| Author | Message | ||
     Jfb |
Townie, > ?? Sorry to burst your bubble, but SS will be in serious trouble very shortly when the baby boomers retire. As you note, the whole "lockbox" theory that Gore espoused is fictitious. All that's in there are IOU's. Bottom line? Huge benefit decreases coupled with drastic FICA hikes. Not in seventy five years, but in ten! As for school hikes, am I wrong in questioning how that money is spent? What are we getting for it? I should ask no less, nor should any Maplewood citizen. We need to look at every penny, every position. And by the way, I did not say "cut school spending" and "abandon Springfield Ave". What I said was examine budget increases, see what is fat and what is not. As far as Springfield Ave. goes, show me the cost benefit analysis please. Do your "due diligence". | ||
| Townie |
Hi Jfb and Interalia, How money is obtained and spent is the heart of government anywhere. And government in America is democratic. I don't want unelected bureaucrats from Trenton interfering with my local democracy. Every Maplewood citizen should ask questions. I'm opposed to bringing in people from Trenton to ask your questions for you. We don't need them. All these things can be resolved democratically right here in Maplewood. If you don't like what's going on, you can ask questions at open meetings and express your viewpoint at the polls. We're all smart enough here that we don't need outside help. Jfb, you're wrong about Social Security. The point of my post was to alert people not to believe what you do. Republicans have been working to get rid of Social Security ever since it began. Ronald Reagan tried by raising the deficit sky high and then claiming we couldn't afford it. That didn't work. The Bushes both have tried to get rid of it with scare stories, and trying to sell us on the theory your money is safer in the stock market. However, I repeat: Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system that taxes wages. Always has been. We can afford it. (Ever notice young people make more wages than mom and dad did?) As for Springfield Avenue, it's a crap shoot isn't it? In the era of big box stores, will it ever come back? I don't know. I'm not expecting a guaranteed return on the investment. I think the people who've put time and thought in this deserve to be listened to. I suspect, you two, that we don't agree on a single thing politically. I suggest we not clog up this thread with irresolvable disputes. | ||
| Interalia |
jfb: What are people afraid of? I feel as though I am missing something. Sharing my views, you have twice today embellished ideas I have tried to present. Is there a downside to having a budget and spending review, especially in light of the misappropriation of funds? | ||
| Jfb |
Interalia, The message I'm getting is pay the tax and go away. Don't question. Don't think out of the box. It's the status quo all the way. The problem is we cannot affort the status quo any longer.. | ||
| Octofoil |
Townie, I admire your sense of principles and whats right and wrong-sincerely. Your positions as I have seen them on this board reflect care and thoughtfulness. Nonetheless, a little more due diligence about some things appears desirable. I get the distinct impression that you're tendency to view the bigger picture has obscured your view of some important details about SS and Springfield Ave. I would really like to read the material that tells you that SS is going to be fine for 75 years. Actually, I take that back. SS may be fine for 75 years, if it can get through the next 10 or 15 or so. I don't read right wing foundation literature; I do read economics and statistics. Have you got a source that you would share? Springfield Ave hasn't been high on my list of concerned-about priorities. Except for the rough pavement, Springfield Ave seemed to be suffering the same fate as many avenues: changes in demographics and lifestyles. But Springfield Ave seems to me to be coping quite well, given the current realities of life, demographics and traffic patterns. If your looking for any major increase in ratables to come out of that area, your going to have to do some major restructuring/rezoning and provide some major incentives. Call me cynical, but I have a hard time envisioning a cost/benefit anaylsis that would justify anything that would provide the kind of ratables increase to which you seem to be referring. Now, if you want to spruce it up a bit and try to attract more locals and stop more traffic, fine. But be very aware that the ratables improvement might well be marginal at best. And don't forget the tradeoff between financing these improvements versus improved ratables. | ||
| Melidere |
I'm not sure, Octofoil, how you define 'coping quite well'. The amount of revenue the town has lost due to the declining relative values on the avenue is considerable. As to the idea that it is just 'suffering the fate as many avenues'...well, the village was just 'suffering the fate' of most small downtown districts. Had we just shrugged our shoulders and accepted our 'fate'...we might not have the beautiful and attractive village which so enchants prospective residents to our town today. | ||
| Nilmiester |
Jfb and Intertalia: Yes, that is the message you are getting. Do not question the township committee. No evil outside help is required. If you keep it up you will get the old "why don't you just move!" advice. That is the favorite when logic is exhausted. Why not have the state look into our spending? Why should we trust a monopoly government in light of the pool and library funds? And the irony of it all is the that the "just move" advice will come from some know it all that has lived here all of six months. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Nil, are you speaking of me? ;-\ | ||
| Octofoil |
Melidere, 1. How much public money was spent on the Village? How much was gained in revenues? 2. How much revenue has been lost on Springfield Ave versus how much money will it require to recover that same amount? What are the probabilities of success? I have my impressions, but you can change them with facts and figures. | ||
| Townie |
Octofoil, Social Security isn't complicated, and I don't blame you for not wanting to read about it. It's a program whereby workers' wages are taxed today to subsidize the retirement income of today's elderly. If people want to end the program, they can. If we could afford Social Security during the Great Depression, we can afford it during the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy ever, and we'll probably want to keep it in place in case there is ever another Depression. It's called a safety net. The Republicans think you should give your money to the stock market instead of a universal safety net for the elderly. Your vote. Your choice. If you ever do want to read about it, here's a place to start: http://www.centuryfoundation.org/Publications/Basics/Social_Security/Introduction.html I wasn't expecting to see a boom on Springfield Avenue. Others know better than I how to work toward improving the avenue. | ||
| Townie |
Nilmeister, No taxation without representation. Foundation of American government. You pay the taxes, you get to vote. If the people in Maplewood want the Trenton folk, they'll vote to have them. If they don't, they won't. The message you Republicans are getting is neither go away nor don't ask questions. It's this: When you lose elections, quit calling in the prosecutor, the Supreme Court or the unelected bureaucrats from Trenton to overturn the will of the (taxed) voters. ;-] | ||
| Jfb |
Townie, Lets keep it local. That's what the discussion is. It's not about the capitalist republicans vs the socialist democrats. It's about real people who live in a small town. How do we make it better, how can we save money, how do we get our monies worth.. | ||
| Nilmiester |
Townie: What does "Republican" have to do with the town's spending or pool fund? I believe the people of Maplewood will have this done, regardless of how they vote. | ||
| Interalia |
Townie: Earlier you had a problem understanding, or accepting, that this is a business matter. We all love this town, Democrat, Republican, Westside, Eastside. There is a financial crisis of sorts and it needs to be resolved in the manner that these types of problems are resolved..not by Democrats or Republicans, but by people qualified to evaluate finances. Like it or not, it is about business and not about lifestyle or political affiliation. | ||
| Octofoil |
Townie, Here again, I get the impression that you're looking at the big picture and ignoring some crucial details. As it happens, I am familiar with that particular piece from the Twentieth Century Fund (I'm old so I still call them by their old name!). It is a little light on analytics, but well-intentioned and well-done for the audience at which it is aimed. Permit me to suggest once again that you dig a little deeper into the details. The piece that you offer as evidence of the well-being of SS reports that the trustees' forecast categorized as "intermediate" (between optimistic and pessimistic) suggests that the SS Trust Fund will be totally spent by 2032. However, taxes would be sufficient to pay 75% of the obligations to SS recipients at the time, declining to about 2/3rds by the end of the 75 year period. Hmmm. We might get 75% or maybe two thirds of our scheduled payments? Yep, sure sounds like SS is doing all right! Ah, but wait a minute! That is today's forecast! And the one thing that all of us in the forecasting business live by is: "if you must forecast, you must forecast frequently". Fortunately, some of the most reliable statistics in the world are our demographic statistics, especially the population series. The most unreliable in the world are financial statistics, particularly rates of return on financial assets. So, what do you get when you combine pretty reliable forecasts with pretty unreliable forecasts? You have much more confidence in your expected liabilities than in your expected funding capabilities. The main points that I wish you to understand here are: 1. As pointed out by the Twentieth Century Fund report, over time, SS has not been problem free: arguments have been raised, repairs made, and the SS system continues on. 2. By their own forecasts, the trustees anticipate a diminution of the fund's ability to pay beginning in about 2032 (I believe that there are other forecasts around that suggest such will be about 10 or 15 years sooner, although their objectivity may be questionable). 3. Economic conditions one year out are notoriously difficult to forecast, not to mention 75 years out. Thats why the SS trustees are required to prepare and submit an annual forecast. 4. Yes, we are currently enjoying the longest peacetime expansion in US economic history. But do not lose sight of the fact that we once enjoyed another very long expansion period, only to be followed by several severe recessions, ballooning deficits and accelerating inflation. Moreover, remember Japan Inc.? There was a time not long ago in which the Japanese economy was the envy of the world for its seeming strength and resilience. Not now. Economic cycles, last I heard, have not been repealed. So, do I think the SS system is going bankrupt? Of course not. But there are problems. To not recognize the existence of potential problems (kinda like the TC and the reval), is to inhibit or prolong needed adjustments and make them more difficult to accomplish; but adjustments will be made and the SS system will remain solvent. Absolutely agree with you in this respect: SS has been a political football. Periodically, one group or another of politicians attempts to use the SS system to further their own ends. To politicians, money is power and power is money. The SS trust fund is a huge pot of money. Clinton did it; Republicans have done it. Apologies for the long post and it is a bit of a digression from this thread; if we wish to continue this, it should probably be a separate thread. | ||
| Townie |
Nilmeister, Jfb, Interalia: Speaking to you as business afficianados, you're trying to sell me something I don't need or want. If your response to my not buying is to say "You're a jerk," you might want to rethink your sales pitch. Nilmeister, I thought I read in the Star-Ledger that it was Republicans who were pushing for this review crew from Trenton. That was the basis for my mentioning Republicans, as well as a recollection of your once posting in a response to me that you were a Republican. But it doesn't matter. I wouldn't like the idea any better if it came from Democrats or even socialists.;-] I disagree there is a financial crisis, I don't think the town's finances are so complicated we need "experts" and my preliminary view is either the pool fund transfer was permissable or it wasn't, and that the law will be clarified for the TC and followed. If it isn't, call me back. I think the town looks great compared to almost every other town I've seen in the Tri-state area. Since moving to Maplewood, I've never once thought I wasn't getting my money's worth for my taxes. I don't think government is a business and don't think it should be run like one. In my view, businesses should be run from the top down; governments should be run from the bottom up. If the majority in Maplewood wants a review crew, I'm sure they can find a way to get one. Like I said before, I think we don't agree on things politically. Don't these conversations belong in the Soapbox folder? But I think we've exhausted this one. | ||
| Euclidean |
It's so good to see Townie back in the fray after engaging in single combat with Fairtax01. The time off for rest and regrouping must have been remarkably restorative as Townie's broadsides are now being administered on a class action basis - the class, of course, being Republicans. But seriously, Townie, the call for a review by Trenton is being done from the bottom up. I believe a petition drive is planned for this weekend. Finally, my two cents on Social Security and every other unfunded liability is this: For a business, having an unfunded pension fund is seriously against the law. Why doesn't the federal government abide by the same law? | ||
| Nilmiester |
That petition will be signed by mostly Democrats, (as is Maplewood) so place your blame there. I will be appealing my taxes on the basis of "no taxation without representation". | ||
| Melidere |
Octofoil, As you have pointed out (quite accurately, i think) that the most unreliable statistics are the projections of rates of return on financial assets, i might add that forecasted rates of return on capital improvements could be a rather sticky quagmire as well and i'll not delve into it. However, the costs are fairly clear with this reval. We've just shifted about 6mil in taxes from the springfield/boyden area to the prospect/wyoming area. I guess the real question might be to question the costs of not revitalizing springfield avenue. At this point they are still paying taxes, albeit less. The downward spiral has been pretty steady over the last two decades as those areas have failed to keep pace. The costs weren't clear before. Now they are. How do you calculate the financial return of a new roof? Exactly how do value the 'return' of being dry? For that matter, how do we calculate the financial return on the money we spend maintaining the trees and the parks? How about the libraries? What's the 'return' on city hall? They all have value. There's charm and beauty. We live here. They attract new residents. How do you quantify that? | ||
| Dytunck |
Melidere, Actually, the reval constitutes not a $6M, but rather, $10M shift in taxes. Those whose taxes are going up (call it Wyoming/Prospect) were paying $29M out of the $56M budget. Those whose taxes are going down (Springfield/Boyden) were paying $27M. That's a $2M diference, which I believe is not fair. I believe this is proof of a need for a revaluation. After the revaluation, Wy-Prospect pays $34M to Spring-Boyd's $22M. A $12M spread. That's an extra $10M burden on 45% of the population - all in one fell swoop. I believe that is also unfair - both the part about it being a $10M swing, and the part about it being in one fell swoop. Remember folks, that the property values did not become so divergent in 1982, the year after the last reval. There was no great west-side housing boom of 1983. A real estate boom was enjoyed in the mid to-late 80's, but that market certainly corrected itself. It is NOT as though "we have been overpaying for years." Certainly Midtown direct had a positive effect on real estate, as did the burgeoning portfolios from the tech stock sector. Both of these are pretty recent occurrences. Take that into consideration. At least be willing to consider that. As for the new assessment, I believe that there were so many mistakes, that it makes for reasonable people to pause and take the next year to get it right. Signs of mistakes: * This caught the whole town by surprise - including the TC. * The Township hired two independent entities to audit the work of CVI. This is not usual. * The Township is utilizing the resources of independent assessors to handle the requests for assessment review. * "Maplewood's Tangled Taxes" in the New York Times. Lots of towns have performed revaluations or reassessments without the national exposure (and embarrassment) this reval has caused. * The extent to which the tax increases and decreases are being derived indicates that there is a very strong liklihood that an overvaluation occurred. * Emergency meeting after emergency meeting dealing with the issue. * From only my own perspective, no fewer than 8 errors on my own assessment. * Certified's lack of response to the community. Do they stand behind their work or don't they? If so, where have they been? * Maplewood's Assessor has had to make whole-scale "corrections" to CVI's assessment. With the wave of his hand, he is making tens of thousands of dollars per property disappear in certain neighborhoods. One of yours? These points are of course only circumstantial evidence of a revaluation bollucksed up by Certified. For those of you who did get the proper assessment, and I know there are many of you out there, your taxes will still be wrong if there are a lot of people whose properties are not assessed correctly, because the tax rate will be wrong. Just because your assessment is right, it doesn't mean that your taxes will be right. And that is the goal. An equitable fair tax distribution. Please make sure to give Mr. Galante a valentine with your request for review. Dytunck |
