| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10722 Registered: 10-2001  |
Nah Harpo, that's the least of it. Really. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- The Cafe Sbenois is pleased to announce that a fresh batch of Yumsters just arrived thanks to the pinpoint accuracy of the Sbenois Deer Howitzer. Stop in today and ask for one with cheese. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2083 Registered: 1-2003  |
sportsnut, it's become eminently clear that progressive taxes is YOUR hot button. Relax. You're right that the upper middle class (which you and I are in) are in danger of being heavily taxed. That's why I don't understand why you should favor tax cuts for the obscenely rich. They threaten to enact those tax increases. Rich and poor are relative words. A guy who makes his way up from poverty to a $40K income feels rich but looks pretty poor to many of us. And he thinks I'm rich, while I'm struggling with all my finance. If we, as a population, were more educated about who earns what and what the income distributions, we might come to agree more easily on where the tax burdens ought to be. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah, Tom, that sounds great. | ||
| unohu Citizen Username: Unohu Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2003 |
who is this dude called las? he's like tom riengold's shadow or something & pretty much all he says is 'yeah tom that sounds great' | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 909 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tom - I spent the early part of my career working on ways to save taxes for wealthy individuals. The amount of money that I saw go out the door was astounding. I think it would be hypocritical for me to favor tax cuts, but only for the other guys. I think we pay enough in taxes and that's all of us. I'm actually not even opposed to a tax increase, however, it annoys me when the knee jerk reaction is to tax rather than cut spending. The first year on my current job my company paid close to $4B in federal income tax. Just one company. That is an outrageous sum of money. I still prepare a good number of individual tax returns for some college buddies of mine and what they pay in federal income tax is frightening. For me its about controlling both sides of the ledger. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2084 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yeah sportsnut, but somehow I still suspect that it's an emotional issue for you. No one here thinks we should let spending go unchecked, yet you mention it whenever we mention we favor progressive taxes. Yet when pressed, you also favor progressive taxes. Sometimes we figure out how to improve our lives and it's worth spending more of the public's money for it. You wouldn't really want society to have the lack of services it had back when there was no income tax. In other words, taxing and spending can be a good thing. If we're not careful, however, special education programs or whatever we can think of will go to only the better off communities. Or the poorer communities will be funding programs in the richer communities. That's why I think it's important to be conscious of who pays what level of taxes. $4B in taxes, and what were the revenues? And how does that percentage compare with other corporations? You haven't given me enough information for me to agree or disagree that it's obscene. What's frightening to me is how low taxes are for the super-rich. It also frightens me to see how high my taxes are and to realize that I'm not rich. Often I get the sense that you and I would favor the same sorts of tax legislation but we use different words to say so. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 944 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think I already said why I think it is fairer ... and note that I said FAIRER. I didn't say PERFECTLY FAIR, because nothing is. Bottom line is that I don't want to see people forced out of their homes due to escalation in property value, when they don't have the INCOME needed to pay the taxes on them, whether that be due to disability, unemployment, retirement, etc. An income based tax is much less likely to do that than the property tax. In fact, since appreciation is the rule rather than the exception for real estate AND reduced income is an expected result in the later years of life, the property tax system almost guarantees that many people will be put into a bind that I believe is imminently UNFAIR. I also think that the majority of those who would pay more under an income tax system (and that almost certainly includes my own family also) would still manage to stay in our communities and meet our financial obligations including those increased taxes. Higher income people including many of us on this board, I suspect, might have to tighten our belts a little or even more than a little, but we also have more holes in the belt available to us. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1198 Registered: 6-2001 |
sb, I said it was only one. But to some, it really is the worst. The Stooges, the deer, the wind pale in comparison. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1199 Registered: 6-2001 |
Am I the only one who finds sportsnuts posts funny? (Sbenois, take note.) I mean, things like: "I spent the early part of my career working on ways to save taxes for wealthy individuals." And: "I think it would be hypocritical for me to favor tax cuts, but only for the other guys." Above all, be pure! (Is that a boy scout motto?) sportsnut, Is there any tax you think is fair? | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1200 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sac and Tom, I agree. For some people -- too many people, especially older people -- the property tax system means confiscating the ability to live in their own home. I think cynicalgirl's report about a neighborhing state bears reapeating: "Our "old house" sold for $165K (starter range around the university) and our property taxes were $860.00 per year. The same house up here (which is about what we bought last year) costs $325K with property taxes of (now) about $7,000.00 per year. And in case anyone wonders why this transplant gets so crabby, my lovely employer gave me only a 10% COLA to move up here. I figure, all in, my cost of living has increased by at least 45% given the proportion of net income goes to housing. Private school in DE, by the way, is comparable to here but when your property taxes are so low you can readily afford it if you need/want it. "I'm in the middle of taxes, so a lot of this is very much top of mind. Also, no sales tax in Delaware. I'm WAY worse off here. The only reason I'm here is corporate relocation, and as a middle aged person, with fewer stable career options where I used to live. Home. Think I'll hit dice.com for awhile...I don't think NJ will awake from this nightmare any too quickly." I don't think NJ will go two more governor's elections without major reform. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 111 Registered: 6-2001 |
harpo, "People who own expensive homes didn't necessarily buy an expensive home. Many people see the value of their inexpensive home double, triple, quadruple and thensome -- and they get taxed on the value of a home they never could have afforded in the first place and whose taxes they cannot afford in the present." I was not aware that our tax burden was determined by the value of our individual properties. I had thought that the tax burden was determined by the expense demands of our Township, our County, and our School District; and after those expense demands have been detrmined, the taxes apportioned among residents based upon the relative value of their respective properties. Have I been wrong in thinking that my increasing tax bill is the result of increasing demands for revenue? TomR. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2086 Registered: 1-2003 |
The "other" Tom R said I had thought that the tax burden was determined by the expense demands of our Township, our County, and our School District; and after those expense demands have been detrmined, the taxes apportioned among residents based upon the relative value of their respective properties. I suppose that's the way it works, but if my house's value goes up relative to yours, my taxes go up faster than yours. But I might be poorer than you (in cash). So effectively, it's almost as if the tax bill comes directly from the value of our individual properties. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 112 Registered: 6-2001 |
Herr Reingold, This is probably where I get confused. My last tax bill has the same "Net Taxable Value" as it did imediately after the revaluation (you really missed a good time on that one). I'm reluctant to assume that I've been singled out for no increases in my "Net Taxable Value", and therefore assume that my tax increases since the reval (can we call this period PR (Post Reval)) are reflective of increases in the demand for revenue, and are not attributable to any increase in the value of my partcular parcel. Has the "Net Taxable Value" of your homestead gone up since the reval? BTW, I'm not the other Tom R; I am TomR. There is no other. TomR. PS Veuillez pardonner l'épellation faible dans mon poteau précédent. Et pardonnez svp toutes les erreurs que j'ai faites dans ce poteau. PPS Who clocked you to give you the shiners? | ||
| clkelley Citizen Username: Clkelley Post Number: 105 Registered: 6-2002 |
This seems to me a 100% partisan issue, which means that it is unlikely that there will ever be agreement here. If you are a Democrat / liberal, you favor progressive taxation. If you are a Republican / conservative, you don't. sportsnut isn't going to change his mind. harpo isn't going to change hers/his (sorry harpo, don't know if you ever identified a gender). Tom Reingold isn't going to change his. Etc. Of course even some apparent liberals are duking it out here, when their views on many issues are quite comparable. The main place where they differ is how schools should be funded. And what we should do about illegal students. I think all sides essentially agree that the illegal students would be better served by having decent schools in their own districts. The big question is how to accomplish that. Forget source of funding for a minute or two - what would make those schools great? And what commitment, if any, are any of us willing to make to accomplish that? I think we should be really sure that we know what the problems are first of all. We can toss around a lot of assumptions, but it would be worthwhile to find out if those assumptions are correct. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 910 Registered: 10-2001 |
Harpo - I'm not sure what you find funny. In addition your swipe at purity is childish like many of your posts. I've already answered your question about tax increases, please go back and re-read the posting about controlling costs first. That means not allowing people like you a say in what happens to the taxes I pay. I really think you should stick to what you do best.....which I'm still trying to figure out. Was it stand-up comedy? Because if it was your act needs some work. You really aren't very funny or clever for that matter. | ||
| NinersMan Citizen Username: Ninersman Post Number: 16 Registered: 9-2003 |
Geez! Reel in these posts!!! Holy cow!!! No wonder nothing gets done in this town! The title of this stream is "Illegal students". If you think changing the drug laws, calling each other names, or whatever will address that problem, well, you're way wrong. Illegals can and will only be addressed by local officials, ie the BOE. If they don't do it, the County or State doesn't care. The BOE has to have the WILL to do it, and the gumption to follow thru with all the very likely subsequent heat that comes with such a dicey topic. We pay for the illegals, whether you like it or not. By law, we shouldn't have to. They need to be removed, and maybe then, we can focus on the real important issues like the quality of education, size of the administration, improving scores, etc. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1927 Registered: 5-2001  |
Of course that's true, niner's, but I guess everyone started talking long term solutions that would hopefully prevent the illegal stuff from happening in the first place. Also, re:state income tax. No one has yet come up with a state who funds schools with income tax successfully. Harpo stated maybe New York. Well, we know that's not true. THey have huge property taxes in NY that go towards local school funding. And in the news today is Westchester asking for a 19% property tax increase - holy cow! | ||
| mikecappy Citizen Username: Mikecappy Post Number: 80 Registered: 10-2001 |
So does this mean the kid I saw getting out the Taxi was or wasn't an illegal student? | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1930 Registered: 5-2001 |
we're gonna need more mikecappy! Next time see if you can open the door for the kid and then start up a conversation with the driver. Speculation is gonna get us nowhere - bring on the facts and then go in for the kill(?) | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4623 Registered: 5-2001 |
A fair number of southern states fund schools with state tax revenues. North Carolina and Louisiana are two that come to mind. Because of the recession state tax revenue is down, putting a big hurt on school funding in those states. Increasing taxes on a statewide basis is always a big issue. I posted some stuff on this a year or so ago. Given the current NJ revenue mess can you imagine what would happen to school funding if we relied on the state? This is the main reason I have always suggested using gasoline taxes, booze taxes, lottery proceeds, tobacco taxes, etc. for school funding as much as possible since these taxes are less subject to the economy. However, none of this has a snowballs chance in Hell of happening in New Jersey in the near future. |
