Connecticut ranked best state to live

[pbrower2a]

Cheaper cigarettes could encourage early smoking.

Well documented. One reason for high taxes on cigarettes is to discourage youth smoking.

[barfbag]

Cheaper cigarettes could encourage early smoking.

Well documented. One reason for high taxes on cigarettes is to discourage youth smoking.

I'm for one to have the liberty to smoke and even legalization of marijuana, but I was more saying how cheaper prices of cigarettes encourages younger smokers therefore, cheaper smoking states would be more livable for smokers. I know it's obvious but what do you think of smoking in bars and restaurants? Or should we make another thread?

[pbrower2a]

Blank map.

Excise Tax Per Pack (USD)    State/Territory 0.17    Missouri 0.30    Virginia 0.36    Louisiana 0.37    Georgia 0.425    Alabama 0.44    North Dakota 0.45    North Carolina 0.55    West Virginia 0.57    Idaho 0.57    South Carolina 0.60    Kentucky 0.60    Wyoming 0.62    Tennessee 0.64    Nebraska 0.68    Mississippi 0.79    Kansas 0.80    Nevada 0.84    Colorado 0.87    California 0.995    Indiana 1.03    Oklahoma 1.15    Arkansas 1.18    Oregon 1.25    Ohio 1.339    Florida 1.36    Iowa 1.41    Texas 1.53    South Dakota 1.60    Delaware 1.60    Pennsylvania 1.66    New Mexico 1.68    New Hampshire 1.70    Montana 1.70    Utah 1.98    Illinois 2.00    Alaska 2.00    Arizona 2.00    Maine 2.00    Maryland 2.00    Michigan 2.50         District of California 2.52    Wisconsin 2.60    Minnesota 2.62    Vermont 2.70    New Jersey 3.025    Washington 3.20    Hawaii 3.40    Connecticut 3.50    Rhode Island 3.51    Massachusetts 4.35     New York

The federal excise tax on cigarettes is $1.01, which is not included in the rates shown above.
    Several municipalities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Anchorage also have a cigarette tax, which is not included in any of the rates shown above.
    Most states charge a sales tax on top of the retail price and the excise taxes. A few municipalities levy a local sales tax in addition to the state tax. None of the rates shown above take sales taxes into account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States

90% saturation -- under 30¢ per pack (Missouri 17¢)
80% saturation -- 30¢ to 68¢ per pack
70% saturation -- 79¢ to $1.25 per pack
60% saturation -- $1.339 to $1.70 per pack
50% saturation -- $1.98 to $2.00 per pack
40% saturation -- $2.50 to $2.70 per pack
30% saturation -- $3.025 to $3.20 per pack
20% saturation -- $3.40 to $3.51 per pack
10% saturation -- $4.35 per pack (New York)

[pbrower2a]

The states and drinking habits. Light colors -- low drinking. Dark -- heavy drinking.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12119523/1/the-drunkest-states-in-america-2013-vintage.html?utm_source=inlinespeeddesk&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=inlinespeeddesk

Lowest ten:

10. North Carolina
9. Ohio
Tie -- 7 and 8 -- Alabama and Georgia
6. Oklahoma (Nothing stronger than 3.2 beer is allowed)
5. Kansas (tough alcohol laws)
4. West Virginia
3. Kentucky
2. Arkansas (more than half of its counties are 'dry', practically no Sunday sales allowed)
1. Utah (Mormon influence, tough alcohol laws)

Top ten for drinking:

10. South Dakota
9. Vermont
8. Montana
7. Alaska
6. Wisconsin. Highest rate of binge drinkers.
5. North Dakota (second in binge drinking)
4. Nevada
3. Delaware
2. District of Columbia
1. New Hampshire (no sales tax)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Someone should tell TheHawk. I'd bet he'd be delighted!

[The Other Castro]

awww yeaaa Nutmeggers represent!

[IceSpear]

Someone should tell TheHawk. I'd bet he'd be delighted!

Thanks Dan Malloy!

[Free Bird]

What... filth is this

[The Free North]

What... filth is this

Sorry, not all of us can be the best.



Proud of my state

[The Other Castro]

Thanks Dan Malloy!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks Malloy!

[krazen1211]

This is a far better ranking.

Link

> Taxes paid by residents as pct. of income: 12.3%
> Total state and local taxes collected: $21.41 billion (19th highest)
> Pct. of total taxes paid by residents: 80.7% (4th highest)
> Pct. of total taxes paid by non-residents: 19.3% (4th lowest)



Malloy is violating the people of Connecticut.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I clicked 'show'. The fact that he thinks this is relevant (i.e. that he thinks that quality of life is a direct inverse function of tax burden) is absurd and wrong.

[krazen1211]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some.  Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

[krazen1211]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

Why? In theory, to better ones life through higher wages and personal freedom. Cold North Dakota is booming due to such things. But the 50th ranked economy has no such things. In fact, Connecticut happens to rank 2nd in the portion of the population that wants to ditch Malloy's 'amenities'.  Illinois happens to be 1st.  Connecticut's K-12 enrollment is on the decline. Unions are expensive.

But I guess they have some old money, at least for a time.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

Why? In theory, to better ones life through higher wages and personal freedom. Cold North Dakota is booming due to such things. But the 50th ranked economy has no such things. In fact, Connecticut happens to rank 2nd in the portion of the population that wants to ditch Malloy's 'amenities'.  Illinois happens to be 1st.  Connecticut's K-12 enrollment is on the decline. Unions are expensive.

But I guess they have some old money, at least for a time.

I agree Malloy is awful and is bringing the economy in the wrong direction. That being said, the suburbs of the strongest banking system in the country are going to be a much better place to make money and a career than anywhere else. The compactness and well-concentrated population make it an ideal spot. The taxes are improper, but they have very little impact on the seriously better life Connecticut residents have. North Dakota might have decent growth recently, but there is very little to enjoy about it at the moment. There are other factors aside from politics and taxes.

[pbrower2a]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

New York City seems like a tough place to live. City government has been very paternalistic for a very long time. Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg would be insufferable almost anywhere else. Real estate costs are astronomical and taxes are high. Population density itself imposes economic regimentation.  

But if you are at the top of your game, then you belong in New York City...maybe San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, Certainly not the rural South

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It won't be for long, thanks to Dan Malloy's tax and spend liberal policies that are running their economy into the ground.

[Indy Texas]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some.  Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

New York City seems like a tough place to live. City government has been very paternalistic for a very long time. Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg would be insufferable almost anywhere else. Real estate costs are astronomical and taxes are high. Population density itself imposes economic regimentation.  

But if you are at the top of your game, then you belong in New York City...maybe San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, Certainly not the rural South

If you're at the top of your game, you can live wherever the hell you want.

If you're poor, you face a tradeoff in that expensive states like New York are also often places where the poor are more likely to become non-poor, while low-cost states like Alabama and Texas may give the poor more purchasing power but also offer fewer opportunities to move out of poverty.

Arguably, if you're a poor "striver" with a very clear ambition and set of goals, you should move to a major city, deal with the high housing costs and take advantage of things like affordable public transportation and education to climb up the socioeconomic ladder. If you just want to "maintain" in a state of manageable squalor, you ought to decamp to a mobile home in the rural/suburban South. You won't have to worry about getting evicted and you'll always be able to afford dirt-cheap processed food at Walmart, but you'll have to accept that your children will never be able to expect anything more unless they join the military and get them to pay for their education.

[pbrower2a]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

New York City seems like a tough place to live. City government has been very paternalistic for a very long time. Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg would be insufferable almost anywhere else. Real estate costs are astronomical and taxes are high. Population density itself imposes economic regimentation.  

But if you are at the top of your game, then you belong in New York City...maybe San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, Certainly not the rural South

If you're at the top of your game, you can live wherever the hell you want.

If you're poor, you face a tradeoff in that expensive states like New York are also often places where the poor are more likely to become non-poor, while low-cost states like Alabama and Texas may give the poor more purchasing power but also offer fewer opportunities to move out of poverty.

Arguably, if you're a poor "striver" with a very clear ambition and set of goals, you should move to a major city, deal with the high housing costs and take advantage of things like affordable public transportation and education to climb up the socioeconomic ladder. If you just want to "maintain" in a state of manageable squalor, you ought to decamp to a mobile home in the rural/suburban South. You won't have to worry about getting evicted and you'll always be able to afford dirt-cheap processed food at Walmart, but you'll have to accept that your children will never be able to expect anything more unless they join the military and get them to pay for their education.

If you are at the top of your game, and you don't live in a giant city, then you are in some place with some remarkable scenery or recreational activities.    

Of course it depends upon what one wants. Tony Bennett didn't sing "I left my heart in Waco, Texas". I can more imaginably think of a first line for a song... "The best two things about Waco are I-35 North and I-35 South..." only to recall some story of stereotypical country music heartache.  But even at that Waco is not the worst place possible in America.

There are people thoroughly content to go home after a crappy job to a trailer, situate themselves on a recliner, and watch televised sports with a cancerette in one hand a beer in the other with a bag of chips in easy reach. Do we need such people? Sure. Somebody has to do those awful jobs, and if someone doing those had any elevated purpose in life, he'd want out fast. Those awful jobs might never get done. You do need your oil changed, don't you? You know that someone has to guide the cattle through the feed lot, don't you... steak and hamburger don't grow on trees, after all.  

  

[pbrower2a]

Hawaii could become the state in the Union most hostile to cancerweed by increasing the minimum age for buying tobacco products to 21.

[The Free North]

So are we still #1?