| Author | Message | ||
     jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 695 Registered: 7-2001 |
Cap spending @ $9000.00 per student , stick to 5yrs old to 17 . Throw the net evenly over the whole state via income tax . Maplewood benefits uniquely with this plan , basicly the Michigan plan. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5203 Registered: 1-2003  |
fringe, you ask why someone would vote for something that costs him and benefits someone else. I don't know. Some of us believe in contributing to society as well as to ourselves. Is that so strange? Bush 41 made "tax and spend" a dirty phrase. I see taxing and spending as the government's job. But I was acknowledging that it's hard to get someone to do that. Right, Rastro, there is no one solution. We have to burn both ends of this candle: watch costs and sources of revenue! We do seem to be wanting more and more from our schools. That is not categorically bad! We are figuring out how to serve the students (and society) better. Therefore, spending increases are not categorically bad. I had a nice conversation with a Maplewood Republican. First, he told me about what a great education his daughter got from the SOM schools, especially CHS. She had a learning disability, which entitled her to special help. Then he told me about how the taxes are too high. I pointed out how they benefitted him, or really, his daughter. He said, "I hate it when people feed me my own words."  Would he have voted down the money for his daughter's help? No! We darned well should scrutinize spending. And any accountant will say that you can ALWAYS find opportunities to save money. TomR: Fair? I think that's a useless concept when devising a tax system. A tax system should do what's right, not what's fair. I figure if someone shouts "unfair" it's probably a good sign. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 321 Registered: 9-2004 |
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. Hmmm, if that's the case, living in SO, do I get a financial break (or subsidy) if my son attends SHU?  | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1650 Registered: 4-2002 |
No, SHU does not give any breaks to residents or municipal employees. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 1709 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tom - the concept of fairness in taxation is a constant one especially in the context of state income taxation. In fact, its one of the requirements in determining whether a tax is constitutional. In theory if you allow a tax system to do what's "right" you could wind up imposing a 90% tax on the county's wealthiest taxpayers. I think there needs to be some balance. I agree that tax and spend is a mis-nomer, but I think it is meant to mean spend first then worry about how to pay for it later. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5213 Registered: 1-2003 |
Fair enough, sportsnut, pun intended. I guess it was my knee-jerk reaction to cries of "not fair!" when they usually mean "it will cost me!" | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 696 Registered: 7-2001 |
Wow what a surprise . Teachers union comes out against a convention. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5215 Registered: 1-2003 |
The goal of the constitutional convention is that a reform would be "revenue neutral." In other words, it would raise the same number of dollars, but through different means. Given that, why would the teachers' union oppose this? I can't think of a reason. | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 697 Registered: 7-2001 |
Tom , because any tax savings would come from spending cuts & that means capping school funding. The artical can be found on politicsNJ.com . After all NJ is facing a 4.5 billion $ deficit. Also in 2000 12,500 households reported over 1mm in income ,in 2003 the # was 8,000. A lot of people are switching their primary residents to Fla. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5216 Registered: 1-2003 |
If your goal is for the state to collect less tax overall, then you are right that changing the constitution won't help. If, however, you favor funding schools based on ability to pay, then you might think the proposed change makes sense. | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 698 Registered: 7-2001 |
Tom, I just want to pay less property taxes, the amount I pay makes me feel like a fool . If it was income tax based our little town would uniquely benifit. You & I both know that 58% of our taxes are schools , it's not the guys in the green trucks plowing our streets or removing our leaves. I wish that machine that grabs the leaves could do the same to the administrative level in our school system . Principal , VP , nurse, & students thats it. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5224 Registered: 1-2003 |
Just imagine: your income goes down and your taxes go down with it. Your house value goes up, and your property taxes don't go up much. How does that sound to you? | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 333 Registered: 3-2004 |
my tax statement said 68% for schools. i just dont understand how the people who live next door to me and have four kids pay less than me , who has no kids, for schools simply because my house is worth more. its taxation without representation. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5225 Registered: 1-2003 |
local, most of us agree, to some extent, that it is society's duty to school society's kids. The fact that you don't agree with that makes your views rather radical. We can list other societal benefits, such as roads, the military. It's not really that odd a concept. And you don't pay for them in proportion to how much you use them. It is messed up, however, that school taxes are tied to the value of your home. That's why I favor the change that the convention people are talking about. | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 334 Registered: 3-2004 |
alot of people feel that way because we have become an entitlement society. i fully agre with the libertarian parties stance on the matter: We believe that education is one of the most important factors in a child’s life. That is why we advocate the complete separation of education and the state, and believe that government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. The responsibility for the education of children needs to be put back into the hands of the parents/guardians. The government should not decide what is best for our children. That decision should be left up to the family, according to their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs, not politicians and education bureaucrats. All school-related taxes should be eliminated. We further support the immediate removal of the burden of school taxes on those without children or those whose children are no longer in school. Childless homeowners should not have to pay taxes to send their neighbors’ children to school. Public schools should be sold to private or non-profit enterprises. Restriction and regulation of home schooling should be repealed. We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the state the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the state. We deplore the taking of private property for government use under eminent domain. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 442 Registered: 6-2001 |
The other Tom R, Sorry if I inappropriately lumped you into a group in which you did not fairly belong. I had asked someone to explain why a State income tax was "fair" and your post immediately following the query seemed to be in response to the query, and in agreement with the proposition that a State income tax was a "fair" way to pay for local projects. But as long as I have your attention. You ponder why the teachers' union would oppose a State Constitutional convention. One man's ramblings and ruminations on the question. The Commission (I forget its full title) recently recommended that IF a convention is held; the issue before the convention be limited to funding sources. I don't like the idea, but I can live with it. The problem I forsee is that once, and IF, we get these 80 or 120 Constitutional Delegates together; how are we going to actually stop them from discussing other issues? Some might respond to the query by reminding me that the legislative mandate to the Convention would be to consider only funding isues. Fair response. If taken at face value. I got this lingering recollection of a bunch of guys in 1788 and 1789 who thought it would be a really good idea to tweak the Articles of Confederation a bit, because, well, yeah, there were some problems. (Like you couldn't be sure whether or not the farmer in New York or Pennsylvania was going to take your New Jersey money when you showed up with your cart, boat or barge.) So these bright boys figured out that if we just make a few adjustments to the Articles, we'll all be O'Tay. As we all know now, it didn't quite work out the way these bright boys had planned. The guys that went to the meeting decided to scrap the Articles, and came up with this wild assed document called the: CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Personally, I think they did a pretty good job. Not perfect, but good. (I suspect that's why we have those twenty-seven Amendments). Back to the point. When, and IF, we turn these 80 or 120 delegates loose at a Constitutional Convention; how do you control what they do? A Court action to throw the whole thing out because they went too far? You think the publicity we've gotten over the holiday music issue was bad press? Think about the headlines upon the Courts' rejection of the Convention's (read, the peoples') suggestions. Who decides what is "too far"? The legislature which authorized the Convention? An aggrived union; a taxpayer; a municipality or County? I dunno. (Didn't New Jersey have this very problem in the late '40s)? A Constitutional Convention can be dangerous. It can produce delightful results. I guess it depends on where you stand; either ideologically, or personally (after the hurley burley's done, the battle lost or won). The problem is; we won't know until its all over but the shouting. But that, as always, is just one man's opinion. TomR. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 443 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mr. Rosner, It may be semantics, but thank you for conceding that the the word "fair" is not well used in the context of income taxation. But while I have your attention (its like deja vu, all over again). Does SHU generate revenue to the Village (whether in the form of PILOT or indirect tax revenue from the students, faculty and staff spending in the Village) in excess of the $1.1 million subsidy the homeowners provide to the tax exempt University? No criticism, I don't know and am only asking. Can you tell us what portion of our Essex County tax bill goes to funding Newark's schools? WRT your comment on Milburn, no one in our school district lives in Milburn. Milburn has its resources and problems; we have ours. We all knew that when we moved here. (Or we should have). Insofar as property taxes depriving us of the valuable resource of our long time residents, I'm 100% with you on that point, and was there years ago. Property taxes -v- income taxes for local funding, including school funding; if you can get an initiative started for Trenton to allow us to impose such a tax, I'll do my best to help you sell it. We'll argue about what's a "fair" tax rate, but I'll do my best to help you sell it. Thanks for all the time you put into your duties for your Village, and for the time you put into MOL. I wish more elected officials would do the same. Be well, do good. TomR. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 444 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rastro, Have you heard of a recent State tax reform plan that did not translate to higher taxes on the more wealthy segment? That aside, how many medium income families do you know that are "house poor"? How many upper income families? As for "fair" taxation, you can gather from my recent posts that I'm in the crowd that doesn't think that its a good word to use with regard to our present system of taxation; property or income tax. (I do have some ideas, but they mostly involve the word "flat".) WRT centralization, I can grasp the concept; but gotta wonder whether people will be willing to give up local control. Thanks for joining in the dialogue. TomR. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5226 Registered: 1-2003 |
local_1_crew, thank you. I don't find libertarian ideology very threatening, at least not yet. I most certainly don't find it very realistic or workable. Most of us can't swallow it, which I see as a good thing. To the original TomR, thank you for all you have contributed. It's nice to get your experienced point of view. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 623 Registered: 5-2004  |
TomR, see, now that last issue is the kicker. Eveyone wants control, but no one wants to pay for it. I'd be willing to give up local control for reduced taxes. I can't imagine the standards would be lowered, and it could save some money. But everyone likes the idea of a locally controlled school board. As for taxes, I do agree that our present system isn't very fair. In a relative sense, I think property taxes are less fair than other methods. As the other Tom R pointed out, property value used to be correlated with ability to pay. They no longer are as closely tied. You want to change income taxes? Great. A more fair system would be welcome. As for people being house poor, it's a function of living beyond your means, not necessarily taxation. As an example, I'll use someone who has (rightfully) complained about his taxes in the South orange board. I'm friends with Woodstock. He has ridiculous taxes, and they seem to be very skewed when compared with similar houses in the area. But he knew (or should have known) what they were when he bought his house. Is he house poor? I don't know. But he's surely paying a lot more than other people in the neighborhood. Is his an "upper income" family? I guess that depends what you mean by upper income. In this area, I doubt it. But compared to the rest of the country? You betcha. If his property taxes were translated to income taxes, I'd guess he'd be paying more than double what he presently is for state taxes. Now that I think about it, though, I think many of us would... And I must say, it's nice to be able to discuss something like this with rational people. While I don't see us coming up with "the" solution, who knows what can come from reasonable people having reasonable discussions. |
