| Author | Message | ||
     Willfalaise1 |
No, this is not another faction of the Fairtax Committee! All this tax talk has me in a mood to write to my elected representatives down in Trenton, but I've been at a loss figuring out what I want them to do about it. This state's reliance on property taxes to fund local government seems excessive to me, so I started digging around to see how other states handle the problem. Didn't find many solutions there either, but did find a proprosal for property tax relief from an organization called New Jersey Policy Perspective. It's an alternative to the NJ Saver program, would double the amount of relief offered by NJ Saver, and includes a plan to fund the program. Here's the link: FIRST for NJ You can read an overview of the program, download the whole proposal, or look up Maplewood in their charts to see how much we'd get back under the plan. What do you think? | ||
| Townie |
Willfalaise1, I've read the proposal and found it worthwhile, but I think even the sponsors admit it's a long shot politically at this stage. I was wondering if you read the Star-Ledger editorial this week about the bi-partisan support for putting a referendum on the ballot statewide this Novemeber calling for a constitutional convention focused on rewriting the state's property tax laws. The editorial said that the very promising nature of this proposal was that it provided political cover for politicians, because after the convention met, it would put its recommendations to the voters directly, I think in 2002 or 2003. I'm sorry the Star-Ledger doesn't provide a link to its editorials. | ||
| Townie |
I found the Star-Ledger editorial I was talking about (from Feb 13). It says, in relevant part: "A bill in the Legislatrue calls for a constitutional convention to deal exclusively with property tax changes. In the past, there has been reluctance to convene such a gathering for fear it could become a runaway and throw open the entire state constitution to ill-considered fixes. "But this legislation, sponsered by Sens. William Schluter (R-Hunterdon) and John Adler (D-Camden) would put the issue on the November ballot for voter approval, thereby limiting the convention's focus. Voters would dictate what the convention could consider. The senators have suggested that any proposals would have to be revenue-neutral, with an increase in one tax triggering a decrease in another. "If the convention idea is approved, delegates would draw up recommendations by the summer of 2002 and present them to voters in November. . . . "While other efforts at tax reform have failed in the past, this one may just make it. On top of everything else, it has the essential advantage of providing politicians with cover: Any decision to change the tax formulation would be made by the voters." Sorry for any typos. That's all I know about it. I notice that the TC has recently passed resolutions supporting bills pending in Trenton. This seems like one to consider. TC? | ||
| Sac |
If we really want to simplify things it would be better just to collect the tax more fairly in the first place rather than collecting and then rebating with different levels of government involved. Of course, in all likelihood that means an increase in income tax to offset decreases in property tax. And that hits hardest at the folks who have the power to prevent it from succeeding politically. Who do you think benefits most from keeping the tax structure as it is? Certainly not those on low to moderate or fixed incomes. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Sorry to tell you this Willfalaise1 but as I understand the proposal, Maplewood residents would have gained a lot more from this proposal prior to revaluation. Here's why: Both FIRST and NJ Saver favor communities with high tax rates since both work from a base amount not a per centage figure. A qualified home owner in Maplewood applying for relief under either program would get that relief based on the first $37,500 or first $45,000 of assessed value (depending on the program). When the average home in Maplewood (pre certified) was valued at about $70,000, this meant a very significant savings for qualified home owners. Under the proposed new plan, the average covered Maplewood homeowner could get about half of their real property taxes paid for. Under the old plan, that might have been closer to 25% (very rounded figures here.) Now under revaluation, with the average home value going up three to four times, that $70,000 home may now be worth $250,000 but both programs are still based on the first $37,000 to $45,000. The total tax benefit becomes a lot smaller even if the total taxes on the property remain the same. Just another out of pocket expense we didn't realize we would have to meet as a result of revaluation. By the way, did you hear the one about Maplewood's possible increase in town-wide share of the school taxes as a result of revaluation? | ||
| Jem |
Joancrystal, did you hear the one about South Orange's share of school taxes being larger than Maplewood's even though Maplewood has way more kids in the schools than does South Orange? Do you hear a deafening shout of protest from South Orange about that? I don't. | ||
| Willfalaise1 |
No Joan, you're wrong. We will not lose any NJ Saver or hypothetical FIRST money from the reval. Here's how NJ Saver rebates are calculated, from their website. * The NJ SAVER property value means the lesser of either $45,000 or The highest equalized property value of the homestead for the tax year 1997 or any subsequent tax year "Equalized property value" is the assessed value of a homestead divided by the ratio of assessed value to true value of the municipality as adopted by the Director of the Division of Taxation on October 1 of that year. The $45,000 is a cap, it is not meant to represent a portion of your assessed value. Even if someone's old assessed value was below 45,000 it was still "equalized" to get it to an approximate current value, using I believe the same 36% ratio we discussed on another thread. | ||
| Tracks |
I would guess if Maplewood is paying less than their fair share for the schools, then I am sure the "fairtax " group will petition to make sure that Maplewood pays their fair share in the future. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Jem, only occassional wimpers from time to time, like every time a new school budget was announced. South Orange has been paying a higher portion of the school budget for years now because the average South Orange house was assessed at a much higher value than the average Maplewood house. Revaluation is likely to change all that. The actual impact won't be known until the Township certifies the final assessed values of its properties. This is a statement of fact. Whether it becomes a South Orange call to arms remains to be seen. | ||
| Melidere |
Didn't the paper say that Maplewood pays 58% of the school budget? How does that translate into South Orange paying a higher portion? | ||
| Joancrystal |
Willfalaise: I'm still not clear on this. If the aid is based on the first $45,000 or the highest equalized property value, it still can't be based on more than a cap of $45,000 of real property value. Am I right so far? Now, isn't the reimbursement to the tax payer based on the amount of tax being placed on that $45,0000 of assessed value? If the $45,000 of property value is assessed at 10 points, isn't the homeowner getting a larger amount of assistence than if the the same $45,000 of property value were assessed at 3 points? Help me out here. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Melidere: South Orange has fewer properties. Therefore, each home owner is paying a bigger share. | ||
| Willfalaise1 |
Townie, Thanks for Star-Ledger info on the more viable alternative, something I'd also like to see the TC consider supporting. Sac, Yes, I imagine FIRST would have some pretty fierce opponents, but look who's just come out against a tax plan that would benefit them most of all millionaire-zillionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet from Salon. | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
Even though S. Orange houses are assessed much higher than Maplewood's (pre-reval), the Maplewood assessments were adjusted by an "equalization ratio" in an attempt to get them to "actual value". This ratio is set by the state. The problem, as South Orange sees it, is that the most recent assessment of Maplewood as completed by Certified yielded a total assessment of $2.125 billion, which was $350 million MORE than the most recent equalized assessment used for Maplewood. Therefore, South Orange is starting to feel that they've been "overpaying", since the equalization ratio may have understated the actual value. They do note that the $2.125 million will change as a result of the reviews currently being undertaken. | ||
| Melidere |
Thanks, joan. As to people with income having the power to block changes in the tax structure...voting power tends to favor those on fixed and moderate incomes (particularly the seniors). They vote, man. They get up, go to the polls, and vote. Remember when someone in washington tried to mess with medicare payments? The white house phone bank was flooded. | ||
| Octofoil |
BTW, thats William H. Gates, Sr., father of Bill Gates of MSFT. | ||
| Willfalaise1 |
Joan, The missing piece of the puzzle here is that the rate they're using is based on 1997 tax rates and does not change because of our reval. For Maplewood it's set at 0.01967630. So each home in Maplewood worth 45,000 or more will see an 885.43 rebate once the phase-in is complete. If a house in town was found to be worth less than 45,000 in the reval, then yes they would see less NJ Saver money. But for everyone else this figure will stay the same. | ||
| Tracks |
What kind of system would make the payments from S. Orange and Maplewood based on assesed values for the schools. It should be based on the number of students... or the population of each town... or some kind of combination. | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
That was the description of how it worked per yesterday's News-Record. | ||
| Willfalaise1 |
Octofoil, Oops, sorry make that one millionaire-zillionaire and one millionaire-zillionaire's father. No wonder he's so easy-going about his son's inheritance! |
