Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dream on, Craig-D. FYI, the person in New Jersey's house is valued at $550,000, which is about half of the value of my house, at $250,000. Her tax, $19,000+, and mine, $2,400. We are close to the same age and have children who went to school, I presume, in these places. I know nothing about her, but I know my kids had a fine public education, and we also had a 6 figure income, and all public services.
To have a tax levy that high on a house of such relatively modest value (by NJ standards anyway), it means that person lives in a town with a 3.5% tax rate. That's pretty high above the average in the state. My home has a market value of about $850k - 900K (the assessed value is lower), and my taxes are a bit above $19k too. If I had to guess, they're somewhere in Northern, NJ, likely Essex County. The taxes there are crazy even by NJ standards. As for the public education system in Georgia, let's review:
Georgia has the 33rd best public school system in the nation - below the median. It's per student spending is $9,152, 12th smallest. Just 70% of Georgia’s high schoolers graduate on time — the third lowest rate in the country. Georgia school districts spend an average of $9,152 per student annually, 3rd lowest in the nation - about $2,500 less than the average U.S. school district spends per student. Georgia students also perform slightly worse on the math and reading sections of the National Assessment of Educational Progress than the average U.S. student. I'm glad your kids got a good education. Most in Georgia don't.
This debate started when a poster suggested that high taxes are a waste, to which I responded that when they fund education they are not. He held out Texas is an example of a state with low taxes that has schools as good as NJ's, in an attempt to prove that low taxes can produce top schools. He stated the suburbs of north Dallas as an example. The only problems with that premise being that those north Dallas suburbs neither have low taxes, nor do they have schools that would rank any better than average if they were in NJ.
Yes those schools would rank better than average if they were in NJ. Go check any metric you like, from SAT scores to college admissions, etc. Get out of your bubble. And i'm saying this as a person who LIKES many areas of NJ and will probably move to one. But don't be so blind as to think property tax money is being spent wisely or that blindly increasing funding automatically increases education outcomes. That has been debunked.
To have a tax levy that high on a house of such relatively modest value (by NJ standards anyway), it means that person lives in a town with a 3.5% tax rate. That's pretty high above the average in the state. My home has a market value of about $850k - 900K (the assessed value is lower), and my taxes are a bit above $19k too. If I had to guess, they're somewhere in Northern, NJ, likely Essex County. The taxes there are crazy even by NJ standards. As for the public education system in Georgia, let's review:
Georgia has the 33rd best public school system in the nation - below the median. It's per student spending is $9,152, 12th smallest. Just 70% of Georgia’s high schoolers graduate on time — the third lowest rate in the country. Georgia school districts spend an average of $9,152 per student annually, 3rd lowest in the nation - about $2,500 less than the average U.S. school district spends per student. Georgia students also perform slightly worse on the math and reading sections of the National Assessment of Educational Progress than the average U.S. student. I'm glad your kids got a good education. Most in Georgia don't.
Again, who cares about statewide stats when education is LOCAL. I'll keep saying it, EDUCATION IS LOCAL. Do you think kids in Camden benefit from NJs stature as a top education state? NO. And in the good schools in Georgia the opposite is true. Look at NYC, pathetic public schooling but the state stats benefit from having Westchester and Long Island schools pull the overall state rankings up. There are very few city public schools anyone with means would want to send their kid to. So someone at your level of means whether or not in GA or NJ youre going to get your kid a very similar quality education.
yea what are they based on? it justs lists hs graduation, per pupil spending, and preschools. Texas only has 5% lower HS graduation rate. You seriously want people to spend 10k a year to boost the graduation rate by that little?
You're still not reading the material obviously. The rankings list more than graduation rates, per pupil spending, and preschools. It is most notably stating the results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Spending $10k to boost graduation rates may not be worth it, but how about getting the percentages above only a 1/4 of the states' 8th graders proficient in reading and math? That's a shameful result in a 1st world nation.
Again, who cares about statewide stats when education is LOCAL. I'll keep saying it, EDUCATION IS LOCAL. Do you think kids in Camden benefit from NJs stature as a top education state? NO. And in the good schools in Georgia the opposite is true. Look at NYC, pathetic public schooling but the state stats benefit from having Westchester and Long Island schools pull the overall state rankings up. There are very few city public schools anyone with means would want to send their kid to. So someone at your level of means whether or not in GA or NJ youre going to get your kid a very similar quality education.
The thing about NJ, though, especially the obviously much more populated northern NJ, is that the majority of our municipalities are some level of middle class, or higher, towns. We don't have that many "not nice/good" areas or cities, and our cities aren't highly populated or popular. Because we are a state bordering two major cities and are part of their metros, we are full of suburbs with people who work in those cities, or otherwise locally within the state. NJ doesn't have a lot of, if any, truly rural areas like many other states do. Nearly every town has its own school district, with some regional ones out there too. The majority of the state is made up of nice, middle class suburbs. It's a small state that packs a big punch; we already know it's one of the wealthier and more educated states. When you have a state where locally most schools are very good, this obviously "beats" if you will those states that also have locally very good schools but less of them, not in raw numbers but percentage-wise of course.
We don't have large cities or that many rural, less wealthy areas to "drag us down." Most of NJ is a pretty small suburbia - bedroom communities for NYC and to a lesser extent Philly - safe, middle class, and with overall good schools. You would need to move to a "good area" in most other states to find the best schools. In NJ, almost all of the state is that "good area" where you will find good schools and safety, more wealth, more going on/more urban and less rural, etc. People always come here asking for "safety and good schools." Well, those are super easy to find in NJ - the only issue is usually budget and commute time if one needs to be in the city. This is why, like people have been saying, if you can afford it, NJ is not at all a bad place to live.
And it's true that when we say that a district in NJ is "average," it's probably better than similar schools in other states. I don't remember if I said it already here or somewhere else, but someone like Retriever who was a teacher frequently says that when students would move to his district from out of state they were years behind the NJ kids.
It's true that wealthier suburban areas in all states will probably have better schools, but in NJ I think we just have a larger scale of those types of suburbs (which is why our schools as a state are ranked so highly despite poor performers like Camden and Newark which don't drag us down nearly as badly as one would think) because that's basically what this state is. A ton of decent to very nice suburban towns.
You're still not reading the material obviously. The rankings list more than graduation rates, per pupil spending, and preschools. It is most notably stating the results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Spending $10k to boost graduation rates may not be worth it, but how about getting the percentages above only a 1/4 of the states' 8th graders proficient in reading and math? That's a shameful result in a 1st world nation.
In NY it is 31%. Here is Gov Cuomo's report. You will notice a chart that jumps out. Per Student Spending vs Outcomes. IF you find the correlation, you are seeing something that doesnt exist:
The thing about NJ, though, especially the obviously much more populated northern NJ, is that the majority of our municipalities are some level of middle class, or higher, towns. We don't have that many "not nice/good" areas or cities, and our cities aren't highly populated or popular. Because we are a state bordering two major cities and are part of their metros, we are full of suburbs with people who work in those cities, or otherwise locally within the state. NJ doesn't have a lot of, if any, truly rural areas like many other states do. Nearly every town has its own school district, with some regional ones out there too. The majority of the state is made up of nice, middle class suburbs. It's a small state that packs a big punch; we already know it's one of the wealthier and more educated states. When you have a state where locally most schools are very good, this obviously "beats" if you will those states that also have locally very good schools but less of them, not in raw numbers but percentage-wise of course.
We don't have large cities or that many rural, less wealthy areas to "drag us down." Most of NJ is a pretty small suburbia - bedroom communities for NYC and to a lesser extent Philly - safe, middle class, and with overall good schools. You would need to move to a "good area" in most other states to find the best schools. In NJ, almost all of the state is that "good area" where you will find good schools and safety, more wealth, more going on/more urban and less rural, etc. People always come here asking for "safety and good schools." Well, those are super easy to find in NJ - the only issue is usually budget and commute time if one needs to be in the city. This is why, like people have been saying, if you can afford it, NJ is not at all a bad place to live.
And it's true that when we say that a district in NJ is "average," it's probably better than similar schools in other states. I don't remember if I said it already here or somewhere else, but someone like Retriever who was a teacher frequently says that when students would move to his district from out of state they were years behind the NJ kids.
It's true that wealthier suburban areas in all states will probably have better schools, but in NJ I think we just have a larger scale of those types of suburbs (which is why our schools as a state are ranked so highly despite poor performers like Camden and Newark which don't drag us down nearly as badly as one would think) because that's basically what this state is. A ton of decent to very nice suburban towns.
I agree with all of this. NJ has a very good public school system for all of the reasons you mention. And it is a reason I am seriously considering moving my family w two young children there from the NYC boroughs where I am now. But, that does NOT mean that the property tax levels are justified. The premise I'm debating is that property taxes need to be that high for schools to be good. Baloney. There is a ton of waste and there are numerous studies debunking this and show that after a certain level of funding, throwing more money at the "education" problem is not going to be impactful.
Anyway, I said before that there is no strong correlation, at least in Texas, between spending per pupil and results. If you want to limit it to DFW, okay, but they are all around the same range, with DISD even spending more than many better districts surrounding it.
Sorry, apparently I misinterpreted. Anyhow, perhaps the state takes more from the federal government but you have to remember where the federal government get its money from in the first place. If the federal government didn't collect any revenue from member states (not to say it should, because that is a host of other issues) its members, Texas included, could just get the funds directly from its residents without its residents actually pay more in taxes (just changing what level of government the money flows to). Much less for a few handful of states, particularly New Jersey, which unfortunately gets so little from the federal government (much less than it puts in).
Someone held out Texas as a state where people are moving, nothing about education. You then brought education into the conversation.
I thought my statement was qualified with the word Among the state's highest taxes. My bad. Obviously, I don't know the tax rate of every single town in TX - and I'm sure some others than the ones I listed are higher. That said, Dallas and Collin counties have average tax rates around the 2.18 mark, which are among the highest in TX.
I have no idea what you're trying to say in your second paragraph as you appear to be speaking in circles. Suffice it to say, TX can afford to not levy an income tax, because it's heavily reliant on the feds to fund its state gov't instead of funding it itself. States like NJ that pay more into the federal treasury than they get back are subsidizing the governments of states like TX that take more than they contribute.
Lastly, earlier in this thread I made a statement acknowledging that states like TX, FL, and the Carolinas have lesser tax burdens because they have lesser services, schools being an example of said services. Then RonaldusMagnus then came in with his argument about the school ratings of North Texas.
Im happy to say im finally getting out of this state this year. Taxes are a big reason but not the only reason I want out of here. Over $10,000 for a very moderate home in miserable Woodbridge twp.
Im happy to say im finally getting out of this state this year. Taxes are a big reason but not the only reason I want out of here. Over $10,000 for a very moderate home in miserable Woodbridge twp.
But wait, according to Craig D that 10k should buy the kids in Woodbridge a top flight education and some really stellar "services".
*Sits back and watches the entire premise go up in flames*
Last edited by RonaldusMagnus; 01-16-2017 at 07:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
