| Author | Message | ||
     fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 724 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tax plan is DOA in Trenton Tuesday, January 18, 2005 It has long been my contention that anyone who expects property tax relief from the Democrats in New Jersey is out of his freaking mind. That was proven last week when a state Assembly committee listened to a parade of witnesses extol the virtues of that recently released task force report that proposes a constitutional convention to solve the property tax crisis. Assemblyman Mike Carroll, a Republican from heavily overtaxed Morris County, asked the same question I've been asking: Just how would one word a constitutional amendment to guarantee property tax relief? "We had about 25 witnesses, and no one suggested wording for the amendment," said Carroll. "Nor would they even offer even a suggestion of what the wording might be." I will. It will include a big hike in the income tax. It will also include a big hike in the sales tax, perhaps an extension of that tax to food and clothing. And it will give the Democrats someone to blame for raising those taxes. But if all the Democrats want is to replace one tax with another, they can pass that program this week. The Democratic majority in the Assembly and the Democratic majority in the Senate can send the bill to the desk of the Democratic acting governor, who can sign it. No convention is needed. The only reason to hold a convention would be to amend the clause in the constitution that is the source of our tax trouble. That is the clause that says the state must provide "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," as the constitution requires. The state Supreme Court has decided that such a system requires, among other costly items, preschools for 3- and 4-year-olds in the so-called "special needs" school districts. "Suppose, after funding preschool, they discover an obligation to fund college?" Carroll asks. Good question. For 30 years now, the Legislature has been raising taxes to fill the property tax relief fund. And for 30 years now, the court has been ordering new spending to drain that fund. Every other state that has solved the property tax problem has done so by putting strict limits on spending in both urban and suburban school districts. But such a solution would be unconstitutional under the court's reading of the clause. Therefore we have to change the court or change the clause. Proponents of the convention seem not to have thought of this. They seem not to have thought of anything if my conversation the other day with Cy Thannikary is any indication. Thannikary is the chairman of a group called Citizens for Property Tax Reform, which is basically a front for such supporters of big spending as the League of Women Voters and a whole lot of greedy geezers -- or should I say "selfish senior citizens"? -- who want to push the tax burden onto us working people. No one in these groups seems interested in cutting spending. Certainly not Thannikary. He was a member of the 15-person task force that set up the rules that would preclude the convention from dealing with spending issues. I asked him why. "If you open up the convention to spending questions, they might start talking about issues such as stem cell research," he said. Indeed they might, but so what? Stem cell research is not funded by property taxes, so any discussion of it promises to be brief. The real spending issue the convention proponents want to ignore is the disparity in state property tax aid. Thanks to the court, Newark schools get more than three times the state aid of all the schools in Morris County put together. If the convention can't discuss such issues, I asked Thannikary, what sort of amendment could solve the crisis? "I have no idea what the convention will come up with," Thannikary said. He wasn't kidding. Thannikary suggested that one possibility would be an amendment that would permit an income tax. When I pointed out that the amendment in question has been part of the state constitution since 1975, Thannikary insisted there is no such amendment. I asked Thannikary to name a state that solved its tax problems without dealing with spending. "Michigan did," he said. Nonsense. The Michigan plan to cut property taxes included both stringent spending caps and a formula for distributing state school aid equally. Any successful plan must. That's why Democratic candidate Jim McGreevey dropped his advocacy of the Michigan plan the minute he became Gov. James E. McGreevey. And that's why the delegates to this convention won't be allowed to consider such a plan. And that's why you would have to be out of your freaking mind to vote Democratic if you want property tax reduction. Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5185 Registered: 1-2003  |
Whether spending caps are a good or a bad thing, I do think that funding should be shifted to lean more heavily on income tax than on property tax. The result may leave me paying more than I currently do, and that's OK with me. The trouble is, many others would not vote for such an increase for themselves, even though it would be the right thing to do. And that is why | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1646 Registered: 4-2002 |
I agree with Tom that an increase in the income taxes would be the fairest way to go. | ||
| Lydia Citizen Username: Lydial Post Number: 878 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm fine with increasing income taxes, that does seem fair. Sales Tax raising? I'm more comfortable with a luxury sales tax increase. The problem with luxury tax is establishing what a luxury is, also the more money a person has, the more ways they can skirt around paying luxury taxes, but still, it's a start. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1647 Registered: 4-2002 |
I also liked the idea of a gas tax increase by a nickel a gallon. According to the state 40% of all gas purchased is from people who do not live in NJ. Gas here would still be far less than in NY so the total amount of gas sold would probably not change. The trick is to make sure the additional revenue is used for a real reduction in property taxes. One way would be to allocate all new revenue to be given to the local BOE's based on student population. That would result in a direct decrease in the school poriton of our property taxes. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7275 Registered: 5-2001 |
Does anyone have the figures on how much a nickle increase in the gas tax would bring in related to educational costs in the state? Howabout similar "Sin Tax" increases on booze and tobacco? and for the record I drive an SUV, drink like a fish and smoke like a chimney. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1163 Registered: 9-2001  |
mrosner--ay, there's the rub! How do we make sure it goes to property tax relief? Remember when lotteries were touted as being the solution to school funding woes? On this I agree with cjc and others with a cynical view of politicians. There is no locked box that they cannot jimmy open, or leverage with bonds. That goes for Republicans as much, if not moreso, than for Democrats--see comments elsewhere on Whitman's reign of fiscal irresponsibility. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 437 Registered: 6-2001 |
Would one of you good people explain to me why, or how, a State income tax is more "fair" than a local tax when the revenues are applied to local projects? TomR. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5199 Registered: 1-2003 |
Because ability to pay has nothing to do with the quality of education a person deserves. Because the property you own has little to do with your ability to pay, whereas it had a lot to do with it 200 years ago. These two facts leave poor towns with inadequate school funding. To concern ourselves with only our local school district is to say, "I got me mine, now leave me alone." | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 325 Registered: 3-2004 |
how about people not having children unless they can pay to raise them? i know, revolutionary idea. call me a rebel but i think people should be financially responsible for their personal choices. plenty of well to-do people in this county and maplewood use the public school system. | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 326 Registered: 3-2004 |
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/bish010505.shtml | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 327 Registered: 3-2004 |
http://reformschooltaxes.com/ | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 328 Registered: 3-2004 |
wanna save on property taxes? vote libertarian! | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 282 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here is a radical idea. I would suggest that we are looking at the wrong end of the equation. Instead of focusing on revenues, let's focus on SPENDING. If we increase taxes, any taxes, people and businesses will leave. Cut spending. Specifically, cut the salaries and benefits of the unionized, job protected, over-pensioned, overpaid civil servants. And privatize wherever possible. Other states make do with less than NJ. Let's look outside our borders and get some ideas from other states - before we end up like New York. | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 331 Registered: 3-2004 |
you have just cited a core plank of the libertarian platform. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3031 Registered: 8-2003 |
Overall spending levels is an issue, but that's different from what revenue gathering mechanism you settle upon. I'm not up on this, but I don't see how Mulshine's clause he picked out that "The state shall provide...." means it has to be via property taxes. So now I'm questioning why we need a constitutional convention to change the means by which we fund what we're obligated to do. Can anyone help? How about a flat tax (you make 10 times more, you pay 10 times more above a certain amount that's exempt - say 40K a year) for the education budget? On a happier (?) note, I read recently that NJ doesn't spend the most per child on education. We're 3rd now. Yippee. Maybe it plays locally, but Democrats complaining about tax hikes just sounds preposterous to me on it's face. And did someone that usually disagrees with me agree with me in this thread? Time to play the Lotto! | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 439 Registered: 6-2001 |
The other Tom R, Mr. Rosner and Lydia, I get convenient; it raises the money we want with little impact upon most taxpayers. I get efficacious; it raises the money we want, and the only people who can complain are the wealthy, and who really cares what they complain about. (Yeah, its really the same as convenient). Its the "fair" part I don't get. As for the "poor town" argument, we already provide for those districts through our Abbott district funding. Will someone please explain the "fair" part? Every time I hear someone (Messrs. Bradley and Forbes excepted) say tax reform, I can't help hearing this little voice in the back of my head saying "It means, let somebody else pay". Sales tax? (How regressive can we get.) Gas tax? Don't we already owe the State highway trust fund several million dollars? (And again, how regressive can we get? Lydia's idea of a luxury tax may be feasible, but are we going to tax Buicks like the feds did not so long ago. Like Lydia asked, how will we define luxury. So my question remains, what is "fair". TomR. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 726 Registered: 5-2001 |
How or why would folks in the NJ suburbs want to increase taxes (income, sales, gas etc.) on themselves so that urban and first ring districts (with minimal commercial tax bases) can continue their spending habits? Currently Newark gets more state education aid than all of Morris County. Is it rational to asume that the folks on the right side of the NJ X will agree to a simple transfer of wealth without including spending limits or performance requirements or both? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 614 Registered: 5-2004  |
Fringe, Not everyone's taxes would increase. the problem with property taxes is not just that they are not a representation of your ability to pay. They are not uniformly applied, and are relatively arbitrary. There have been whole threads about how some people in South Orange (and I'm sure Maplewood) are paying higher taxes than thir neighbors on equivalent homes. I believe doublea or woodstock could explain better than I can, but the gist is that if two homes right next to each other have exactly them same layout, exactly the same land, and are exactly the same age, it is still possible for there to be a significant disparity between their taxes. At least income tax can claim to be less arbitrary. As for transfering money from suburbs to urban areas, other than the largest cities, that is what taxes are all about - helping those that can't pay for their own needs by spreading the cost over a larger group. I'm all in favor of cuting costs, but there is no way that that alone will do anything to reduce taxes. Perhaps it will stem the rise in taxes, but to those who are already paying well over $20k a year in taxes when equivalent homes have taxes in the mid teens, that's little comfort. TomR - you're assuming that taxes for the wealthy will rise. I would argue that those who are wealthy are most likely to own larger, more expensive homes, and therefore are already paying high property taxes. So it's taking with one hand, and iving back with the other. Why are school taxes so much different from other taxes? And, no one ever said taxes were fair. Fair is highly subjective. What is fair to you might not be fair to others, and vice versa. Personally, I think there are other possible solutions as well. Disband every local Board of Ed and create regional boards. Why do we need so many Superintendents and administrators throughout the state? Use economies of scale for purchasing - much easier with a uniform curriculum. I'm sure there are lots of other ideas. But no one idea is going to solve this. There is no magic bullet. Changing the tax structure alone is just going to start the cycle again. I'm sure someone will come up with the idea that schools can, if they want, have a local tax to pay for extraordinary items. then the tax rise starts all over again. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1649 Registered: 4-2002 |
TomR: Ok, there is no such thing as a fair tax. The question is which tax is fairest. The property tax system is the least fair. S. Orange has very little land available for commercial property, so we have to rely for over 90% of our revenue from homeowners. On top of that the state decided to give tax exempt status to some including Seton Hall University. Each taxpayer in S. Orange pays over $200.00 a year to subsidize the university. A town like Milburn had the space for an enormous mall, large hotels, office buildings and golf courses all of which generate revenue and do not tax the school system. For obvious reasons, a property tax is disastrous for those who have retired on a fixed income. If we tax our income, everyone in the state would subsidize the poorer towns (Newark, Camden) instead of just Essex County residents. Chris P: According to other threads on MOL, we have cut too many employees (look at the post in S. Orange specific on DPW issues). People are asking for more police to deal with traffic issues and stolen cars, not less. People seem to want more services. I just want to see a system that makes the burden shared equally among all residents of the state rather than penalize residents in small towns like Maplewood and S. Orange. Usually when objections come to changing the property tax system to an income tax based system they come from residents in the southern half and from the richer towns. Most residents in our towns would come out ahead if we could get the state to change the system. |
