| Author |
Message |
    
Truthseeker
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:06 pm: |     |
Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo
SPEAKING UP
Star-Ledger May 12, 1997
The use of property taxes to fund public education is widespread in the US. However, New Jersey has the dubious distinction of being the most property tax-dependent state in the nation when it comes to funding public schools. New Hampshire has a higher rate of property taxation, but residents of that state are not required to pay either an income or a
sales tax.
Increasing education funding without addressing statewide equity issues has decreased efficiency and hampered efforts to reach parity among New Jersey's 611 school districts. This fundamentally flawed system hurts taxpayers and schoolchildren alike.
New Jersey's lopsided reliance on property taxes was the primary reason the state Supreme Court ordered changes in the school funding system more than 25 years ago. A continue reliance on property taxes has sustained, and, in almost every instance, heightened the disparities among New Jersey's school districts.
A new school aid law was signed by Gov. Christie Whitman in December and
will take effect in the 1997-98 school year. The law, which is supposed to address expenditure disparities, will have the opposite effect. It
will exacerbate the inherent inequity of using property taxes to fund education.
The new educational funding plan is supposed to pour an additional $286 million in state money into public schools. That's good, but property tax payers will ante up more of the educational bill than any point in recent memory - approximately 60% in the coming fiscal year. This means the state will once again be leaning on local property tax payers to raise the necessary revenues to run local schools.
It's time that this vicious cycle of flawed school funding schemes came and corresponding court rejections came to an end. True school funding
reform is long overdue.
Other revenue sources that are fairer and less punishing to New Jersey families must be explored. In Michigan, voters approved a referendum that abolished property taxes as a means of paying for education.
Another alternative is to limit the local property tax to a uniform rate below the state median. This approach would provide much needed relief to overburdened residents while starting the process of reducing our reliance on property taxes to fund education.
New Jersey's education funding problems remain unsolved and will never
solved until we address the property tax issue. The reliance on property taxes is greater than eve, and the state Supreme Court order will not be met. This is the same old game with a different name. Unless a balanced, responsible approach to property tax reform is developed, New Jersey's children will pay the price in lost educational opportunities today - and higher taxes tomorrow.
What steps have Mr. Caraballo, the School Board, the South Orange Trustees, or the Maplewwod Township Committee taken to correct this situation since this op-ed was written nearly four years ago? Do any of them now disagree with the conclusion? |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:14 pm: | |
Truthseeker--thanks for the posting, and I second the questions you ask.
Where is the leadership on this issue? Why can so many other states make the painful but necessary transition from heavy reliance on property taxes, but NJ cannot?
Why is this not an issue in the coming gubernatorial race? How do we make it an issue?
I am relatively new here, but I have heard of how this issue was Florio's undoing. But has no one learned how to do it better in all these years? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 3:22 pm: | |
There is a new bill being co-sponsored that is supposed to be introduced to the assembly this spring. The last time this was tried (two years ago) it never made it to the floor. It was blocked by the republicans. Whitman said she would veto any bill that called for a different method of funding schools. That is why there is renewed hope with Whitman gone. And the reason republicans do now want a change is because most of the areas that vote republican do not have the problems that S. Orange, Maplewood, Gren Ridge, Verona, The Caldwells, Alpine, Demarest, etc. have.
Let's see what Bush's new initiative brings us in NJ. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:03 pm: | |
Truthseeker - Assemblyman Caraballo has been specifically engaged in trying to mobilize support in communities such as Maplewood, to change the excessive reliance on property taxes to fund education. Our Maplewood officials have supported him. He is hampered by the fact that the governor, and the majority of both house of the legislature, are republican. You'll note that the date on the article you posted was May of 1997. In November of 1997, Governor Whitman was re-elected by a razor-thin margin - 47% of the vote, versus 46% for the democratic candidate (a difference of 26,953 votes).
If everyone in Maplewood, South Orange, and similarly-situated communities make tax reform a priority, we may finally see this situation improve. |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:21 pm: | |
Can someone tell me the arguments on both sides of the issue? Why would some areas that vote Republican want to rely more on property taxes and less on income taxes? I can see that wealthier people do not want to pay more income taxes, but, then again, wealthier people tend to live in more expensive housing, as well. I mean, Demarest and Maplewood/South Orange are hardly the same as Newark or Camden in terms of wealth, so why do we support this while other parts of the state do not?
And this still does not explain why the taxes are so high, in general. Forget property taxes--the total tax burden in New Jersey seems disporportionately higher than even Massachusetts, where I last lived. I do not understand this. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:41 pm: | |
I believe that the major reason for the reluctance of some to support state funding of schools is loss of home rule. This historically has been the issue. Perhaps this is the time to revisit this hot potato issue. But, can we truly trust the state? We would essentially be turning over our schools to Trenton.I guess the mistrust in my own question says alot. |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:49 pm: | |
Mtierney--Thanks for the info. Boy, I sure hear you on the mistrust of the state. But there must be mechanisms to allow for funding without adding any more strings than already exist (and they are plentiful already).
And still the issue is: why are taxes so high in the first place? Whether paid by income or based on assessed value, it seems that there is a whole lot of pork in this barrel. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:56 pm: | |
Well, the home rule for schools has just been set on its head by Washington. The new president's plan seems to call for a lot of new mandatory "accountability" mechanisms (read: constant testing) for local schools receiving any kind of federal aid at all. Ideas about how to meet those "standards" are, as usual, scarce. I cynically suspect that there will actually be little specific support to upgrade teacher training, lower class size, etc that would actually lead to the kinds of improvements we'd all like to see in the public schools.
So I think we'll need to watch closely and deal with both Trenton and Washington on these issues.
I sincerely hope this new education commissioner has some serious ideas and leadership to offer.
Bacata |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:08 pm: | |
With respect to the concern about giving up "local control" - our schools are subject to state standards, there is a state core curriculum, and our students are required to take state-mandated standardized tests. The state already dictates many of the conditions and requirements of education. What the state does not do is take responsibility for funding. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:09 pm: | |
Mfpark, Funding education through a statewide income tax would mean transferring part of the burden of paying for our schools to wealthier people in other towns. You've just seen the result of transferring the burden from one side of town to the other; imagine moving it from one side of the state to the other.
It is cheaper for wealthy people with expensive homes to fund only their own local schools through property taxes than it would be for them to help fund everybody's schools through income taxes. And they tend to have more influence on political decisions.
Funding education through an income tax would be fairer, but as we have seen recently, fairness is not at the top of everybody's list when their own finances are being affected. |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:23 pm: | |
Kathy--and yet, many other states have done this transfer. Surely they had wealthy and connected people who would fight it. Why can't it work here? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:31 pm: | |
Mfpark: it can! But people with the intelligence, vocal presence and concern like those who spoke at the last two TC mtgs have to get behind it. Let's take some of that great energy and harness it toward true tax reform.
Bacata |
Eliz
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:32 pm: | |
But surely with an income tax it is more spread out - people who don't own homes, both incomes in a 2 income home - everyone pays. Doesn't this help beef up the pot? |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hooray Nakaille! That is exactly what I want to hear! I could not agree with you more, and I hope that the Fair Tax folks help by using their energy and contact lists to start organizing for the next big issue.
It is important to get the assessment to be fair in apportioning taxes. But it is even more important that the taxes themselves are fair. Like David Fraser said last night at the meeting, the real issue is to attack the taxes and how they are backed mainly by property valuations.
So, is there already a group taking on this issue, and how do I find them? |
Jem
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:38 am: | |
I'm not so sure that the Fair Tax group is interested in getting behind a real push to change the way we fund education in this state, at least, not according to a conversation that I had with one of its members about a week ago, but, if there is a group forming to make that push, I'm interested in joining it, too. |
Fringe
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 8:29 am: | |
My recollection of our assemblyman's nobel efforts on behalf of property tax reform differs somewhat from others. As I remember it, shortly
after the last state Supreme Court ruling upholding the unconstitutionality of the New Jersey education funding mechanism - as it
applied to the 28 plaintiff districts - Mr. Caraballo formed a local citizens group, including members from both CBACs, to pursue property tax reform. At one of the very few meetings the group had, the assemblyman informed the participants
that the Democrats would not seriously pursue this until the 2001 gubernatorial race. Perhaps that is also part of the explanation why we
have not heard much about it from our assemblyman or local elected officials over the last four years. During this time SO-M has paid roughly $220 million in property taxes to support the school district. Seems each party bears a share of the responsibility for the lack of reform.
Given the politics of the issue, today's (25 Jan 2001) Star-Ledger story on page 28 comes as no surprise. The story covers a meeting between acting governor DiFrancesco and NJ local officials, including Vic DeLuca (who is quoted), regarding property tax relief. From the article, it appears that the locals favor a constitutional convention to address the issue - in this gubernatorial election year. Perhaps the mayor will provide his impressions of the mood among his counterparts.
JTL |
|