NJ Cancels Property Tax Rebates (real estate market, credit, loans)

[doc1]

Originally Posted by pfwnj

........ You aren't paying taxes for services. You are paying taxes in order to placate the masses and prevent the creation of an impoverished, destitute and angry underclass with nothing better to do than storm the Bastille. Ransom, basically. But you can pay with money or pay with riots, and riots are probably worse for your house than a high tax bill ever will be.

Why aren't they rioting in the lower tax states? They also have those that choose to live by their own rules, don't value education, have birth after birth with no concern to raising their children.

The fact is Newark, Camden etc only pay 5-7% of the cost of running their domains.

And in return they don't riot and destroy? That's it?

Guess that's why people are leaving in droves to where the extortion and corrution costs a lot less.

The radio the other day stated Camden spends $31,000 per student.

The suburbs should be rioting and storming the Bastille but we're too busy working, managing families and raising our children.

[mike0421]

I love how it was slipped into the article that in addition to the cancellation of the rebate, income taxes will rise once again. The threshold has been lowered to 400k a year. The 'millionaire's' tax is now down to 400k. How long before it is lowered once again?

See, that doesn't really move the masses, in fact, many in NJ will say along the lines of "Yeah, get them rich folk!". That little move in the tax bracket won't cost Corzine any more unpopularity (in fact, in the twisted, perverted NJ mentality, he might gain approval points) but it should cost him his job. After all, the income tax was initially signed into law in 1976, with the intent of alleviating the property tax burden. It has gone up progressively, but slowly. The RPMs on the treadmill are turned up by just a half mile an hour every few minutes, instead of 4 or 5 miles an hour, but guess what: you are still running much harder. And you are all paying much more in state income taxes since 1976. Have your property taxes stablized in the last 30 + years as a result? No, they've skyrocketed too. In fact, the rebate has been cancelled altogether, and income taxes are going up again. The sales tax was even raised not so long ago (under Corzine's watch), with the increase aimed at alleviating the property tax burden. That didn't work either. Nothing works. There is a hole in the bucket, and it is pretty clear to me, anyway, where that hole is. And that's why I had to get the hell out of NJ. It really pains me, because reading some of the news coming out of Trenton is like watching a loved one die in a hospital slowly, and you know there is nothing you can do about it. That's what is happening to my former state.

Evidently, though, misery doesn't have a monopoly stranglehold in the Garden State. It's getting so bad in California that even the liberal Democrats there rejected all 5 ballot measures for various goodies, such as mental health budgets "rainy day funds" and child services funding, in all 58 counties. This is what happens when you elect mediocrity, and you couple it with a sizeable permanent underclass and a burgeoning public sector payroll. It's unsustainable.

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by pfwnj

And even that might not work out so hot. Our major cities have issues now. Imagine what happens when the underclasses stop getting their anti-revolution subsidies (ie welfare). It's great to imagine some magical world where everything is privatized and your taxes go down, but that ignores the social realities of the state. You aren't paying taxes for services. You are paying taxes in order to placate the masses and prevent the creation of an impoverished, destitute and angry underclass with nothing better to do than storm the Bastille. Ransom, basically. But you can pay with money or pay with riots, and riots are probably worse for your house than a high tax bill ever will be.

Who are these masses that we need to placate?

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

A good analogy would be shock absorbers. A "true" free market puts steel wheels onto the road surface. You need some soet of regulation to give you tires and shocks, a sort of buffer and dampening system to prevent any damaging shocks you will experience when hitting those potholes in the road.

Why do you need regulation?

The other thing "Free" market does is place an unfair advantage in the hands of those that own the most. People may say that that is only fair, if you own it you should decide what is done with it. Until you start looking at how that cam be manipulated to mke it so noone else has a chance to own it but you and your family. When the people that have make the rules, a good majority is not going to be so magnanimous as to allow other people to take what they have.

The free market is an environment where individuals make willing transactions. You can't take advantage of me if I don't agree to it. Either I like the deal you are proposing to me or I don't. That's the fairest way to do it. Not to steal from some to give to others.

Sadly, this goes one step further. The team that spends the most money has won the most games and the most championships. The NY Yankees. he only one that comes close is the Red Socks, #2 on the spending chart.

What does that tell us? That although the feild itself may be even, the players on it are often determined by how much money you have to spend on them.

They also generate the most revenue. They deserve to spend more. They've earned it.

The difficult thing is writing rules that are able to be applied unilaterally with little room for alternate interpretations and manipulation. Even the best rules have been used to leverage an advantage of one individual over another.

Exactly. Politicians aren't deities - their laws have unintended consequences and inefficiencies that make us worse off. Well, unless you are part of the special interest group that unfairly benefits. Then, it's cool.

They did not take out all the rules, they just took away the limits. They took out the parking brake, the drag chute and removed any speed limits down the open road.

What?

Unfortunately this "trust" we gave to corporate america was rewarded with unbridled investments in speculative "assets" and a general obfuscation of where any of these commodities were coming from and what they were comprised of. We basically had the equivalent of bacon-wrapped deep fried poo put on our plates and told it was something entirely different by the finanial ratings companies.

Sometimes it isn't even the absolute restrictions that are the main problems, but the buffering regulations that do not allow such rapid financial changes. Without those buffers things get crazy and we end up jumping the curbs that were only made for a more regulated environment.

We got into this mess because government got too cozy with corporations. This created investments with way too much risk that blew up in our face. The answer is not more government. They don't know what they are doing. And the corporations that don't know what they are doing should go out of business, not be bailed out.

I am not betting either way with that. I respect what he is doing, and trying, but h is just one branch of the government and he also needs to play by the rules of the game. He can't come in and wave a magic wand and make everything all right, and he steill has Reed, Pelosi and a whole host of other politicians (in all fairness, on both sides) grabbing for what they can get and complaining about things that make almost NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the overall budget.

What was the whole earmark thing on the bailout bill? If I remember right, even when you took all of them (and assumed all of them were bad) the % was still so small it would not ake any difference whatsoever if removed.

But that is what we got caught up on instead of just trying to hold companies like GM and AIG responsible for the monies we would be giveing them.

This is very ironic becaue you are focusing on the tiny % of funds going to AIG bonuses when you're ignoring the tens of billions that were given to bail out failed businesses. Obama's crony corporatism is making things worse not better

[block911]

Originally Posted by The Michigan Man

Who are these masses that we need to placate?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...trenton600.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/ny...rty.html?fta=y




http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_imp...%20protest.JPG

http://images.townnews.com/trentonia...d251088494.jpg

https://www.workersunitednynj.org/fi...blication2.jpg

[doc1]

Originally Posted by block911

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_imp...%20protest.JPG

They can always put their skills and ambitions to work in the private sector if the public sector is too much to handle.

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by block911

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_imp...%20protest.JPG

http://images.townnews.com/trentonia...d251088494.jpg

Kidding me right? I'm worried about these people? Get your own money.

[block911]

Originally Posted by doc1

They can always put their skills and ambitions to work in the private sector if the public sector is too much to handle.

but they want to be guaranteed jobs even when they are slow and old

[doc1]

Originally Posted by block911

but they want to be guaranteed jobs even when they are slow and old

Politicians can't guarantee jack sh**. Especially in the real world of economics, markets and finance.

They only promise that they can and too many lap it up.

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by pfwnj

We have a ways to go before we hit anything like bankruptcy. Look at California - they are completely and utterly broke, underwater, bankrupt and somehow they keep stumbling forward. There's even talk of having a new state constitutional convention because their politics are so systemically screwed up. There's no federal rescue in the offing and even if there was it wouldn't be like a private bankruptcy where they force the state to act in a certain way. They'd just hand over the money because they wouldn't want to lose voters from that state.

NJ has all the same problems in a much smaller scale and a few years lag time. The only way it's going to get fixed is if the citizenry revolts, and everyone is too busy getting foreclosed on and/or paying off the loan on their 100" television to bother with good governance. It doesn't matter who is in office and never will - not until we elect a third party candidate who's sole duty is to balance the budget with spending cuts. Any mainstream candidate will quickly bow to the realities of being a mainstream candidate. The only hope is in some outsider who doesn't give a crap about his/her own future and is willing to sacrifice themselves on the altar of NJ's selfish stupidity.

And even that might not work out so hot. Our major cities have issues now. Imagine what happens when the underclasses stop getting their anti-revolution subsidies (ie welfare). It's great to imagine some magical world where everything is privatized and your taxes go down, but that ignores the social realities of the state. You aren't paying taxes for services. You are paying taxes in order to placate the masses and prevent the creation of an impoverished, destitute and angry underclass with nothing better to do than storm the Bastille. Ransom, basically. But you can pay with money or pay with riots, and riots are probably worse for your house than a high tax bill ever will be.

When the feds bailed out nyc in the 70's, they made them cut back municipal spending substantially.