| Author |
Message |
    
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 377
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |     |
Well if you don't like that idea . How about taking the bill for our schools & divide it evenly over the amount of homes in MW. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 378
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Sac, I think the 2nd amendment says that we can arm a small militia to defend ourselves. As far as the right to a free ed. , a school rm & a teacher sure , but not mulitple layers of adminstrators for various curriculum. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2233
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Doesn't seem like a good idea to charge tuition. If we charge to use the public schools, can we also mandate that people go? Not going to school can seem like a good idea to some in the short term, but I think if we have a class of people who don't go to school, it harms society.
It's not legal, either. NJ requires all towns to provide a free education to all who want it.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 418
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
We are already being charged for tuition TomR- it's called the property tax.
A big part of the problem is that the charges made to each of us vary so much, and yet have no relationship to the service consumed - which is why endorse Jet's idea (I made the same comment on MOL in recent years)
At least that way the societal benefit of education will be borne evenly by all and not be related to the number of bathrooms in ones home.
The services remaining (Township, police, fire) can then be charged in relationship to value - they have a better correlation.
Why is this so hard to fathom; what law prevents this from being implemented- anyone ? |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
to Tom -if Millburn and Livigston spend $10k per pupil and we spend $12.5k, in what way are we spending less per pupil if we are spending $2.5k more ? |
amandacat
Citizen
Username: Amandacat
Post Number: 376
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
I don't think those are the right numbers, Mellie -- can anyone confirm? |
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
charging tuition for public school would be illegal -- big time. The constitution of the state of NJ requires that education be provided for all children. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2246
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Illegal or not, I think the question of whether or not it's a good idea is interesting. If it's a good idea but it's illegal, we could consider changing the law. In this case, I do not think it's a good idea.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
if it's a good idea, why not also put meters on police cars and fire trucks?
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
It really does make my jaw drop to read that people want to amend the state constitution to end free public school education right here in Maplewood.
Work to change the property tax system. New Jersey is one of the richest states in the nation in one of the richest nations in the world. It's not like there isn't any money to be found around these parts. Spending it on education would be the mark of a great civilization. Does that sound laughable or crazy? Why have people's aspirations for their children's future shrunk so miserably? (Or is it only on the internet?) You really want your kids have to live in a 3rd world society? After all the benefits you've had?
|
Habanero2
Citizen
Username: Habanero2
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:45 pm: | |
Spending taxes on education is not the issue. The issue is that we pay the highest property taxes on the planet, or at least in the top 1%. That is wrong.
Arguing that we need to tax Maplewood residents more than any other residents in America so that the schools will be good is ridiculous. If Maplewood schools were the best on the planet then it might be tolerable, but that is not so (and the reasons have nothing to do with money). We could spend double or half what we spend now and the schools will be the same. We pay too much in taxes and the NJ system is too inefficient.
More taxes are not the answer, especially when they are as burdensome as Maplewood's. Many people will have to move (many already have) and that is sad.
"You kids today have it easy. When I was a kid everything was HUGE. My dad was nearly four times bigger than me. You couldn't even see the tops of counters.... Then gradually everything became smaller until it was the manageable size it is today." |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
You could reduce property taxes by shifting school funding to a progressive income tax. You can't wish the schools away. But you can pay for them in a different way that taxes people based on their ability to pay, not by the fluctuations in the real estate market independent of your earnings. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 379
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 1, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
ML1, the last people that would want a meter on a firetruck , would be fireman. This is not the 70s anymore. The fact that MW & Millburn have the same very expensive equipment is redundant & wastefull. Fire DPs should be regionalized & run as a state agency. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 1, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
jet, I've thought about that, too. If fire departments were state agencies, would we have as many volunteers as we do? We could save on equipment and real estate but it could cost us in salaries. But wait, volunteers are diminishing in number. Should we just give up and employ all firefighters? I'm not implying an answer, just posing the question. If we bought fewer trucks and had fewer firehouses, would the firehouses be close enough to the fires?
Are there any studies or rules of thumb on how many houses or people a firehouse should serve?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 382
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 1, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Actualty Tom, this regionalation is taking place in some parts of the state . The best example is in Hudson Co. were a collection of small towns disbanded their own FDs & formed the North Hudson FD. I wouldn't feel so anoyed with Joe D. if he were coming up with some ideas like this himself, instead of putting his name on billboards of projects that were already in the pipeline before he came along. |
Fotboat
Citizen
Username: Fotboat
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Back to property tax:
Calif had the same issue 20-30 years ago, run-away property taxes. They settled it with Prop 13 on the ballet. Simply put, your prop taxes are set at 1% of your purchase price, and allowed to increase 1% a year after that (so one year after purchase your tax rate would be 1.01%). The ratables incr every time someone sells a house (at a higher price than he bought it for hopefully). If you bought a house for 500K, your taxes would be $5,000 with a max increase of $50 a year. Sell the house in two years for $600K, then the new owners pay $6K a year in taxes. The new owners know what the taxes will be and know it will not incr to a point that it will break their budget, and force them out of their house. It makes me mad that I will not be able to retire in my present house, because in 20 years my taxes will probably be over $40K a year (they are $10K now). If I had bought a house in Ca, my taxes would be $3,500, and in 20 years maybe $5,000. big difference. We need to do something now.
Prop 13 occurred because people were being taxed out of their homes, like they are now in Maplewood. This ultimately forced Ca to incr income & sales tax to counter the income loss, but people are not being taxed out of their homes, and Ca housing prices are through the roof, increasing the tax base for the schools. WHY CAN'T NEW JERSEY DO SOMETHING SIMILAR
Suggestion on increasing ratables: Build more condo structures like The TOP on So Orange Blvd, where normally singles and no kid couples live. No incr in students, but incr in ratables. I think the Penthouse there pays $40K a year in property taxes, and I believe that building is considered Maplewood. So Orange is already doing that with property near their train station.
Fotboat
|
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 392
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
Brilliant! Now all you need is a developer that would be stupid enough to build such a condo.Then find the fools to buy it . Those people that live in The Top got screwed. |
marian
Citizen
Username: Marian
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Jet,
I've always been intrigued by the Top every time I drive by. How did the people who bought units there get screwed? It looks nice from the outside at least and the units seem to sell for really high prices (from what I see in the real estate ads.) |
crabbyappleton
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Fotboat, school funding and the schools themselves are a disaster in Calif. |
Gene Z
Citizen
Username: Genez
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
I wouldn't exactly use California as an example of good State fiscal responsibility & management. Just ask Ahrnold.
Z |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2391
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
And it sounds even worse in Oregon, where they have a similar law for property taxes. My cousin is a middle school teacher in Eugene. She says that even if a town wants to raise its property taxes, it can't. There's virtually no legal way to fund the schools adequately.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 394
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Marian, when the people bought their units their taxes were about 10k , now they are about 27k. Most , never lived in MW before , a lot of them were @ 2ND residents while this took place. You may see the units listed for sale, but they are very difficult to sell. From what I understand there are no children that live their that use the school system. They have their own security & modern fire prevention systems. You could say that they need MW services the least. Again take the bill for schools & divid it evenly among the tax payers of MW & SO. Whats wrong with that? |
marian
Citizen
Username: Marian
Post Number: 147
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Jet,
A lot of people with homes in Maplewood also saw their property taxes more than double after the reval. Don't get me wrong, I am also very frustrated and concerned with Maplewood's property tax crisis, but I don't think the Top is any different than any other "luxury" residence in town that saw its tax bill skyrocket.
And while it may have a great fire-prevention (i.e. sprinkler) system,if there's a fire in the building, it's the Maplewood Fire Dept. that will show up. Same for one of our ambulances if a Top resident has a medical emergency.
In other words, I don't think it's fair to say Top residents need our services the least. Au contraire; if most of them are indeed empty-nesting seniors, they're likely to need ambulances the most!
|
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 840
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Wow, I didn't realize people at the Top were forced to purchase condos there! Come on folks, get a grip. They didn't get screwed. The taxpayers of Maplewood did because the Maplewood Fire Dept had to purchase a specific type of ladder truck to service that building. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 158
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:50 pm: | |
jet,
Please explain what you mean by dividing the school tax burden evenly among the taxpayers of SO & MW.
What's even? 50% to each of SO & MW?
I was under the impression we were already doing the distribution evenly; albeit based upon property valuation.
TomR. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 395
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
TomR , what I mean is , divide the school bill evenly amongst the tax payers of both towns , regardless of assesed value. johnny your wrong, but if it was the case ,why didn't we just come to a agreement to use WO or Millburns. I don't think that 3 or 4 surounding towns all need to have a $700,000 dollar piece laying around . |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:53 pm: | |
We have to get a handle on spending. Until we do, these property taxes will continue to spiral. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page