Are new Jersey property taxes High all around, do the wealthy pay the same rate as most jerseyans (Newark: assessors, new home)

[tech2enable]

Originally Posted by dmccauley

I am not sure where the op currently lives but it almost sounds like your from Florida. Which is where I currently live. I lived in NJ all my life prior to coming here. In Florida you can usually estimate your taxes to be based on 2% of the sales price. This system sucks. I have lived here since 2004 my taxes have fluctuated so many times since I have lived here because its based on the current market value. In 2005 and 2006 when we had the boom My house went up over 150K now with hitting rock bottom its down 225K. The positive about the NJ tax system is its against the law to spot assess someones property, and if the town has not had a reval in years then the old man living on the waterfront property who only paid 50K years ago is pretty much paying nothing. Another thing is each town does set their own tax rate. This tax rate is not only based on the towns budget but the amount of delinquent taxes are added into the budget which drives up the rate. So this pretty much answers your question about the wealthy. Living in a more affluent town more then likely their tax rate is lower because of less delinquent taxes for instance Rumson barely has any and their tax rate is pretty low. Not saying houses are cheap there though

Isn't it the other way around, Florida has amendment one which was strengthened in 2008, doesn't that eliminate your assessed value to no more than 3 percent a year jumping for your primary residence.

Which part of florida you live in , county/city , in your experience is your property tax still 2% of what the house would sell for, that's high in my opinion, I though it was lower, .8% or maybe 1.3% but I am hearing it is going to be increased, any thoughts

[FBone]

Originally Posted by elflord1973

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.

I'd like more info also. From what I see on Data Universe my taxes are very close to neighboring upper middle-class towns.

[luckyshoes]

I'm not sure where this argument is going. I think y'all are saying that as long as people are paying the same percentage of their house value in property taxes, then it is a fair system.

That is not how the system is set up, at all, so that is totally irrelevant to me. As someone pointed out earlier, we can make up a number like 2%, but it just doesn't hold across towns. People in mega-mansions often are not paying 2%, and people in lower-value houses are often paying more. Cost in services don't go up in a upper-income town.

Back to the Garfield/Bogota argument I laid out, Garfield (an Abbott district) would be paying a lot more property tax if they weren't receiving 70% of their school budget from the state.

And Bogota would be paying a lot less if they were receiving more state aid (currently 30% of their budget). This is the unfairness I'm talking about.

Garfield (Abbott): Median home price 364K, avg property tax $6,400
Bogota (non-Abbott): Median home price 340K, avg property tax $7,900

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by luckyshoes

I'm not sure where this argument is going. I think y'all are saying that as long as people are paying the same percentage of their house value in property taxes, then it is a fair system.

No, I'm not discussing "fairness" here. I don't think there's anything "unfair" about one town deciding to spend more on education than another town.

My point is, if you're trying to measure the cost of providing services to each resident, then the average property tax amount is a good measure (revenue per capita would be a better one still)

If you're trying to measure the tax burden on each resident, then 3% really is higher than 2%.

In your example, I'd agree that the Abbott district has relatively (but not exceptionally) low taxes.

Back to the Garfield/Bogota argument I laid out, Garfield (an Abbott district) would be paying a lot more property tax if they weren't receiving 70% of their school budget from the state.

Maybe ... or maybe they would be a little more resourceful if they were spending their own money.

Using state aid is a very wasteful approach.

And Bogota would be paying a lot less if they were receiving more state aid (currently 30% of their budget). This is the unfairness I'm talking about.

Of all the types of "unfairness", I find it very hard to get upset about this one. Sorry. I personally find it much more outrageous that it costs 364K to buy a house in an Abbott district (or people who live in the 340K houses are subsidizing people who live in the place with 364k houses)

I think calling for more state aid for Bogota would completely miss the point.

[FBone]

Originally Posted by luckyshoes

Garfield (Abbott): Median home price 364K, avg property tax $6,400
Bogota (non-Abbott): Median home price 340K, avg property tax $7,900

Most people wouldnt mind paying $1500 a year to stay out of or not send their children to an Abbott district.

[tech2enable]

Originally Posted by FBone

Most people wouldnt mind paying $1500 a year to stay out of or not send their children to an Abbott district.

Unless they send them to private school.

[tech2enable]

Originally Posted by mike0421

A truer post could not have been authored. Your ability to communicate this is much more eloquent, and shorter than what I could have written. But this is NJ in a nutshell, and you are right: it's what the majority of people want. People who pose as tolerant liberals but really want what's best for their kids, but prefer the price of exclusivity through higher property taxes, then use the angle of preferring the higher taxes as a liberal stance, when in reality, it is a conservative one.

A conservative one, not sure , the point is although the tax may be high its not significantly higher than the national average for towns and homes in places like summit, meaning that wealthy individuals are far more likely to bite the bullet so to speak, NJ makes it difficult for the middle class and the upper middle class too, as for the lower middle class probably too, the poor probably get the most subsidies and so on, but even still the whole system is a mess, and new jersey's poor areas are nothing much of improvement although a slight improvement from new construction, cultural and transportation hubs have brought a slightly better economic picture every year since the 80s so to say.

[tech2enable]

Originally Posted by FBone

Most people wouldnt mind paying $1500 a year to stay out of or not send their children to an Abbott district.

I do not believe its about paying ones way out of sending a child to an abbott district, it may more to due about redistriubtion, also don't forget magnet schools, special gifted schools and privates, the nytimes had an article about that too http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/ny...8reportnj.html

[FBone]

Originally Posted by tech2enable

Unless they send them to private school.

But they wouldnt have to use private schools since they live in a higher quality school district/town.

In the example shown with home values the same and the only difference is $1500 more in taxes, I believe most parents would go for the higher property tax town to avoid Abbott District.

[KathyA11]

Originally Posted by USER876

The system sucks in most towns, because new construction gets hammered and they only reassess to "break everyone even" ever 10-20 yrs. A new million dollar home may have 20K taxes, but a home built 30 yrs ago that is worth a million today in the same town may only have 15K taxes or lower.

That's because in NJ, according to the state constitution, homes cannot be reassessed on sale, or whenever the assessor feels like it. Every piece of property must be treated the same.

New structures are assessed at a percentage of the market valuation, depending on what the ratio is (call your local assessor for the current ratio, which is calculated annually based on usable sales -- and not every sale is usable. Sales must qualify as "arm's length" to qualify -- estate sales, sales between family members, sales due to a divorce, sales of government property all do not qualify). If the town's ratio is 50%, then the property will be assessed at 50% of market value.

Revaluations (not reassessments) are ordered by either the County Board of Taxation, or the State of NJ. They're done by outside companies, not the local assessor. This is a huge undertaking, and very stressful for all parties (a taxpayer actually dropped dead in Bayonne's City Hall during the 1990 reval).

One caveat -- if sufficient renovations (with the critical term being renovations -- not repairs. New windows, new roof, siding, gutters -- they're all considered repairs and do not affect the assessment. Turning an attic into living space or adding a bathroom or square footage will) are done to a home, the assessor will reassess the property based on the building permits and an inspection of the property. However, the ratio will still come into play. Some towns (Bayonne is among them) have implemented an exemption on improvements (in Bayonne's case, on one or two-family properties over a certain age, the owner can apply for a 5-year exemption on the added assessment -- the house's assessment remains the same for those 5 years, then is increased to the new assessment at the expiration of the exemption).