Are new Jersey property taxes High all around, do the wealthy pay the same rate as most jerseyans (Newark: middle-class, city hall)

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by luckyshoes

But that's not the same thing at all -- and putting it that way perpetuates the myth that the Abbott districts are the reason your property taxes are high (the real reasons are (1) the prevailing system is very inefficient, and (2) running a good school isn't terribly cheap if when you do administer it efficiently) Yes, one of the reasons property taxes are as high as they are is because many towns get negligible state aid, in addition to the others that you mention. Then this is compounded by state income tax which goes to the Abbott districts. So many families get screwed coming and going.

The idea that more "state aid" is a solution, is completely wrong headed, for a number of reasons:

(1) If you expect the towns to provide education services, then it's hardly reasonable to complain that they are part of your town (not state) budget.

(2) Towns spend state aid inefficiently. This is a classic example of the inefficiency of spending someone else's money. I read (can dig up a link if you're interested) that you get back about 50c on your dollar for those tax rebates.

About Abbott district funding: high income earners shoulder most of the income tax burden. Property tax hits middle class harder than income tax (because their schools don't cost that much less to operate than schools in upscale districts). So having the Abbott districts funded by income tax is very different to having them funded by property tax. I think it's pretty misleading to confuse the two things, and I don't think the Abbott districts are really soaking the middle class (again, inefficiency and the fact it's expensive to provide good schools anyway, are the main issues)

[luckyshoes]

Originally Posted by elflord1973

(1) If you expect the towns to provide education services, then it's hardly reasonable to complain that they are part of your town (not state) budget.

(2) Towns spend state aid inefficiently. This is a classic example of the inefficiency of spending someone else's money. I read (can dig up a link if you're interested) that you get back about 50c on your dollar for those tax rebates.

About Abbott district funding: high income earners shoulder most of the income tax burden. Property tax hits middle class harder than income tax (because their schools don't cost that much less to operate than schools in upscale districts). So having the Abbott districts funded by income tax is very different to having them funded by property tax. I think it's pretty misleading to confuse the two things, and I don't think the Abbott districts are really soaking the middle class (again, inefficiency and the fact it's expensive to provide good schools anyway, are the main issues)

When did I ever say the Abbott districts were funded by property taxes???? That's precisely my point. I would have no problem if all of the towns were either funded with state money or property taxes.

But right now you have some of the towns funding both the Abbott districts via income tax AND funding their own districts with property taxes.

As far as spending any state aid efficiently. I'm sure the Abbott districts are spending all of their state aid with high efficiency and getting great results back, right?

Sigh.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by luckyshoes

When did I ever say the Abbott districts were funded by property taxes???? That's precisely my point.

You wrote:

Middle and upper class towns are already paying major bucks into the state to help fund the Abbott districts

This is misleading at best. The towns don't send money to the state. The state collect money in income and sales taxes from residents of the state. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but the above reads as though the local governments send money to the Abbott districts which is patent nonsense.

But right now you have some of the towns funding both the Abbott districts via income tax AND funding their own districts with property taxes.

Exactly. But as ugly as this is, it keeps everyone happy, or at least pacified. The right wing "keep the bums out" crowd are happy because, well, they can "keep the bums out". Then the left implement a kind of Marxist solution to the problem, and buy out the unions.

As far as spending any state aid efficiently. I'm sure the Abbott districts are spending all of their state aid with high efficiency and getting great results back, right?

Hey, I'm one of the few people here who is not for the current system. I'll leave defending the Abbott system as an exercise for those who advocate the status-quo.

The Abbott system is terrible, it's basically a Marxist solution to the problem. It is entirely redistributive in nature and completely ignores serious questions about incentives (which any serious economist would need to consider).

However, the existing system takes pretty much all options besides heavy handed redistribution off the table as far as helping the poor is concerned. Which is unfortunate, because it's a horribly inefficient approach.

As I outlined in my other post, I'd prefer a system where poor people have the opportunity (but not the "right") to enroll in good schools.

There are a number of ways to facilitate this -- let schools select the students, let students select schools (not necessarily complete open enrollment, but definitely a move towards more choice)

[luckyshoes]

I should have been more clear, I meant people in certain towns are paying both ways.

I agree, the current system keeps people pacified because at least they get to pick an insulated school district via what house they can afford. The price is financial, in paying both ways, with state income tax of which hardly any comes back in state education aid, and with their property taxes.

I'll take this flawed system over a system where all of the money goes into the state coffers and gets doled out.

[FBone]

Are property taxes in Abbott Districts really lower than most other towns?

[luckyshoes]

Originally Posted by FBone

Are property taxes in Abbott Districts really lower than most other towns?

Yes.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by luckyshoes

Yes.

what are the numbers (and where did you get them) ?

At a quick glance at some listings in Newark for example, taxes on houses around listed at 200k are in the 3k to 5k range. 5k is about 2.5% -- that's on the high end. 3k is about 1.5% of price -- comparable to Summit and Livingston's tax rate.

[luckyshoes]

I'm just going to use Garfield, an Abbott district, and Bogota, a middle class town also in Southern Bergen County that is not an Abbott district, in a comparison.

Bogota spends 12K per student, with 75% coming from local sources (prop tax), and roughly 25% coming from the state.

Garfield spends 14K per student, with only 29% coming from local sources (prop tax) and 65% coming from the state.

So, if Garfield wasn't getting all of that state aid, wouldn't their property taxes be much higher? And if Bogota got more state aid, wouldn't their property taxes be lower? Of course.

It's a fact that roughly 55-60% of all state school aid goes to the 31 Abbott districts, out of a total of about 600 districts in the entire state. To be fair, in student numbers, this means that 60% of state aid goes to only 20% of the students in the state.

Defenders of Abbott say that because the property values are lower in these districts, they can't collect the same level of property taxes, hence the need for enormous amounts of state aid. However, in non-Abbott districts, the town is just given the bill, created by all the state mandates, a paltry amount of state aid, and told to go raise the property taxes as needed to pay for it.

This is how you end up with a house in Southern Bergen County paying 14K property taxes on a 250K house. So even comparing that to your Newark number, you can see the difference very clearly.

In fact, as you've already stated, it's not the wealthy districts that suffer, they have the money and can pay the property taxes. It's the towns in the middle, that are solidly middle class yet not Abbott, that really carry the burden.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by luckyshoes

I'm just going to use Garfield, an Abbott district, and Bogota, a middle class town also in Southern Bergen County that is not an Abbott district, in a comparison.

Bogota spends 12K per student, with 75% coming from local sources (prop tax), and roughly 25% coming from the state.

Garfield spends 14K per student, with only 29% coming from local sources (prop tax) and 65% coming from the state.

So, if Garfield wasn't getting all of that state aid, wouldn't their property taxes be much higher? And if Bogota got more state aid, wouldn't their property taxes be lower? Of course.

The question that I was hoping that you would address, is, what are the property taxes as a percentage of market value ?

This is how you end up with a house in Southern Bergen County paying 14K property taxes on a 250K house. So even comparing that to your Newark number, you can see the difference very clearly.

What is this town in Southern Bergen county where property taxes are this high ? What is the property tax rate in terms of assessed value and market price ?

[tech2enable]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

What's the difference?
If you pay X on a 2 million dollar home in montclair and you pay half X on a two million dollar home in Alpine, who cares if the nominal figure is a lot to someone who has a $300,000 house in another town?

I am trying to understand what are you trying to state by nominal figure, I am talking about percentage of market value of the house, of course NJ property taxes as percentage of income and dollar amount add to, however the first figure does matter , I'll tell you why if you need to, but please state what you by "Who cares about the nominal figure"