What do you think of Bridgewater's buck$?

12 Comments

  • Robert Jacobs Jr - 6 years ago

    Bridgewater and other businesses/residents wouldn't be contemplating a move if CT was a more business friendly and had a more benign personal tax environment. CT ranks #45 among states with a business friendly environment and #51 in overall adjusted rank in effective tax rates. The for sales signs of business and people moving away will only be reversed when the climate for business and personal tax burdens become more friendly.

    This from the 2015 list of Best/Worst state rankings of businesses friendly states

    2015 #45 | Connecticut
    With poor road conditions and a high cost of living, pro-growth forces are overwhelmed by the state’s commitment to higher taxes. CEOs and business owners feel the governor is not on their side.

  • Jeff Gray - 6 years ago

    Logic (disclaimer: I have no idea if this would be legal) would say that the Federal Government should ban states from negotiating and making exclusive deals with individual businesses. If states had to make the same offer to every company (e.g., pay $20,000 for each new job created), they would quickly find it unaffordable. Ultimately, this would stop the bidding wars between states, which take jobs and taxes from one community and move them to another community that can only hope their investment (subsidy) pays out (lights out at UBS!).

    It would also reduce or eliminate the threats companies make to negotiate deals to remain in their current state or between prospective states, as a state would then have to make the same opportunity available to all businesses. In the end, states would compete on tax rates, cost of living (employee wages), location significance/value to businesses, livability, etc. Yes, places like Florida and Texas would still kick our butts tax- and cost-wise, but they're not Connecticut (not sure if that's a good thing anymore!).

    As for Bridgewater, as long as businesses and states can continue to play "Let's Make a Deal," is there really any other choice? Glad to kerp them in Westport, happy to have their property tax payments, and sorry that the whole State has to pay (not necessarily fair but that's how it goes).

  • Cris Negrin - 6 years ago

    Seems like a lot of $$ for seven hundred something jobs but then the employees do make a lot of $$. Dan I think your options are extreme but for the record I don't have a problem with it. I believe this $$ is not being taken away from funds already alloted to schools, hospitals and the like. Maybe spend what's leftover on fixing CT bridges?

  • Gloria Gouveia - 6 years ago

    CORRECTION: My apologies. More correctly, for the past two years the State's proposed budget has been short close to a billion dollars a year.

  • Gloria Gouveia - 6 years ago

    "The loan will be forgiven if Bridgewater "keeps its promises for new and retained jobs in Connecticut."...
    AND Bridgewater (or any other similar recipients of such grants) should be required to repay ALL of the grant money WITH a penalty charge, if their "promises" aren't kept. After all, Bridgewater chose not to keep their "promises" to Stamford and the best indicator of future behavior is usually past behavior.

    For the last two years, the State's proposed budget has been just short of a billion dollars a year. If an investment of $29 million really translates into $500 million plus in private sector expenditures, the math works for me as long as "promises" are kept.

  • Jo Shields - 6 years ago

    Hartford: Bridgeport, not Bridgewater.

  • Chris - 6 years ago

    Crazy!

    It is now accepted that the role of the state is to fund the normal operations of private for-profit companies, even the most successful (assume they would grow those jobs any), while reducing it's community support of education and healthcare.

    There is no way that is a successful long term strategy.

    Who is going to educate kids, and pay for the health and safety of the community? It sure isn't the corporations that these day pay almost no taxes themselves.

  • Elise - 6 years ago

    I agree with Miggs! I don't like them getting $22 million, but it is far better than the proposed Stamford deal, and they will increase their Westport property taxes and local spending. This is very good for our town. The state of CT is having an enormous problem with billionaire hedge fund executives leaving and setting up shop in FLorida where there is NO state income tax or estate tax plus the homesteaders property exemption. Morgan Stanley has opened a Naples, Florida office to serve extremely high net worth clients and Day Pitney (large east coast law firm) now has a Florida operation to serve the trusts and estates needs of these same clients.

  • Jack backiel - 6 years ago

    I think it's a wonderful idea to take as much money from education, in the state of Connecticut, and funnel it into Bridgwater! I suggest we increase class sizes in kindergarten so we can lay off teachers to give them more money!!

  • Gene Seidman - 6 years ago

    It's legal but pathetic.

  • Joey Kaempfer - 6 years ago

    Many businesses do everything "legal" to earn a buck, but between the State of Ct. and A gigantic hedge fund we all might prefer to see them donating the $22 million to a worthwhile program for the truly needy. It seems unlikely that these folks would have left beautiful FF County without this relatively small gift from the State.

  • miggs b - 6 years ago

    Since their name is Bridgewater, I think that they should use the $29 million from the state to rebuild any bridge that goes over water in Connecticut.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment