| Author | Message | ||
     Townie |
Here's an interesting article from today's NY Times about West Windsor, N.J., where long-time residents are facing the same tax problems as longtime Maplewood residents, and expressing some of the same feelings. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/27/nyregion/27SUBU.html (You have to register with the Times get access, but registration is free.) What I found especially interesting about the article was a complaint made in passing that town costs were rising because newer residents weren't stay at home moms who volunteered their work for the town like women used to do. Couple that with the fact that teachers today earn more than the female teachers of yesteryear, and it points to some reasons why government costs keep rising that usually go unrecognized. I'm not suggesting nobody volunteers any more in Maplewood, but think others might find this article interesting sociology. To my mind, it's more evidence as to why the property tax system in NJ needs to be reconsidered. It's too bad The Times missed the angle on the possibility of a state constitutional convention to focus on taxation in NJ. kathleen | ||
| Mtierney |
Excellent article! | ||
| Joancrystal |
Too bad the township committee can't pass an ordinance that lets empty nesters volunteer their time to help the town in exchange for a reduction in real property taxes. | ||
| Ihateice |
That was a good article but if they are lobbying to freeze taxes for people 65 and over because they don't have kids in schools, why not freeze taxes for those who don't have kids, nor will they ever? I'm sure childless couples feel that they are paying too much also. | ||
| Melidere |
Joan, not to be contrary, but doesn't your post kinda miss the point of the article? The article is making the case (and rather well, i think) that it SAVES us money to keep those seniors in place. Why would we make them work for the reduction? ihateice, what you are basically suggesting is funding the schools via userfees...and that doesn't make sense to me. An educated populace is in all of our interests and is the basis of our public education system. Seniors can be reasonably assumed to have been paying for an extended period of time, and consequently have made the contributions that the country asks of them. The issue with seniors is whether or not, in a world of extended life expectancies, we ask them to pay for 60-80 years instead of 20-40. I would fully support some sort of capping on the property taxes paid by seniors. It only makes sense. I don't think it will be the end-all though. Seniors move for lots of reasons besides taxes, a big one being that maintaining property is hard work and it's enormously expensive to contract out all those little fixes that homes require. They move to places where the lawns are maintained by someone else and the maintence staff can be shared. If we really want to keep them...we could offer a lawn-mowing service as a municipal entitlement. (grins...that will go over real big). | ||
| Mim |
Yes, it IS reasonable to expect seniors to go on paying, as long as they go on receiving the benefits! If no one educated the next generation, who would go out to work to fund their Social Security payments and other entitlements? I really cannot fathom the concept of retirement anyway. Good thing too, since my generation will probably need to work their entire lives. | ||
| Tracks |
Also, age 65 was an age picked when Social Security started based on life expectancies back then. Most people continue working past 65 today. Today's seniors need the break that their parents did not get is because of how long people live today. It is unfair to expect the children and grandchildren of seniors to abosrb their share of taxes unless it is phased in over many years. The school systems should be fully funded by the state, not the towns and the taxes should be based on income, not property value. That would fix both problems in NJ. | ||
| Melidere |
mim, if an elderly couple on orchard is paying 5000 a year in taxes and we give them a break of 2500, that costs us 2500. If we don't give them a break and they move, and a new family moves in with two kids...that costs us $15,000 (assuming that the average rate is the marginal rate...which i don't believe but it supports my argument so what the heck). This is about self-interest, plain and simple. | ||
| Townie |
ihateice, I don't have kids either, but public schools by law have to be free to the student and the parents of students. We can't charge a user fee. Renters in town pay no property taxes outright (the costs are hidden in their rent charge) yet by law, the town (or school district) must offer them an education. Melidere, Rather than taxing me for a seniors lawn mowing service, could we repeal the town ordinance on mowing lawns altogether and have a little more peace and quiet to boot? Little meadows would look just as nice, I think, and with less herbicides and pesticides, easier on the local ducks and birds, and we'd all live longer in our houses, saving school costs. It's win-win-win-win. | ||
| Melidere |
yea, but it would be a breeding ground for those lime-disease ticks. sighs | ||
| Tracks |
melidere.... I do not get your point at all. Why should the local taxpayers subsidize any group of people when it should be the job of the state or the federal government. It is not about self-interest at all. It is about a system of taxation that does not work as intended. Would you suggest that all seniors get a break? Would it be based on income and total assets? There are lots of services for seniors. Should only seniors pay that portion of the taxes? | ||
| Weekends |
Nothing is simple. Several posts above Tracks stated: "The school systems should be fully funded by the state, not the towns and the taxes should be based on income, not property value. That would fix both problems in NJ." If Tracks envisions funding schools through the current state income tax plan, that would not be fair either. New Jersey is a small state with a significant population commuting to other states to work. Those who commute to high-tax states like New York don't pay New Jersey income taxes. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Weekends: Those of us who commute to New York pay both New York and New Jersey State Income Taxes. Until recently, those who worked in New York City also paid New York City Commuter's Tax. No wonder so many of us feel we are paying too much in property taxes. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Melidere: My post was not intended to interpret the article but to extend the article to the problems we face in Maplewood. I agree that Seniors are not the only ones who might need assistence in meeting their tax bills. I was wondering if it would be legal ... possible... workable... for Maplewoodians who could not otherwise meet their increased tax bills to work off some of the increase by providing a service to the Township (or the school district?) that the Township would otherwise have to pay for. This might be the only way we can provide tax assistance since Gerry and others have demonstrated that our tax base is too small to carry those in need without outside funding (which does not seem to be forthcoming). I focused on seniors because they are most apt to be on fixed incomes and most apt to have the time to provide Community Service in exchange for tax credit. Obviously, if doable, this offer could be made to anyone in Town requiring such assistance. | ||
| Melidere |
Tracks, I am not sure where or why you make the leap that money out of the federal/state coffers is any less your money. Our school population close to doubled from 95 to 2000. Our elders moved out and young families with children moved in. Although i adore and welcome our new families, this is an expensive transition for the town. That is the reason it is a self-interest question. It's our town, our schools, our elders and our money. It's OUR problem. The only difference i can see between federal money and local money is that locally we have some control over how it's spent. And, as i've mentioned before on this board, when the new census comes out I'm fairly certain we are going to get the demographic information we need to make a solid case that this town will lose a LOT more money as a whole from a rise in income taxes than we are currently spending in property taxes. joan, the town could not afford to finance a 'phase in' of all the properties in town facing a property tax increase. That does not mean that the town couldn't make the educated decision to take deliberate steps and spend precious few dollars making it far more attractive for our seniors to 'age in place'. We've been watching the seniors fly out of here in droves. Personally, I feel strongly that this exodus hurts our quality of life and our pocketbooks. I plan to be a senior here, and would like to know that the town i've chosen for home will be interested in keeping me here. I'm old enough to have watched more than a few seniors make the transition to florida and in the long run I don't think it makes a lot of sense. It's a lot less fun than it sounds to trade in a lifetime of relationships and family and friends for the weather. Lots of them would prefer to stay where they are but we are making it unaffordable. | ||
| Melidere |
By the way...did anyone else see the article about the project to rejuvenate Irvington Avenue? Apparently whoever dispenses the funds has decided that the income levels are too high to qualify. Now, we have taken the position that they are low enough and we have to prove it but what if they are right? That is the future if we send the money back to the state, or the feds for disbursement. They are going to say we aren't needy enough and we are going to end up paying more. Now, South Orange has funds (already dispersed to them) that they have to find a project for that will qualify. I wish them luck. In a short decade we have become a wealthy community and we need to start realizing it. | ||
| Tracks |
Melidiere... the reason it is our problem is because of how the state choosed not to deal with it. Some towns have lots of land and ratables and they do not have the same kind or problem that S. Orange /Maplewood has. The property tax system forces the seniors to move out of the state. I do not see how you can say that we would are better off with high property taxes as opposed to an income tax system. That might help you if you are a very high income earner, but I would rather have the schools funded by the state and have my property taxes cut in half and pay double the income tax while I am working. Then when I retire, my whole tax bill will be lower and I will be able to stay in my home. It would stop forcing the seniors out of town too. Local control is good... but our school district is not one of the better ones because we cannot raise enough tax money to deal with the increasing population that you alluded to. Under a state funded system every town would get the same amount per student and with more students we would get more money. I would bet that the state would not want to control the school districts anymore than they do now anyway. We could argue this ad nauseum, but the current system does not work, so I think we should try a new one. | ||
| Rheims |
The math for encouraging seniors to stay in Maplewood makes perfect sense. And the more seniors who don't move and make way for families with kids, the fewer kids the town will have to school in the coming decades, lowering costs further. But consider this: Boomers who will become seniors in the next 15 years. Would retaining them completely drain the town's coffers and put the tax onus on younger residents? Would Seniors have to accept restriction on their earning prospects if they wanted to maintain a retainment tax break? Because of corporate cutbacks, I know several people in their 50s who are basically retired because there just aren't any jobs for them at any reasonable level of income for someone with their skills. Should they get a break? And a larger point: What is a senior? Is the mandatory 65 year old retirement age now outdated, with people living far longer than they once did and so needing to work to supplement meager Social Security payments--and perhaps wanting to work in their chosen careers if they can avoid being forced out? Should the mandatory age be raised to, say, 70? Should it be done away with altogether? And does anyone look forward to retirement anymore? This isn't an anti-elderly rant or anything. Nor do I think we have a Senior "problem." What we have is an evolving community, so I'm just curious how people think taxes and the business of being a town will change in the coming decades as a greater percentage of the population than ever will identify itself as Senior and/or find themselves retired. | ||
| Melidere |
Tracks, I'll never understand why it doesn't cross your mind that you might pay out a lot more in income taxes than the cut on your property taxes. but like i said earlier, i do a lot better in a high income tax/low property tax environment so i don't know why i'm beating my head against this brick wall. People in low income brackets are not bidding these houses up to 600,000, 700,000 or even 350,000. The income requirement for any of those purchases is going to put a person in a pretty high bracket. Whatever. Rheims, you are asking some terrific questions. 1st of all, if all of us decided to 'age in place' then our education budget would drop precipitously and the tax break wouldn't be necessary. It's our money and our taxes and if we decided it would be cheaper to pool our funds condo-style and hire a parade of lawn guys to do our lawns, we would be within our rights. And wouldn't that be the coolest thing to have a community that we've worked hard to build and get to enjoy it together? Heh...i'm such an idealist...but that's almost as neat as nan's vision for an artists colony on springfield. As to who would get the 'break' i would think the standard would be to get the biggest bang for our buck when it comes to keeping residents in place who would move without it. We'd have to study that issue, i would think, and the upcoming census should be a big help. What i'm saying is that i don't think you have to come up with an opinion on what is/isn't a 'retirement' or a proper 'retirement' age, we just have to see where the demographics are telling us the trade-off is taking place. I would think that 65/70 and above would capture those most likely to be on the old 'fixed income' retirement plans. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Rheims, IMHO, for someone younger than the retirement age (i.e. the people in thier 50's that you mentioned), there should be no property tax breaks based on their income. Sorry. Although I feel for anyone who has lost a job, anyone should be able to pick themselves up and find a job where they can make a decent living. Maybe not as great a living as before, but still a living. If for some reason they can't find a job in their areas of expertise, they should re-train themselves in other areas. I'm not sure about the 50-somethings you mentioned, as I don't know who they are and probably don't know them. If they are educated, intelligent people, they realize they have the power to shape their destinies, and do not need to play the victim. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Melidere, you mentioned the census, and I've seen it mentioned often on this board. Since I moved here only in 2000, I'm not listed as living here, and don't know what the general population was at the time of the census. In your opinion, is it fairly similar, or do you think we have more students or less students than at the time of the census? | ||
| Melidere |
lots less students...that's an easy one. i'm terrible at details like that..but i think the elementary schools have doubled since 1990. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Melidere, I meant the time between the recent census and now. | ||
| Nakaille |
Meli, "lots less students"? I'm not sure you responded to NJ's question as it was phrased. Do you think we have more students now or had more in 1990? Fringe, number-buddy, can you find the numbers on the local school population over the past 10 years? A breakdown of elementary, middle and HS would be wonderful. Thanks. I can't believe that in all our discussions about how much costs have risen in the education portion of the budget/taxes, we've ignored the actual numbers of students. Bacata | ||
| Jem |
I think I've heard that there were a little over 4,600 students in 1990-91 and that now we have almost 6,300 students in the schools. One interesting measurement, which might belie the sense that we've become uniformly wealthier, would be figures for students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch. I don't have those, neither for the early 90's nor for the present. | ||
| Melidere |
Those numbers sound about right, jem, and i think the bulk of that increase was in the elementary schools. We are seeing that bulge move into the middle schools right now. The number of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch always confuses me. You are right..when we do get the numbers they are going to seem very high. the question will not be whether we've become uniformly wealthier...but whether or not the measures they use for dispersing funds will look much beyond averages. If, on the whole we're a lot wealthier..then we have to think things through. Again..i'm bad at details...but i think the median income in the us in 90 was about 35 and our town was around 70, double the national median. | ||
| Melidere |
heavens, njjoseph...i have no idea what kind of change has happened in a year...we only get datapoints in census terms once a decade. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Melidere, I know that, which is why I was asking. Since Maplewood has been very hot the last 2 or 3 years, is it possible the demographics have changed since the census? And if the seniors have moved out, would that change it significantly as well? | ||
| Melidere |
i would find that somewhat doubtful. one of the reasons that there is such a bidding war for the housing stock is that not very much of it goes on the market in any one year. | ||
| Jfb |
Melidere, Maybe the last few years have been short of housing stock. Before that there were signs on very tenth house. Buyers market. many homes in the 160K - 225K range that now sell for 250K - 400K This was just a few years ago! Midtown direct changed everything. |
