| Author | Message | ||
     Lseltzer |
Like JohnDel, I don't see what's misleading about the article if you read it carefully. Rice's quote mistakenly uses the future, rather than the subjunctive, but it's a quote from a politician. That ought to rate increased scrutiny. I don't agree with John's remark about a lack of citizen input. People had a long time to comment and inquire about the reval, but it took their actual assessments to get them to express an interest. I know John feels that people ought to be more involved and I couldn't agree more. Perhaps we should also be upset with the Star-Ledger and News-Record for not covering it more before it hit the fan, but it's probably a mistake to have high expectations of these papers. | ||
| Wilbur |
Njjoseph referred to a threshold for being included in the group that gets to phase in. Does anyone know what this threshold might be? Would it be based on a percentage increase in taxes? Dollar figure? What? This makes no sense to me. It seems like those of us facing "moderate" increases will suffer more, being forced to shoulder the burden of those getting to phase in....then WE face a higher tax burden as the mil rate goes up. Surely this must be illegal. Maybe I'm speaking in anger, but I would surely explore my legal options (read: sue) if this affects me this way. | ||
| Tracks |
The Rice bill is/was a typical after the fact knee-jerk reaction from a policitician who was listening to whomever screamed the loudest. The phase-in screws people who received reductions. The phase-in could screw S. Orange. as well as the county. The problem is the property tax system, not the reval or how to implement it. Rice and the rest of them in Trenton need to understand the problem before attempting to put a lousy band-aid on it. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Wilbur, I don't think the numbers have been decided, but Jerry used an example of 30% over current taxes as a possibility. I'm not sure if the TC would really consider that percentage. I think that phase-ins must be done across-the-board, otherwise it's discriminatory. However, those that have tax reductions would have to wait for their full reduction, and that's not fair, either. The only other possibility I could add is that those whose taxes are going up would be given a period of time where they could phase-in their payments, but the difference between the "real taxes" and phase-in amount should be considered a loan and would be repaid in the 2 or 3 years following the completion of the phase in. It could conceivably be financed by a bond. Administering this might be difficult, because you would still be liable for this loan even after you moved out of Maplewood. My taxes are going up, and each month they seem to be going up even more. I'm biting the bullet now, and I wish that everyone was in a position to do so as well. Unfortunately, that's not the case. | ||
| Wilbur |
Yes, I agree that it's discriminatory. My taxes are currently around $16,000, and I think they're going to wind up around $18,000 or something. That may not be a 30% increase, but it sure is painful to MY family. Once you get that close to $20K, you start to question your commitment to this town. I just can't fork over that kind of dough for what I get. So the idea of an even higher increase for someone else to get phased in - when we could use that kind of "aid" ourselves - is particularly painful. I say, give it to everyone or no one at all. Or how about giving it to anyone who wants it? | ||
| Lseltzer |
I believe that when Jerry was using numbers like 30% it was in the context of trying to shoehorn our circumstances into the Revaluation Relief Act of [[I think the year is]] 1993. Remember when that was a big deal? That act mandated thresholds and other terms, which was a big part of what made it untenable, and one of the big reasons why no town has actually invoked the act. It's a failure. This new proposal seems considerably less concrete. I'd like to see the actual text of the act; perhaps Vic or Jerry could get it in electronic form and post it? Does it say anything about the terms of a phase-in, or does it leave all those little details to the Governing Body? | ||
| Nohero |
Re: text of the proposed law - Revaluation Phase-In Act. It seems a little too simplistic. | ||
| Nakaille |
Thanks, Nohero. It makes absolutely NO mention of how the phase-in could be funded. Personally, I'd rather NOT continue paying more than "my share", but you all already knew that. Bacata "Anyone know a good (and honest) tax attorney?" she asked only half in jest. | ||
| Townie |
Folks, I think it's really pretty simple: I'm getting an increase, some people are getting a decrease, and if there is a phase-in, my increase will be phased in and their decrease will be phased in. In other words, they will pay my taxes for however long it takes for the phase in to be completed! I've often thought the way to administer it might be for me to walk across town everymonth and knock on the door of every person scheduled to get a decrease and have them hand me the money! If people actually had to face the fellow the residents whose money they were taking, they might prefer not to have a phase in. kathleen | ||
| Lseltzer |
As constitution says, the bill makes no mention of funding. It also makes the implementation rules an administrative matter in the hands of the Director of the Division of Taxation. It would be possible to fund the phased increases by also phasing in decreases. Whether this would be legal in the face of existing laws (and the NJ constitution) is a matter for lawyers, but there's an obvious matter of equity, in that doing so is to fund it by perpetuating overpayments by others in the town. | ||
| Lseltzer |
>>As constitution says, Forgive me, I meant to say "As Bacata says,...". | ||
| Joancrystal |
There isn't even a bill ... yet! As the saying goes "the devil is going to be in the details". Hopefully, the drafters of this legislation will visit The Board to get a reading on public opinion and the local issues/ramifications that have been posted here; but, I doubt it. As one of those people who stands to see a major increase in my taxes, I would love to see a phase in but I agree it could cause as many or more problems than it solves. This whole situation is a big mess and I wish I could offer a solution. At least it helps to talk about it. | ||
| Jennie |
The bill phases in "changes" in assessments, not "increases". No funding is needed. | ||
| Nakaille |
But Jennie: the "changes" address the current inequities. If the inequities remain the same, I'm still paying more than I'm supposed to. Townie's scenario fits perfectly. Bacata | ||
| Gerardryan |
Jennie has it right. The bill, if it passes AND if the township decides to use it, would phase in assessment changes. People whose taxes would increase as a result of the reval would increase more slowly. Those whose taxes would decrease, would decrease more slowly. The devil is in the details, and in the administrative rules that would have to be written in Trenton to make this happen. My assumption is that if the town chose to do this and decided to phase the new values in by, say for the sake of discussion, 70% in the first year, then the town's equalization ratio would be less than 100%, and that ratio would be applied for our share of county and school taxes... so I do NOT think it would be unfair to South Orange. That's a separate point than the one about if it would be fair to the taxpayers within Maplewood, mind you. And, Johnjdel, closed door TC? Don't think so... | ||
| Mtierney |
"yea wait till mtierney figures out this will come out of HER pocket" Well, Mel, my pockets are already picked thank you very much! I have been paying $12G on a house once assessed at $116,000 for almost 10 years now. But that "overpaying" lament only works for you, right? An increase in house equity (by someone's magic wand) does NOT means someone can now pay $17,500 on her house. I know, I know, go for a mortgage or whatever based on that equity. For people who worked all their lives to live in a mortgage-free home, that it an unspeakable suggestion. Especially the logic of borrowing money to pay for taxes which are unfair and confiscatory. I can hear your response now: "Does she think she can have her cake and eat it too?" | ||
| Melidere |
mtierney you clearly misunderstood me, eh? never mind. | ||
| Nakaille |
Jerry and Jennie: while there may not be a line item in the municipal budget for such a phase-in, it certainly would still cost! The cost would continue to be borne by those demonstrated to have been overpaying for years! I don't imagine the scheme would have someone paying market interest rates on the money borrowed from us. Oops, "borrowed?" Oh right, there's no intention to pay it back, is there. I am not a foundation giving grants nor even a bank with low-interest loan rates. I'm a middle class person struggling to make ends meet JUST LIKE YOU. I can't imagine that if the roles were reversed, that people on the "other" side of town would be willing to just willy-nilly give us their hard earned money for the priviledge of staying in our homes. Perhaps it's a failure of my imagination. Yes, people in the situation of large increases have a problem. Please start problem-solving without sticking your hands in my wallet, thank you. There are still laws against stealing, aren't there? Mtierney: how many times do I have to say that I DON'T think you need to move out of Maplewood? And how many times do I need to say that if you choose to remain in your present home and impoverish yourself, that is YOUR choice. I have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for your financial choices. If a reverse mortgage is "unspeakable" or selling your precious quarter acre and spending HALF of it on a new home in Maplewood and INVESTING the other half in your retirement is "unspeakable", then you do truly have a problem. Perhaps a financial consultant could help clear your vision or provide a creative solution we have not thought of. Or maybe the problem you have is not truly financial in nature, but rather a lack of will to actually solve the problem at hand. It is not as if there are no options to remain in Maplewood, even in your present home. It's not really about cake, is it? It's about MY ability to pay MY mortgage, to fund MY child's college education, to contribute to MY retirement account. Will YOU be there to pay for those things when they come due if I continue to give you MY money? I don't think so, do you? I know, you have your OWN children and grandchildren to think of. Of course! If I cannot meet my own financial obligations then I must make an alternative plan for myself and my family. That's your own responsibility, too, Mtierney. Bacata | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
Mtierney, instead of coming to this board and whining to all the folks who believe they've been "overpaying" their taxes..send an email to Maplewoodtax@aol.com and ask about the steps that organization is taking. | ||
| Nakaille |
Overtaxed: can't you give her the name of a good financial consultant? It really does sound like she needs some advice and maybe a reality check. She does not seem to be saying her reval was wrong. Just that she can't get a grip on the tax figure that goes with it. Bacata |
