Property Tax Misinformation Abounds

property tax 20% scam (0.00 / 0)

Stop talking about reform and keep your eye on the ball!

The " ball" is getting re-elected.

The only thing that counts is the 20% tax credit scam. The Democrats and Republicans will do that last and they will tell you that all is well with property tax and property tax reform.

The rest of the " stuff" is just eyewash.

This tax credit scam only needs another $500 million to get funded. By eliminating the rebate program and by using the portion of last years sales tax Corzine and the " boys" already have $1.5 billion.

Where is the other $500 million?

For 9 months they have been telling everyone who will listen that the State employees have a bloated benefit package. They tell you it is critical to cut that back.

They never tell you " WHY?" it is so critical.( and they never explain the fact that state employees are paid out of State funds NOT property taxes!)

It is so critical to them because if they succeed either through collective bargaining ( unlikely) or by Legislation( likely) to get these employees to pay 10% of their health care costs that 10% "conveniently " will add up to just about a $500 million windfall!

They get this money, put it in this oneshot tax credit program , all get reelected , and the world is back to normal.

The public is happy because they have been convinced that it is the " evil state worker" who is the cause of the property tax problem and their " elected officials" took on this monster and won.

No real reform will ever occur as long as all of us keep drinking the kool-aid provided by Corzine and the other " reformers". 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:51:57 AM CST

I agree (0.00 / 0)

with you that the average state worker is an innocent bystander in this case, but taxes are taxes, spending is spending. When you say state workers aren't paid from property taxes, it carries no wieght. Property taxes are directly effected by state aid, state aid is directly effected by the cost of the state workforce. It's the same.
Again, I'm not advocated picking on the average state worker (I'd pick on the guys with 11 jobs and 6 figure pensions though), but the cost of government has to go down for any reform to work.

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:51:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Appreciate the perspective (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the perspective from someone who has been in the trenches of local government. (I haven't- just an interested transplant from elsewhere.)

I agree with everything you say but I keep wondering: if the problem isn't in 660+ school districts and 560+ towns, and if it isn't pensions (as many on this blog insist that pensions not be touched, presumably not even abuses of the pension system by elected officials) then where is the excess? I'd like to hear more specifics on where reforms can be made.

I think, like you seem to suggest,  it is not in any one sector of the budget but a systemic problem in the way the state is governed. The more I read, though, the murkier the whole issue  seems to get.

---

by: westcoast @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 13:12:40 PM CST

Don't Misunderstand (4.00 / 2)

There are plenty of problems on the local level as well.  I see you commented on my previous post like this one where I suggest we need a top-down reorganization of New Jersey's governmental structure.

This is like most intractable problems in all walks of life -- everyone is to blame, and no one is to blame.  Inertia and just using small patchy solutions to get through the day without a screaming match or a big pain in the ass erupting are the cause of most of these problems.

We need to admit that the 1970s income tax didn't fix the property tax problem because the problem is not property taxes.  We need to admit that gambling in AC didn't fix the property tax problem because the problem is not property taxes. We need to admit that NJ Saver didn't fix the property tax problem because the problem is not property taxes.

The problem is the way we run our governments in New Jersey, from the smallest fire district or school district with no school to the largest city to the state itself.  We step on each others toes, protect our turf, perform the same unnecessary tasks and mistrust each other so much that we won't share and benefit from scale.

The state is broken.  Not property taxes.  Not school funding.  Not state government.  Not pensions.  Not salaries.  Not dual office holding.  The state.

The folks in Trenton are trying to fix the property tax problem, and that's laudable but useless.  Property taxes are a symptom of a portion of the problem we face in New Jersey.  It's time to figure out exactly what is wrong so that we can find a solution before we wind up like AT&T and bought by some state in the Southwest.

---

by: nathanrudy @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 13:59:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (0.00 / 0)

No one except the politicians are objecting to eliminating the abuses of the pension system.  The regular state worker is a law-abiding person working one job, getting one pension, and wants to see the system work. 

What's interesting is that double-dipping was one of the first "tax reforms" that the politicians deleted from the current bills in the Senate. 

-pb.

---

by: princetonblue @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 21:44:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i call on the democrats in trenton (0.00 / 0)

to step up and show some leadership and political courage and either fix this themselves or schedule a constitutional convention.

Jay_Lass on Twitter.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 14:01:47 PM CST

Start at the beginning! (0.00 / 0)

Property tax = local education costs, plain and simple.

Some ideas :

Put school board elections in November.

Do not allow for any " override" of negative school budget votes. If the local voters say no, it is no.

If the State mandates education changes, the State must pay for the changes.

 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 14:07:21 PM CST

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

Half my property taxes are for the local school, the rest is county and the town. 

Do not allow for any " override" of negative school budget votes. If the local voters say no, it is no.

I don't know what this means.  Presumably some budget has to go into effect, or else can a few hundred people (the turnout in my town) shut down the schools?  Really it's strange that the annual school budgets (I'm not talking about a big bond issue to build a new school)  have to be approved by voters. 

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 14:37:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

school budgets (0.00 / 0)

All school budgets are voted on by the people in the district. Those elections are held at times, like some randon tuesday in May. If the people vote the budget down a second budget is then proposed . If they vote that down then the school board can appeal directly to the Education Commissioner whop has the power to override the peoples decision.

Your comment about a few hundred people controlling it all is correct. School budget votes usually get a turnout of about 7% of voters. Therefore 4% of voters control the budget.

 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 16:07:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Even worse ... (0.00 / 0)

Only 3.76 percent is needed to win an election with 7 percent turnout.

Only about 50% of eligible citizens are registered to vote, meaning that the real number of people who determine the result of the school board election is 1.88 percent of eligible voters.

And about 33 percent of the population is not eligible to vote because of age or citizenship, so 1.26 percent of the population determines the results of school elections.

1.26 percent of the population not only sets 60 percent or more (more in my home town) of our property taxes, but also elects the board that hires the superintendent and principles and sets the policies for the district.

***************

---

by: nathanrudy @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 17:38:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

School Elections are Regular (0.00 / 0)

School Elections are held annually on the third Tuesday in April.

The only irregular elections for school are for bond issues, but the annual budget and the board member elections are fixed just like primaries and generals.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:45:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do they vote no? (0.00 / 0)

I'm convinced that there are 2 reasons people vote against school budgets:

1. They have no children at home.  This is short-sighted, but there's not much you can do about it aside from tax reductions for seniors (who, of course, are not the only folks with no children at home).

2. The school budget is the only budget they can vote on, so they vote "no" out of frustration.  That is to say, people are sick of paying taxes for things they don't understand.  If they could vote on county, state, and especially federal budgets, even if that vote were non-binding, they would not feel so powerless and frustrated.

I have met many of these frustrated folks, and I ask them which programs they want to cut and why.  Most of the time I get rightwing talking points, like "get rid of the US Department of Education."  I happen to know something about that agency, and I explain what they do.  No one objects to any of their specific programs; they're all pretty essential, actually, in the context of modern education, and pretty small expenditures.

My point is that we have to do a better job explaining what government does at all levels.  We've lost the link between what people want and how government can provide it.  The right manipulatively pushes the alienation and frustration button, and we have no response. 

Sure there's waste and fraud in the system -- there's waste and fraud in the private sector, even in churches for cryin' out loud.  We should be able to craft and deliver a message that explains what governemtn is for at the same time that we make it clear we will not stand for abuse of the taxpayer.

---

by: jimtobias @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:29:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not that easy to decribe ... (0.00 / 0)

That's part of the problem with how unweildy NJ gov't has become.  Few people have a problem with most of what is done by all levels of government, but the problem is the way we structure it and fund it is ludicrous, unfair and anti-progressive.  Trying to explain why both gov'ts W, X, Y and Z all do program A is a hard sell.

There are far more efficient ways to run gov't in NJ, but it would involve a radical overhaul of the system to save enough money to make it worthwhile.

It would cost billions, probably, to do it but my guess (and it is just a guess) is that we could pull it off in less than five years.

My personal feeling is to have County government take over the bulk of municipal services: police, fire, health, roads, traffic control, parks, courts, schools, etc.  There's really no need to have all the people making $100K in towns with fewer than 50,000 people in them.

If New York City with the same population as New Jersey (both around 8 million) can run one police force, one fire force, one school district, one health dept -- all with divisions, of course -- then each of our counties with an average of less than 500,000 people can surely do it.

Funding for these things should be primarily on a progressive income and business tax that more fairly distributes the burden based on both use (rich use more transportation for their selves and businesses, need police and fire for their bigger and higher-value properties, take advantage of corporate benefits granted by gov't, etc.) and ability to pay.

It's just an idea, and needs work and fleshing out.  But we can't keep going the way we are.

---

by: nathanrudy @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:03:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not convinced... (0.00 / 0)

...that a Constitutional Convention is the only way to ensure real property tax reform.

My primary concern is that a constitutional convention that is conceived by the legislature is going to be constructed in a way that will give the political establishment in this state a significant amount of control over the outcomes of the convention, which is only a good thing if it prevents an otherwise reactionary effort to drastically reduce the responsibilities of our public education system in general and  in particular a commitment to providing a thorough and efficient education to all of the children in New Jersey, including, but not limited to those in the poorest Abbott districts.

What guarantees are there that the participants in a Constitutional Convention are citizens who are both independent of the political establishment and committed to creating the best public education system possible?

I understand that past legislatures and past Governors have failed time and time again to fix this broken system, but I think the primary source of blame here is a citizenry that complains about their government, but fails to engage it in any meaningful way.

Progressives should come together to produce our own solutions to this problem, a Tax Reform Manifesto if you will, and take it to our State Senators and State Assemblypersons.

In the same way that progressives should demand that their State Senators and State Assemblypersons declare a public position on the issue of marriage equality, they should aslo demand a public statement of support or opposition to our Tax Reform Manifesto.

If there was ever a year that the legislature's feet could be held to the fire on any issue, whether it be marriage equality, tax reform, or anything else, this is the year.

The only way that elected officials in NJ are ever willing to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do anyway is because they run the risk of being defeated in a primary or general election if they don't.

I don't believe that there is a single State Senator or State Assemblyperson in this state with the possible exceptions of Loretta Weinberg and Reed Gusciora who are above reproach on this issue.

Our electeds can either be with us or against on this issue, but before they can be either, we need to tell them what they want.

Jon Corzine has already made it abundantly clear that he is not willing to raise income taxes on the rich to create tax fairness for the middle class and working poor.  For this reason alone (as well as his unwillingness to be a champion for marriage equality when given the opportunity), I think that he should have to face a primary challenge from someone who is willing to do the things that are necessary to truly solve the state's fiscal problems.

The same is true for the other 120 electeds in Trenton.  I think that there is a much better chance of moving our electeds to do the things that we elected them to do by threatening their jobs than by allowing them to pass the buck to a Constitutional Convention that may or may not be constructed in a way that ensures real, meaningful, and progressive tax reform.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 18:13:02 PM CST

The original CC bill ... (0.00 / 0)

The bill to make a CC originally required that each legislative district elect two people from the at-large population, and that legislators were not welcome.

There was a limit on campaign spending, and if a candidate could get enough signatures the state would kick in that amount.

The process was: 1) The legislature puts the CC on the ballot for the people to decide whether to have one; 2) that spring there is an election for the conventioneers; 3) they meet and develop a plan based on 2/3 approval; 4) the plan go before the population.

Unless you are going to have quotas on certain types of people, I don't know how you could make it any more fair.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:49:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]