $10mil mansion. Yet everyone contributes more or less, according to their financial means. It doesn't discourage farming in any way as the 100k farm will yield -say- 2k/yr tax while the $10mil mansion will yield 200k in tax. |
|
DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | It's the taxes on the land that are killing farming. The property tax on the farm includes the market value of the land in the same way as if the land were subdivided into building lots.
If it were just on the farmhouse, it might not be as bad. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by DrStrange:It's the taxes on the land that are killing farming. The property tax on the farm includes the market value of the land in the same way as if the land were subdivided into building lots.
If it were just on the farmhouse, it might not be as bad.
Actually the value isn't the same. The assessed value is ~70% of the fair market value of the property.
There is a 140+ acres lot in the middle of nowhere (Canton) for sale @144k (down from 430k). You can bet it won't be taxed more than 2-3k/year. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| reply to DrStrange
said by DrStrange:It's the taxes on the land that are killing farming. The property tax on the farm includes the market value of the land in the same way as if the land were subdivided into building lots.
If it were just on the farmhouse, it might not be as bad.
Just taxes is good enough. We have way too much government, which is run way too poorly, by overpaid bureaucrats working hard at wealth transfer and failing miserably.
Some government is good, some safety net is good, what we have is a preposterous mishmash of nonsensical programs imo.
Guarantee everyone food, shelter and Medicaid, let them work up from there if desired. Get rid of means testing, the overhead on that is a huge percentage of program costs.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
