| Author |
Message |
    
Octofoil
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 5:40 pm: |     |
I don't disagree. I think the statistics provided by Ryan tend to bear out that the majority of assessments were probably close to market value, especially after the first "adjustments". There still seems to be a relative handful, though, that have specific problems, perhaps what one poster referred to, IIRC, as "factual errors". The TC established an appeals process; everyone that feels as though they have an error in their assessment (like me) should be availing themselves of the opportunity to have their assessment reviewed. No crying afterward if you don't!
And, as I've described elsewhere, the statistics that Ryan has provided (thank you, BTW) sort of appeals to me in a statistical sense. The majority are probably now reasonably correctly valued, with a handful of outliers at either end of the distribution with legitmate complaints.
I guess my principal concern about this thing right now? How many are they and what kind of damage are we doing in the name of fairness and equity to that hopefully small group to whom this tax increase constitutes a near-death experience?
It seems that the tendency is to lump them all in the "seniors" category and to be content with the program(s) being talked about in Trenton (an expansion of an existing program that has been discussed elsewhere on this board). There are others that are not yet in the seniors-qualified category that may be in the same situation: an income that has not kept pace with the increase in property values, typically very long term residents but not yet at retirement age. Gray hair but still working out of necessity. They may have 5 years or a bit more to go before entering the "seniors" category.
I am personally acquainted with two or three in this category; if I know two or three, how many more are there across the whole town?
The TC appears to be trying to effect some kind of compromise legislation that will ease the burden at least in a transition sense. But, there seems to be a body of very vocal opinion that is dead set against any compromise, regardless. Perhaps I'm out of touch with reality, but I just don't understand this seeming "they can go suck eggs, 'cause I've got mine and I've got the law on my side and I'll sue" mentality that seems so much in evidence. |
Nursie
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 6:22 pm: | |
Octofoil, (love your name, bth)
I have been reading your posts with interest and I can identify with your above statements.
I have 4 more years until retirement and I have lived here 26 years. (we may even know each other)If the assessment goes through for me, as is, will have to put house on the market. I had planned on staying here! Why should I have to give up my home? I remember when it was Maplewood Center also. I also remember when there was NO "east" side and "west" side of town. I live in the "Jefferson" area. Driving an old car and am not rich as most people believe the "Jefferson" area is. And you can bet I requested a review! Just because you have lived in a house 26 years doesn't necessarly mean the morgage is paid off. People do incur financial hardships in life and must sometimes refinance. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 8:07 pm: | |
Nursie - You have put your finger on the problem which has been created in this state, with the reliance on property taxes to fund local government and education. Sorry to put it this way, but the property tax system as set out in our state law does not care if you have been in the house one year or over 20, if you purchased it from a windfall or over a lifetime of scrimping and saving, or whether the value of the property has increased to far beyond what the resident would have spent, if he or she had to purchase the property all over again. By all means, put in for a review! But, in the end, if the relative value of your property (compared to other properties in the community) does not change as a result of the review, it is not the revaluation which is ultimately at fault.
It is not a good thing that this is the consequence of a revaluation. I am sorry to read about your situation. Maybe if the entire community became involved in trying to effect a change in this state's over-reliance on property taxes, things can be different. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:27 pm: | |
Nursie,
I really hope that before you make any decisions regarding the sale of your home that you consult a professional financial advisor. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant coming from someone whom you've never met, but it's the very best advice I can offer. And no matter what you ultimately decide is in your best financial interests, the investment in some professional advice now will probably help you save money all the way around.
Octofoil,
I think you've misinterpreted some of what you've gotten in response to your posts, and perhaps it's only because you've come late to this conversation. A lot of what has been emanating from the Jefferson area has not exactly sounded town-spirited in the last few weeks. Even after you discount for the wild emotions some people have been feeling and working that out, there does come a moment when you expect people to step back a bit and consider what has been going on in the whole town, what is going on, and where we go from here. It would be good to find out how many people are in the worrisome situation Nursie is in, but it would also be good to admit that, after deducting from their income taxes, many of the taxes people are screaming so loudly about will cost them about $8 a day. Most people here will refinance; many will benefit tremendously from the Bush tax cut. I realize some people feel it is unholy to even mention such things, but I wish more people who can afford the taxes would sit down and be quiet so we could get a better sense of how many really can't.
Many people living in houses now valued above $400,000 seem not to have a clue about the lives of residents living in other parts of town. They seem to think that phasing-in the new assessments, and thereby delaying legally owed tax relief to more than half the town's residents, won't have any negative impact on people living in other parts of town. There are people like Nursie outside of the Jefferson area who wonder if they can hang on until the new assessments take effect. They may need this tax decrease.
If you want more explanations, I'll try to provide them. But one of the things I've been trying to tell people in the Jefferson area is that their political approach sucks eggs! Many people think all they have to do is beat everybody up until they get their way, verbally or what have you. The rest of the town is looking at this small neighborhood of very large homes and saying: Why should I be giving them money?
I'm sure you already know, Octofoil, people on the west side moved out because of taxes even before the reval. (The New York Times magazine did an article about this a few years ago. The family of local police who lived off Ridgewood Road?) Now suddenly people in other parts of town are being told they should pay more taxes to prevent this (after they've already been paying more taxes than they should have been). And it doesn't matter if their friends have to move to make it happen. Why didn't they manage their finances better? Humph!
Much of the money we western hillbillies weren't paying in taxes went into the stock market (some of us) while at the same time we enjoyed the benefits of a well-maintained town paid for, to the greater extent, by the majority of people who live in other parts of town. Can't you see where people are getting a little fed up with what sounds to them like a high-handed, self-centered and one-sided attitude? It really sounds like: Pay my taxes.
kathleen |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:19 pm: | |
Thanks, Townie. For everything.
Bacata |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 9:37 am: | |
Townie et al,
Permit me to reiterate from my previous posts: for those that have the means to pay their legitimate and correctly-assessed tax increase, which I believe includes the vast majority of those scheduled for an increase, I have empathy perhaps but no sympathy. They can take care of themselves.
For those that have been overpaying, I am on your side in terms of the underlying principles of fairness and equity. This thing is long overdue. How anyone can deny this is beyond me. I may have differences of opinion with some on how or why overtaxed residents did not avail themselves of the appeal process in the past, but that is, IMHO, a moot point here and now.
I have been attempting to highlight the plight of a relatively small (hopefully) group of folks. There are, I believe some folks who are long-time residents, whose incomes have not kept pace with increases in home values, that are still a few or more years away from being eligible for the seniors tax relief programs, and who consequently face severe disruption, possibly including forced sales, as a consequence of the reval. (You and I may have interpreted Nursie's post differently-I am under the impression that she may be part of this group, but it doesn't seem like you read her post the same). The question is, if I know 2 or 3, how many more are there across town?
Their plight strikes at the heart of the inequities in the theory of property taxes. Yes, absolutely, a long term legislated solution appears warranted. But, for this small segment of the population, this is a problem that is here and now and immediate.
And nobody seems to care. I guess they are just too small a group and not sufficiently vocal for the politicians to bother. Not enough votes there. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:00 am: | |
I think everybody cares, Octofoil, but what are you suggesting be done about it?
Any tax is going to produce winners and losers in the tax game. Shift the burden to income taxes and my bet is that 'maplewoodians' on the whole, pay a lot more. Like I said before, I'm dying to see the most recent census numbers (not available yet) but the changes I've witnessed over the last 10 years would suggest that we've become a town that is younger than it was 10 years ago, with families in their peak earning years. Certainly the prices that have been paid over the last 3-4 years would suggest that. Income taxes would probably hit them pretty hard.
I guess we could take up a collection. However, you specifically mention that the people you are worried about are 'long-term' residents. Long-term residents on the east side of town are about to get tax relief. Long-term residents on the west side of town, by definition, have a LOT of equity in their homes.
I guess we could take up a collection for them.
What do you suggest? |
Interalia
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:15 am: | |
After weeks of reading posts it is obvious that no one is happy with the reval. situation. If, we all agree that the eastside has been overpaying and now the westside feels that they are being 'gouged' by excessive tax increases, perhaps a third outlook is necessary. I advocate starting with a 'reval' of our budget and spending practices. That should be step one of the equation. Investigating alternate means of raising revenue is a good second step. Expecting the residents to pick-up the slack when taxes are already excessive is the least acceptable alternative. This reval is a bandaid. Just like any business, let's start with the 'books'. |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
Melidere,
Despite your somewhat snide "take up a collection" remark, you hit the nail on the head. I don't know what to suggest other than some kind of 2 or 3 year phase in that would give them time to do whatever is necessary in a more orderly and less disruptive fashion. Something that at least gives them a chance to stay in their homes. And since we're talking about a relatively small group, the impact overall should be pretty minimal. So, what should be done? Establish some kind of income level versus tax increase versus age versus ???? criteria and provide a short (in terms of number of years) phase in? Something along the lines of the "seniors" program? Or what?
Yes, they most likely do have quite a bit of equity. That at least gives them more options. Certainly a significant option that many others did not or do not have. The exercising of that particular option requires quite deliberate care and should not be entered into lightly or in haste.
I am totally open to suggestions. Anyone? |
Jfb
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:40 am: | |
Everyone agrees that taxes are high. Why? Time to look at serious options. Such as:
County Goverment - What is that 20% for?
Schools - What are we getting for 60 million a year. Time to look seriously at trimming the fat (Don't tell me there is none, gotta be there). Maybe implement a voucher program to lessen enrollment in the public schools. Cheaper than new construction to house "bubble" enrollments.
Combine services with surrounding towns. Home rule may be at an end if it costs us a fortune.
Allow budgets to be "voted" on by citizens.
Before we spend that 7 million on Springfield do a cost/benefit analysis. What is the monetary benefit to the town?
For those of you on the east side it does not matter if your taxes will go up 5 percent. For those of us on the west side slated to pay HUGE money, five percent is big money!
No more tax increases please. Thirty percent in one year is quite enough.
We are at the limit of what we can or want to pay.
I've heard all the arguments of how we have to fund schools more etc. etc. That's fine. How about those getting direct benefit chipping in some more? E.G. if you have students in the Maplewood Public Schools why not donate some money to the music program?
I feel I will pay enough and do not want to pay more. The limit has been reached. Let those of you getting the benefits reach into your pockets. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:45 am: | |
Octofoil,
Thanks for making yourself clearer. I do think Nursie is part of the group that you are trying to describe, and now that you ask "How many more are there across town?" it's plainer that you are concerned about such people everywhere in Maplewood, not only in the Jefferson area.
It isn't true that "nobody seems to care." Several of us are getting brusied fingers typing so many posts condemning the property tax system in New Jersey. People on these boards also encourage everybody to get financial advice. There may be more private sector solutions out there than they realize. But other than that, I don't have any answers -- which doesn't mean I don't care. I will listen to arguments for a phase-in, if Trenton permits it, so long as the people on the receiving end understand where the money is coming from -- not Trenton, but from their long overtaxed neighbors half a mile away in Maplewood.
Also, when residents in $500,000 houses say they think they might be forced to sell and buy another home, it isn't heartless to point out that there are nice homes in Maplewood available for $350,000 or under should they want to stay in town. I think one of the things that got blown past in previous discussions is that without tax relief, some Hilton residents might have to leave their homes of many years, but they'll have to leave Maplewood forever, even though they love it here. So if we're discussing a phase-in, that has to be part of the discussion, too.
I feel compassion and concern for any person in Maplewood who thinks they may be forced to sell their home, whenever they bought it. I hope solutions can be found for everyone, and I'd feel remiss if I didn't say again that everyone should consult a good financial counselor because the law really limits what we can do as a town, even with the best intentions. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:48 am: | |
I didn't mean to be snide at all...but this phase in thing will hurt just as many people gasping for relief on the other side, and a fair number of them are seniors.
A lot of people seem to have the idea that we get to make up the rules of this stuff as we go along. I don't think we have those kinds of options (such as phasing in a particular group.) A property tax would seem to me to be based on property values, and an income requirement would seem to me to be an income tax. Do municipalities have the right to levy income taxes?
The whole discussion of the difficulties of seniors in our modern age is extremely complicated. They are going to live a lot longer than most of them provided for in their savings plans. Fortune magazine published (years ago) that in order to retire, the average person needs to have about 2.5 million in net worth in order to be self-sufficient to the end of their lives (assuming a retirement age of around 65). That number assumes they are willing to spend it down as they age. A lot of that net worth is going to be equity in their homes. We have protected that equity from tax in many ways, from making the interest payments tax deductible, to letting the equity grow, untaxed, to letting it be liquidated into cash, untaxed.
(Incidentally, if you doubt that number, as most do, calculate the net present value of a teacher's pension and medical benefits to a life expectancy of about 90 and see what you come up with. Darned if the npv of that doesn't approach over 2 mil). When we moved from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, we moved the huge burden of figuring all this out to individuals.
They (the generation just ahead of us, i'm in my early 40's) are the first generation to experience a lifetime in which fully 40% of it is expected to be experienced as retirement. This is clearly not going to work. Their parents passed on at a far younger age, often leaving the equity in their homes as their only asset. That will probably not be the case for our kids.
At the same time, the number of workers to retirees is dropping like a stone. I think i read somewhere that 20 years ago it was 12 workers to each retiree, and by 2010 it is projected to be something like 4. That's a lot of burden to put on wage-earners. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:56 am: | |
Jfb and Interalia,
I live in the Jefferson area and my taxes will be going up by more than $3,000 and I think it would be foolhardy in the extreme to cut school spending and abandon Springfield Ave. The quality of the schools directly supports our property values and Springfield Avenue is the only chance we have for improving commerical ratables and raising property values to the east of us. In fact, I was thinking this morning that we should spend more to run more jitneys to train, since convenience to the train is such a big property booster here.
In America, children are entitled to an education regardless of their ability to pay. I support the public schools here and I want them to be good. I want smaller classrooms, better teachers and more creative programs so they don't grow up to be people who only know how to grub for a living and hoard their money and be miserable.
There are people in the Jefferson area and other areas of Maplewood who are hard hit by these increases and its worrisome. The biggest problem the rest of us face is remembering not to eat so much. There's a limit as to what is economically and politically wise to impose on this town in terms of taxes, but the notion that, with some exceptions, "we can't afford it" is actually hogwash. We get more back than we ever put in.
Well. That's should end all future talk of my being in politics. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 11:00 am: | |
Melidere, add to it that those in my generation who are literally paying over $10K in social security taxes per year will never see any of it return. We definitely need better retirement options.
Although this may changes with a long history in my house, I believe it's part of my retirement plan, and would sell it if I needed to. I recognize sentimental value, however, but I would never put my sentiment ahead of my health and security. |
Interalia
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 11:49 am: | |
Townie:
You missed my point, which jfb eloquently elaborated on. Simply stated, I think, just like any business, before you raise the price of your product (and pass the increase on to the consumer) you look to cut costs in other places (not necessarily to the detriment of the company). We lose nothing by taking advantage of Trenton's free offer to come in and analyse the town budget and spending practices. I don't have a crystal ball and can't say what Trenton will find, but I do know that $170,000 was misappropriated from the pool fund, and additional funds from the library. Something is wrong with the way the 'business' of running this town is being conducted and I would like to see that investigated before I am asked to contribute more. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 11:50 am: | |
Melidere and Njjoseph,
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, and immigration, productivity increases and other changes in worker income vis a vis dependent populations do not forecast doom for you, despite the drum beating of rightwing foundations. And those of us presently between the ages of 35 and 60 are expected to inherit more money than any generation in history. Medicare and Medicaid are in need of additional funding. Social Security is considered stable for the next 75 years.
That's not to say it couldn't all be blown on unwise tax cuts, etc. or that increased longevity is creating novel challenges for social policy. Globalization has also torn away the kinds of pension plans and worker security our parents' generation have relied on.
Taxation and distributing the wealth are the heart of government. Too bad they don't teach this stuff in school! |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 11:52 am: | |
I guess I didn't hear about social security being stable for 75 more years. I don't feel so bad. Thanks, Kathleen! |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 11:56 am: | |
Interalia,
I'm going to stay out of the pool because I don't know the facts. That's one for the lawyers.
I think how the town spends its money is a matter of democratic politics. I didn't elect the people in Trenton. I don't want them here.
I don't view government or deciding what kind of a community we want to be and pay for as a business at all. But even if I did, I'd say we know our business better than anybody from Trenton does. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 12:11 pm: | |
Njjoseph,
Lest the bean counters cream me here, I should point out that Social Security is a political football and there are those trying to fundamentally alter the way the system works. So nothing is for sure. And projections about it's future are based on projecting demographic and economic trends 75 years into the future -- which is obviously an odd way to think about things. Finally the security of Social Security rests with each generations determination to make sure mom and dad don't move in with them. My gut feeling is, most youngsters are willing to pay a lot to make sure that doesn't happen! |
Interalia
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 12:40 pm: | |
Townie:
I think you are confusing issues. The matter at issue pertains to the business of running the town. It has to do with money and how it is obtained and spent. As citizens we are entitled to know all of this and question how it is being managed. I for one am questioning it and it appears others are as well. |
|