2 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      
Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Daggett's tax plan. Thoughts from a "tax guy"

by: Adam L aka clammyc

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 02:21:55 PM EDT



Yesterday, Chris Daggett released a plan to cut NJ property taxes.  While it is noble to offer up a plan that attempts to deal with a huge problem facing New Jerseyans (in fact, there is some very interesting tax information in the latest Quinnipiac poll), there are some pitfalls with the plan.

For starters, the property tax problem stems from an entire systemic issue in the state - from the number of towns, municipalities, the waste in certain types of services (for example, in my hometown, I don't need the sanitation workers to come to the side/back of my house to collect my garbage - I can drag the cans to the curb.  But that is a service that takes time and costs money) and the overall duplication of things that property taxes pay for without consolidating localities.  In fact, an entire series of posts can be done just on the property tax issue.

That being said, Daggett's plan, in his own words, would:

deliver up to a 25 percent property tax cut to all New Jersey homeowners to a maximum of $2,500. All senior citizen property owners will receive the maximum cut of $2,500 per year.

Sounds great.  But.....the devil is in the details.  The property tax reduction would be offset by other taxes (mainly by increasing the sales tax base), and really wouldn't deal with the other huge issue - the projected $8 billion budget hole for next year, let alone future years.  Without getting too "tax geeky", here are a couple of issues that I see with this plan - as it relates to the lower and middle income taxpayers.  Personally, my fear is that, while this is relatively revenue neutral, I'd be interested in the overall breakdowns as to the benefit to families earning under $50,000, families earning between $50,000 - $100,000 and families earning over $100,000.

Here's why:

Under the plan, the $1.6 billion spent in this year's budget for property tax relief programs-including homestead rebates, the senior citizen property tax freeze and the income tax write-off for property taxes-would be folded into a property tax credit that would be deducted directly from homeowners' property tax bills, as proposed by the Legislature's Property Tax Study Commission three years ago.

Daggett's tax reform plan would extend the existing 7 percent sales tax to a wide range of personal, professional and household services, including services provided to individuals by professionals such as lawyers, accountants and architects. The sales tax extension would not include business-to-business services. The expansion would add $3.9 billion in tax revenue.

---snip---

A key element of the tax overhaul is designed to make New Jersey more competitive with other states by reducing corporate and income tax rates. The plan funds the reduction of the top income tax rate from the current 10.75 percent to 8.97 percent, which drops New Jersey's top rate from third-highest to seventh-highest in the nation. The 10.25 percent and 8 percent brackets also return to the previous levels of 8.97 percent on income over $500,000 and 6.37 percent over $75,000.

New Jersey's corporate income tax rate will also be reduced under Daggett's plan. The top rate would drop from 9.36 percent (the statutory 9 percent rate plus a 4 percent surcharge) to 7 percent,

The issues with this are, in a nutshell:

  • The sales tax is inherently regressive - that is, it impacts lower and middle income families more than it does for higher income families.  This is because most things (even though NJ exempts a lot of goods that would be paid for by lower and middle income families) subject to sales tax are paid at a higher percentage of income by lower and middle income families.   If you are interested, here is a good write up on the federal "fair tax" that discusses how a flat sales tax is skewed.
  • The reduction in the top income tax rate is obviously designed to help those in the upper income levels, and there will not be one penny of savings to lower and middle income families.
  • The reduction in the corporate tax rate will also not be beneficial to lower and middle income families, and no, this won't mean more jobs for people in NJ.  The whole "trickle down theory" is a load of crap and we haven't seen any real job growth opportunities from reduced corporate income taxes.  Witness how many Fortune 1000 companies in the US don't pay any corporate income tax on their income and they still give huge perks to top execs at the expense of ever widening wage gaps.
  • While somewhat controversial, the plan will eliminate the $1.6 billion rebate program - which is for the lower to middle income families currently.

Now, some of the items that will be subject to sales tax will not be borne by NJ residents, and some of these taxes will be borne by higher income earners.  However, the property tax break and reduction still doesn't (as far as I know) address the REASON for the high property taxes and the services that will be cut from such a reduction.

Unless the overall system is changed, this seems to be no more than an elaborate shell game of reducing taxes on a much larger scale for those who can afford it most, while being at best (relatively) neutral for those who need the break the most.

That being said, at least it is a plan, and that is more than we can say for Christie, who just yesterday promised Neil Cavuto that he would not raise any taxes ever.  And give everyone free chocolate, bunnies and have New Jersey in a permanent sunny day with rainbows.

Adam L aka clammyc :: Daggett's tax plan. Thoughts from a "tax guy"
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Typical Republican plan (3.00 / 2)
The only taxed "expanded" is the regressive sales tax.  The wealthy and corporations get tax cuts.  Whoppie!

Nothing can be done about property taxes as long as New Jerseyans hold onto home rule for dear life.  Any politician who says property taxes can be controlled without consolidation is simply not telling the truth.


very true (4.00 / 1)
Jason and I had this very discussion last night on the Blue Jersey Radio show - although I tried to stay away from too tax technical and bore everyone....

I'd be more impressed if it addressed the fundamental underlying issue as opposed to shifting from rebates and increasing the sales tax without reducing the budget gap.

Or even addressed one of the two.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


[ Parent ]
They always come after us, the towns (4.00 / 3)
Dem, Repub or Independent.  One thing anyone at the state level seems to agree on is, punish the towns.  As if we are the ones who are flush with cash.  More caps.  

A cap from the state level mandated on the local level is an easy way of saying ' you, lower property taxes' with a ten-foot pole.

But not having to name the departments and services you are going to cut.  

Pick up less garbage?  (we already pick up at the curb)

Understaff police departments?

Cut library hours and staff

Cut park clean up?

Not fix roads?

Raise building permit, park fees, etc? All of which hurt middle class.

While we always look at our budgets for maximum efficency, a cap does not help with those choices - its so easy for the state to push a cap down.  The fact that the Independent candidate, whose one virtue would be he can say anything he wants, would choose the easy way out is dissapointing.

The expansion of sales tax to services is interesting, but not enough $ there to solve the problem alone.  And it would also hit middle-class.  While corporations hire architects and lawyers, so do average folks when they need to expand their homes or do a will.  


Isn't education the biggest... (0.00 / 0)
piece of the property tax pie?

The spineless at the state level like the local caps because it allows them to say they are addressing the issue while at the same time telling the education establishment that they are not constraining their budgets.

If you want to seriously control property taxes, you have to eliminate about 545 superintendents and their staffs, implement a county system of distircts, and develop state compensation guidelines.


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai


[ Parent ]
yes, about 60% on average (4.00 / 1)
And there might very well be more of an argument at the education level about consolidation.  But a limited argument.

I think at the town level its only the very small towns where you will see any savings from consolidations...even there someone would have to really do the P&L.  A loss of a small-town volunteer fire department and replacement with increased coverage load by a consolidated paid fire department may erase any savings, for instance.  Ditto for ambulance.  We've got a great volunteer ambulence in Bergenfield.  Because their labor is volunteer, it shows up on no balance sheet.  

I still think we are talking pennies.  Even at the schools...let's say there is 545 school supers and we get that down to 100 districts.  That would be huge and a lot of pain caused.  So you've saved maybe $60 million dollars. (figure 150K for these supers) Good savings, but not enough  - about the cost of one or two school system budgets.   Okay, let's throw in business managers and assistant supers at these school systems...maybe i'll give you $150 million - from a five fold reduction in school systems.  Newark's school budget is over 900 million.

Pensions, salaries, health benefits are big costs and most cannot be changed at the local level.  We have one weapon - firing people.  Which of course we hate to use.   Otherwise the rules of how you handle hired people is  dictated by the state.  

At the town level, there is already silent shared services - most of our volunteer fire departments have mutual aid so they help each other out with calls.  DPWs work together but do not throw a parade everytime they do a shared service.

When all this is doine, when we admit that possibly in NJ there is waste and things cost more than they should, it still comes down to paying for good school employees, good roads, good protection from crime etc.  


[ Parent ]
But that the point... (0.00 / 0)
Newark's budget is an aberration.

What I'm advocating is a benchmark system. The administrative costs in Abbot districts are TWICE what they are in non-Abbots. There is waste there becuase they have the money to waste.

What I'd like to see is a study done to determine the optimum size for administrative staff, teachers, and salaries, for a given student popluation, and then apply that across all districts.

For a real picture of the savings potential, you can multiply the student populations in the Abbots (the worst offenders) who I'm guessing spend 20k per student (I've seen figures as high at 25k)... and assume they will be spending at the 'benchmark' level, (whatever that is), which I'm guessing is somewhere around 13k to 16k.  I'm betting that generates the significant savings we are looking for...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai


[ Parent ]
no doubt that Abbot (0.00 / 0)
brings up a whole side of the NJ property tax story.  All school districts pay in effect because state aid is diverted disproportionately to those systems, even where there are low-income and working-class homeowners in other towns.
When state aid goes down, property tax burdens go up.  So a progressive tax is divered and a regressive tax goes up.

And it's no Robin Hood story, as the burden is borne not by some corporate tax or tax on millionaires but a tax on homes - whether the person in the home is a senior, handicapped, unemployed, low income.

I would agree that an Abbott change would bring new dollars into all systems and would probably get to the numbers where one would actually see it on the property tax bill.  It's not guaranteed, as it still requires the state legislators to use all of those diverted funds for school aid, instead of other projects.  

If you are arguing that a statewide consolidation of school systems would automatically negate Abbot, that would be interesting.  A court would probably have to agree.  I'm operating on the assumption that we are with Abbott for some time and then the only question is - do we consolidate the school systems or not.   In that regard, the Newark school system is brought up just to compare size of one school budget to the savings from eliminating supers.  still take a non-abbott school,

Both consolidation and Abbot are examples of changes that need to be on the state level, and in the face of giant changes legislators are ducking, givng a town a cap and saying you solve the problem, seems a pretty unfair punishment.


[ Parent ]
Apples and well, pears (0.00 / 0)
Abbott districts have good reason to spend more on social workers, parent liaisons, probably child study teams, etc. per pupil than more affluent districts. Which also means at least some more administrators as well. Not as much as they do spend, I'd be willing to bet, but one size does not fit all.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
with that to an extent... I'm just saying that it's gotten way skewed at this point and needs to be corrected to a degree (or two)

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

[ Parent ]
its always the same (0.00 / 0)
don't raise taxes, don't cut services.

people want it all and have absolutely no concept that taxes pay for essential services.  No snow removal in the winter?  no salted roads, making things less safe?

You are so right.  

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


[ Parent ]
Tax Analysis in Bergen Record (4.00 / 1)
Analysis shows NJ's total tax structure is lower than the national average.  Focus on property tax distorts total tax burden.

http://www.northjersey.com/new...

Rousseau: Study misrepresents New Jersey's tax burden
Thursday, October 1, 2009
BY R. DAVID ROUSSEAU
NorthJersey.com
R. David Rousseau is New Jersey State Treasurer. Send comments about this article to Peter Grad, Op-Ed Page editor, at grad@northjersey.com.


great post (0.00 / 0)
and also there's quality.  Our schools are better than a lot of states.  I don't like to knock states, but we know there are other places that if the kids went to NJ they'd have to go back a year.

Do any of the 'tax' studies show for instance virtue of sewer vs. septic tank.   Sewer breaks town pays septic breaks you pay big.    


[ Parent ]
Just give the towns (2.00 / 1)
the money they pay into state income tax  It belongs to the residents of that town ! ! That tax was started to finance EACH and every towns schools ! for a towns taxpayers to pay 2 million in state income tax ans only get back 300K in "aid " is obscene ! this is not the way the tax was set up !  

or (0.00 / 0)
why not do something about the 62 cents (last in the nation) that NJ gets back for every dollar we send to the Federal government?

We can allocate some of that towards property taxes or towards the budget.

As is, this state funds every other state but Reps like Garrett like to brag that they don't bring anything back to their consitituents.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.


[ Parent ]
I wonder... (0.00 / 0)
if someone has done an analysis on why the congressional delegation isn't "bringing home the bacon," so to speak. Is it the House members or the Senators that are dropping the ball? Not that I'm for just wasteful spending or appropriations for the sake of saying you got some, but they could be legitimately used to defray the costs that towns/counties and the state are paying right now. I always thought Lautenberg was known for bringing it home; Menendez being head of the DSCC should provide him with some pull for funding as well.

I sense it's the ~half of our delegation that are Republicans who pride themselves on NOT participating in government, who then come home and bitch that we don't get our tax dollars back. /sigh  


[ Parent ]
While... (4.00 / 1)
maybe we shouldn't be LAST in recieving federal funds... defintely with our income level in NJ, we should probably be bottom 3... that's the nature of a progressive tax system...

I don't give that argument that the Senators/Representatives  aren't working hard enough for us much weight.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai


[ Parent ]
then you clearly don't live in NJ-5 (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Used to... (3.00 / 1)
now I'm Rosi's neighbor in Flemington with Lance... (see I'm moving to center politically and voting district wise)

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
The tax was enacted in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidating the funding of schools based solely on local taxation.  Obviously, the wealthier towns get back less than their residents put in.  That's the way it was set up.

[ Parent ]
I'd focus on sales tax myself (0.00 / 0)
give towns a half-point on the sales taxes collected in the town.

But I'd go for anything reasonable that reduces the reggressive tax and increases the progressive one.  [note i include our sales tax as progressive because it excludes needed items]  


[ Parent ]
I wouldn't penalize residential towns that way. (0.00 / 0)
An local income tax surcharge, as I paid in Maryland when I briefly lived there over 20 years ago, would be much better.

[ Parent ]
It might help Paramus more than Pomona (0.00 / 0)
but most residential still has some commercial - the taxable sales from health or beuaty a deli or grocery might be enough to fund crossing guards.  So long as it doesn't come at the expense of other aid fine.

I would also go along with a income tax...anything that goes from regressive to progressive is fine with me.  


[ Parent ]
ADVERTISEMENT
Featured Stories

Blue Jersey Radio

The Voice of NJ Politics
» Next show: Tues. @ 8:00p
» Hosts: Jeff Gardner & Jay Lassiter
» Call in: (646) 652-2773
» iTunes Subscribe | Archives



Connect with
Blue Jersey

Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials

 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 Bill Orr
 bytheshore73
 Hopeful
 Jay Lassiter
 Jeff Gardner
 Scott Weingart
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 Vincent Solomeno
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll

» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Barista of Bloomfield Ave
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Fresh Jersey (Mike Kelly)
» Garden State Grapevine
» Gloucester City News
» Green Jersey
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» The Inside Clamdigger
» Jersey Blogs
» Jersey Jazz Man
» Lassiter Space
» Latinos NJ
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons

» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search










Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.



Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.






Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
6416 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.