NJ Cancels Property Tax Rebates

[MPBsr]

Originally Posted by gradstudent77

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

Corslime's cut back only works one way...we cut back, they take more.

[sholden]

Originally Posted by Delphi

NJ increased the sale tax by 16% to pay for the rebate. Now rebate is gone, but tax remains. What is next to increase?

That's always the way, and certainly not specific to NJ.

Back the late 80s I remember a 3x3 fuel levy being introduced (not even in America). Which was 3 cents a liter levy on gas for 3 years to fund road works. 10 years later it was still going and still called 3x3...

Then it was removed. And at the same time the general fuel excise increased the same amount

Once they add a tax, it's never going away - unless they trade it for something at least as large.

It's like cancer, forever growing.

[pfwnj]

gradstudent: NYC is a city. It doesn't have electoral votes. Bailing out something like a state, with all the political implications involved, means that it's probably wishful thinking that the federal government would impose restrictions that made whoever was in power unpopular. Maybe I'm wrong here and when California's government collapses Obama or whoever is in power at the time will force it to adopt policies that are unpopular in California, but given the underhanded stuff already done to gain those votes it seems unlikely.

doc1: Low tax states tend to have always been low tax, and therefore low spending, so the federal government has stepped in with social programs like welfare. This means that the whole placate the masses effect has largely been a function of federal action rather than state action, and that has become the status quo. NJ, incidentally, is not much different in this regard, except that we have added programs on top of that. I admit that I'm not sure how much of it is state driven, and the budget documents on the state's website seem written to deliberately hide such information rather than make it clear. The point is that when you change the status quo, people get angry. If the change of said status quo takes away someone's lifeline, they get very angry. If they believe there to be no other options, then you get social instability.

The point is not that there's a 1:1 correspondence between state social spending and happy poor people. It's that welfare spending helps take the edge off poverty, which helps prevent the creation of dangerous social stresses. I mean this logic goes clear back to Bismarck - do the minimum necessary to prevent revolution and maintain some level of productivity.

The Michigan Man: The masses encompasses everyone who might become destitute enough to kill you for money. Right now those that exist are kept in check with social spending and policing. If that class were to expand or have its social lifeline removed, that equilibrium might be upset. Preventing the creation of, or placating the existing teeming masses of poor people is typically a goal of the state, if only to prevent threats to that state's survival. See Otto von Bismarck. I am in no way claiming that NJ has to maintain its current level of spending in order to maintain social stability. Plenty of dross can be cut, political suicide though that might be for the cutter. But I am pointing out that a totally privatized Objectivist paradise would quickly experience a revolution of some kind as all the starving people realized that had no other choice if they wanted to eat.

[Ninjahedge]

This is very ironic becaue you are focusing on the tiny % of funds going to AIG bonuses

Please do not twist my words. Please show me where I said "bonuses" in my comment.

You are taking other peoples arguments and merging them with mine to try and refute what I have been saying by simple association discreditation rather than actually addressing it.

BTW, all financial systems need shock absorbers. They were removed on things like the real estate market (loans) and look what happened. Saying that you cannot "force" someone to invest where they do not want is not a very valid statement and you know it.

If nobody invests where they do not want to and everything works fine, why are we in such a pickle now?

At teh VERY least we need to start sepeating these markets and funds so that a collapse of hedge funds will not threaten every other facet of our economy.

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by pfwnj

gradstudent: NYC is a city. It doesn't have electoral votes. Bailing out something like a state, with all the political implications involved, means that it's probably wishful thinking that the federal government would impose restrictions that made whoever was in power unpopular. Maybe I'm wrong here and when California's government collapses Obama or whoever is in power at the time will force it to adopt policies that are unpopular in California, but given the underhanded stuff already done to gain those votes it seems unlikely.

That's an interesting point that I did not consider. However, NJ is a pretty solidly blue state, at least for presidential elections, and I can't see a majority of voters in this state voting for a republican no matter what a democratic president/congress do. If a NJ bankruptcy would play out the way you think it would, then the feds are creating a moral hazard for the state because it would be rational to spend until we are bankrupt at which point we simply get bailed out so we can start spending aggressively again.

[onegreatnurse]

Ok so what's the verdict...definitely no rebates for 2009??

[JERSEY MAN]

It's amazing that my neighbor who's worth in the vicinity of 5 million and owns a large printing firm get's to keep the rebate because he's a senior and the other middle class stiffs who work daily don't. Only in Jersey.

[njguy]

Originally Posted by onegreatnurse

Ok so what's the verdict...definitely no rebates for 2009??

I'm CALIGULA: You have heard Corslime, he has convicted himself out of his own mouth! What is your (punishment to give him) pleasure?

[JerseyG]

NorthJersey.com: New Jersey property tax rebates cut[/quote]

I'm just wondering, the article wasn't "crystal" clear on this: if you are a senior and pull in over $400K per year you'll still get a rebate?