| Author | Message | ||
     Singlefriends |
This discussion began on Singlefriends2000@yahoo.com, a non-profit social group for local single residents of the community. Does anyone think its unfair for single-income Singles to be taxed the same as families? If you have an x-spouse in Maplewood, your family is being taxed twice. If you have no kids, you are contributing more to the community than you take. Why aren't singles an in-demand commodity like senior citizens? >Well -- if you have an x-spouse in Maplewood and you both have a house, you both have an ASSET. >If you don't have children -- the quality of the >school district nonetheless has a tremendous >effect on the resale value of that same ASSET >-- and on the quality of life and "ethos" of the > town. Yes, you don't realize the resale value > until you can't afford to live here anymore, > but these are the givens associated with > investing in a house. Actually, two people each have a separate asset, but share the same children, which genererate the same expense, for which each person is separately taxed for double the tax income to the Town. > If you don't have children, the quality of the > school district nonetheless has a tremendous > effect on the resale value of that same ASSET > -- and on the quality of life and "ethos" of > the town. > Yes , you don't realize the resale value until > you can't afford to live here anymore, > but these are the givens associated with > investing in a house. Maybe the real issue is to directly improve the school system. Reallocating taxes to people who don't generate the expense of the school system doesn't solve that problem. Nor does the reality that school attendees not from the community are absorbing the resources of the native community; they will continue to do so as the community becomes more gentrified by the forced evacuation of the people "who can't afford to live here anymore". I don't know where "ethos" falls in this conversation: Won't people coming to this community ultimately realize that taxes are too high for the lack of quality of the educational system?-- e.g.--my neighbors (two children in private schools) are moving to an upscale New York community, exchanging their Maplewood home at peak value for a better public educational system/lower taxes. It is not as clear to me that these are "the givens associated with investing in a house": that phrase translates to me as "apartheid by income". Because New Jersey's tax laws don't match income to property value, people should relocate? Are "the givens associated with investing in a house" equally justifiable when one side of town vs another side of town is forced to migrate--to a worse place? Lowering the tax of the east side the town may do little to help those residents. Some town council members favor rent deregulation. Doesn't that also affect the "little guy"? Springfield Avenue business and the east side will not improve without more parking(=fewer homes?). Will developers come in to buy up/tear down the "little guy" homes for newer developments? Before you evaluate the Assessment, examine the motivation and effect. >I believe the reval was broadly very fair. And this was confirmed by an > audit company hired by the TC at the demands of the vocal locals. They > made their report about 4 weeks ago -- it was published in the Record. > The proof is in the PICTURES. Look at the > numeric data that's been put up on the > Berkshire Park Neighborhood Association site by > former mayor JerrRyan and Larry Seltzer > -- a mammoth undertaking in the name of > "demystifying" and shedding light on the > process and the resulting valuation data. > Just LOOK at the distribution of colors -- they > are very consistent with recent housing > sales for each neighborhood. And look at > how more consistent is the NEW reval data than > the 1981 data. When I moved to my home, it was priced reasonably for the age/repair requirements/lack of desirability of the neighborhood. My neighbors with dual incomes and longer residency improved their homes and sold at the height of the market when they were ready to do so. My (externally precipitated) choice is to sell at the relative high --as have several Recent-To-Maplewood-Single- Homeowners. The alternative is to stay through a falling housing market, trapped with higher taxes and a higher tax/market value than that of more stable and (traditionally higher value) Maplewood neighborhoods. I've considered buying on the east side, where I could afford to live at the reduced tax levels. It would be a wasted investment and an adjustment to a lower living standard: as soon as the market falls, the east side will fall proportionately more, just as my current neighborhood will. > It is difficult to pay the taxes -- yes -- but it would demean the very real plight of seniors > living on fixed incomes in Maplewood to suggest >that singles should have a "special voice" or exceptional concerns on this issue. I am on a fixed income and only a single income. Income is the real issue: not house values. > Sorry to be so "serious" on this matter, but I > am getting tired of the folks who are relatively well off in society getting their backs arched > when it turns out that the little guy got a > break FOR ONCE, even though the little guy > has no voice and thus rarely gets heard. Call > it Socialism, or call it social welfare. If you truly can identify the little guy with no voice, great. To be certain, check: state.nj.us/treasury/1pt/1pt99ess.htm. You'll find among the ratios of "assessed/true values" per town in Essex County: Maplewood, 36.5%(soon to resemble South Orange's 88.3%); Newark, 14.6%, Orange, 15.8%. Our more affluent neighbors are further displacing the Essex County tax burden: North Caldwell, 41.5%, Glen Ridge, 37.6%, Millburn,39.6%. Its pretty clear that NJ Real Estate Tax assessment law is not being applied/enforced across the board. | ||
| Mammabear |
Are you kidding? Then, what about all the couples who don't have/don't want children? Or the seniors who have already put their kids through school? Or how about everyone who opts to send their children to private school? Do you give them a tax break so that all the people who DO send their kids to public school can pick up the slack? Where would that leave families struggling to make ends meet? And where would that leave the schools if we had to cut more corners on the budget? | ||
| Jfb |
Maybe the people who have kids should pay more. Accept the responsiblilty of having children, including paying for education. People have said that it's for the public's good, and that may be so, but I don't recall reading in the constitution "and free school for all". Somewhere along the way free school, free healthcare for poor/elderly, social security and a host of other benefits have crept into our goverment. We all pay for this. Where does it end? When we are all broke? Why do you think people are upset about taxes? It's upward tax creep all the way. And now the democrats are railing against this piddling tax cut that Bush has proposed. Oh no, don't let them keep more of the money that THEY earn. We the beaurocrats know better than you what to spend it on. And I can assure you that it won't be on anything that benefits us New Jersey residents, being that we are all "wealthy". Same for the schools, more and more increases. Far above the rate of inflation. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it anymore. There is no accountability, only veiled threats if we don't fork over more and more money; no strings attached. We have reached the breaking point. I don't mind paying a fair amount even though I don't have children. It is beyond far. Now I have to pony up 13K a year? What's next year, 15K? will the schools be that much better with the extra money? No. | ||
| Lseltzer |
>>Our more affluent neighbors are further displacing the Essex County tax burden: North Caldwell, 41.5%, Glen Ridge, 37.6%, Millburn,39.6%. Its pretty clear that NJ Real Estate Tax assessment law is not being applied/enforced across the board. Isn't this completely phony? And what does "displacing" mean in this context? As assessed values get out of step with actual values the tax rate just adjusts to meet the amount of money the town decides to raise. True, it's better to have the values in line with each other, as we will have soon, since it makes the taxation system more transparent, but I don't think this ratio gives any indication of who is shouldering their burden relative to everyone else. | ||
| Joancrystal |
I don't understand your argument regarding "double" real property taxation for divorced couples. Your divorced couple, each of which is now living in a separate house in Maplewood, is paying real property taxes on two ratable properties because they are occupying two properties. Couples who remain together and live in a single ratable property pay one real property tax bill because they are only occupying one house. | ||
| Tracks |
Theoretically, single people or young couples without kids live in smaller homes than families and therefore pay less in taxes. Of course it does not always work out that way, which is why an income based tax is fairer than a tax based on assesed values. When your income is higher, you pay more, when it is lower you pay less. Families get a break in the way of a deduction for each child. There is no perfect tax, or system. I think we should force the state to start using the money from the lottery and the casinos for education for children as promised when they were started. | ||
| Townie |
Jfb, You say you "don't recall reading in the constitution 'and free school for all'"--? Article VIII, Section IV of the New Jersey State Constitution: "The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of FREE public SCHOOLS FOR the instruction of ALL the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years." (Emphasis added.) And in case you mistakenly believe only the Federal constitution, not the states, counts as government, the right to promulgate binding laws about education is the provence of the states by virtue of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Also, check your tax bill. Only a portion of it is going to education. The rest pays to maintain the trees you're not looking at, the parks you don't care about, the cops who arrest other people, the fire department that sits idle most of the time, etc. You get nothing out of those taxes! Ever think of setting fire to your house to get your money's worth? ;-} | ||
| Dytunck |
I don't get it. Isn't this a society that wants and needs a next generation? Who paid for your education? The previous one! Who's paying for your retirement? The next one! Let's ENCOURAGE a bright group of folks to be well educated and make tons of money to donate to our senior days. Singles, great to have you. But we are not a burden to you, you are a burden to us. Now go out and raise some decent citizens. If you don't want to, that's OK too. Just keep yer yappers shut. | ||
| Alidah |
Maybe there's a reason they're all single.... | ||
| Nakaille |
Dytunck, your first paragraph says it so succinctly and so well! Thank you! I would only add: and to keep our democracy healthy and strong. (Hmmm, maybe I've been listening to too many Sousa marches while on the treadmill? Nah, great music to exercise by, ranks right up there with "Go, You Chicken Fat, Go!" for motivation.) Seriously, folks, we are ALL in this together. From generation to generation, from race to race, and town to town (and even "east" to "west.") We can rise together or we can fall separately, one by one. I vote for the former. Bacata | ||
| Nakaille |
deleting double post, sorry all. B | ||
| Gerardryan |
bacata, join us in the chat room | ||
| Jfb |
Thats right folks. Only you good democrats are people worthy of consideration. If a opinion other than your own is presented, kill it. So much for "diversity" and "inclusion". And townie, the last time I checked the tax bill was 58% school with the remainder roughly divided between town and county. And what does thorough and efficient mean? Many court cases have been tried based on this. Outcome? We need more money. The point I am making is that there are limits to what people can pay. Maybe you should consider giving more to the schools if you feel that strongly.. I give enough now, certainly more than enough after this reval. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Quick comments on some recent statements: Who paid for my education? The previous generation: my parents. I went to parochial school, so with the exception of the church not paying property taxes, my education was not paid for by the public at large. Regarding property tax vs. income tax: there are many, many couples in Maplewood, gay and straight, who are not married and would probably pay more in the increase in income taxes than they would in the education portion of their property taxes. I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue using the income tax to fund education, but changes to the tax laws will not necessarily benefit the taxpayers of Maplewood. Generalizations are not always correct. An interesting question was raised by me and some friends last night -- if we DO fund through state income tax and property taxes go down, shouldn't rents go down as well? Townie, yes, only a portion of your taxes goes to education, but it's a significant portion -- 60%! That's why I don't think having the review will do much for us. Since 20% of our taxes goes to the municipality, a 10% reduction in the municipal taxes is only a 2% decrease in taxes -- less than one year's increase. We need to concentrate our efforts elsewhere. | ||
| Melidere |
Jfb, I'm always confused by this general argument that whatever it is we are paying it is 'too much' or up against a 'limit'. How do we define that limit? I'll admit again to my bad memory for exact details, but i'm fairly certain that i remember 70% marginal tax rates in my lifetime. What i never see in any of the complaints that it is 'too much' or over the limit is a precise accounting of the goals of municipal spending and the costs of achieving those goals. I keep coming back to the concept of enlightened self interest. There are always two sides to public programs. There is the side that makes us feel good, like it's the 'right' thing to do. And there is the other side which is the realistic appraisal of the situation and the conclusion that the consequences of NOT doing it are far worse. This country is desperately seeking more educated employees. Our ability to grow and export are dependent on a widely literate populace. We don't educate children because it's nice, we educate them because it is profitable. And we MAKE them go to school, (by law) because the long term benefits to society can be obscured by the short term needs of a family to put that child to work. We don't do it for them. We do it for us. An uneducated populace slides into crime, graft, decay and slime. Because people will find a way to survive. Why don't you try living for a couple of years in a country with a large, poor, uneducated populace and report back? There are plenty of them out there. | ||
| Melidere |
Njjoseph, As you rightly point out, the bulk of the property tax is used for education, so the exemption from property tax means that the parochial education is also paid for out of the public dole. At least it looks that way to me. What am i missing? | ||
| Townie |
Njjoseph, As part of a childless couple who would conceivably pay more in taxes if we switched to the income tax, I would still prefer it, because income tax is flexible and allows for real life circumstances. If I get sick, for instance, and can't work, my income taxes are reduced. Not so my property taxes. And of course I'd like to think one of my retirement options is staying in Maplewood, yet there comes a point where I probably can't afford to pay property taxes if the real estate market stays so incredibly strong. Yes, education is the biggest bite of the tax bill, but Jfb, with all due respect, is not paying 13G toward the schools. And what we spend per pupil in Maplewood is not extravagant, by any means. Like you, a lot of my education was in private schools -- which were so narrow-minded I got my real education in the library and museums. In general, I find the "we-must-reduce-taxes" lament so dispiriting and sad. This is a very wealthy state with people who are blessed many times over, who can well afford the investment in civic upkeep and education. How did we all get to be adults without wanting -- not just feeling obliged, but wanting to educate children as best we can? Without wanting more public amenities like gardens and an attractive Springfield Ave.? It seems such a lack in our outlook. To a large extent, we are arguing over nickels and dimes per day once we pool our resources. And to wiggle out of chipping in this small amount, New Jerseyans build these ugly big box commercial strips all over the place and cram development into the last open spaces. Weird, huh? Hit me with a bigger income tax. If what I got out of it was less money to put in the market or to buy more shortlived treats but a more beautiful state and kids with a broader outlook and a more generous, optimistic spirit than their parents, fine. Money brilliantly spent, I say. ;-) | ||
| Jfb |
Melidere, My point is only that the burden of education funding falls unfairly on single property owners. My other point hidden somewhere is that schools have become excessively costly, with NJ schools costing the most in the country. Why? Am I so wrong in wanting accountiblility for my tax dollars? If I had kids in the schools I would be happy for addional funding that was payed for mostly BY OTHER PEOPLE. It's time to be able to vote on the school budgets. We have to pay, but have no voice. With my tax liablity so high, I want to know what it is I'm paying for. For the record, I believe the money spent for the municipal budget well spent. The county portion is a waste. | ||
| Njjoseph |
You're not missing anything, Melidere. However, since the Catholic Church was never taxed (and not just the Catholic Church, but all or almost all churches), there is not a way to define clearly what the tax impact would be. Keep in mind that the public schools do not pay property taxes, either; this seems like it should be correct, because in essence, the school would pay taxes to itself. If you were to think that parochial and public schools shouldn't pay property taxes, then the difference in funding is that one gets its funding from the Church (voluntary contributions from parishgoers) and tuition, and the other from taxes (mandated). I could add (but don't know what exact tuition charges in this area are), that I could put two or three children into parochial schools for what I pay in my 60% portion of property taxes. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Townie, I agree with you. I'd probably want to move towards an income-taxed method of funding the schools from a financial point of view. In today's situation, I pay the 60%, no ifs, ands or buts. However, as a self-employed person who may not be working at a given point (purely hypothetical, as I've worked continuously since I started), I would see some tax relief when I wasn't receiving income. Also, consider that most of us would see tax relief at retirement age, since we would not be collecting as high a salary. I only wanted to state in my previous post that we can't be so general that we ignore whole groups of people who would be adversely affected by moving to a different tax system. I am also concerned that if we get all of our funding from income taxes, there would be quite a change in how schools are run. How would the state determine how much a school district needs? If it underestimates the need, then we'll see larger class sizes, less recreational activities (sports, musicals, etc.), moving children into districts that are too far from home. In a way, I like not having the state in our affairs. |
