Report says police pay drives up N.J. property taxes (home, school)

[Boompa]

One of the big problems with Public Pensions is the dismal returns available on safe investments. Assume you could get 4% that means actuarial requirements have doubled from when you could get 8%. So the Municipality has to have twice as much in their Pension Plan. Another result of the "low interest" the FED pushes.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by KathyA11

Nope -- in NJ, overtime doesn't count toward your pension. It's based on base salary.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good bashing, right?

im supposed to take what you say as a fact?

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by KathyA11

It's the other way around -- if people make $15/hr in the private sector, they make $10/hr in the public sector. That was always supposedly balanced out by benefits, job security, and being able to work close to home. Unfortunately, the benefits have been whittled away, while the salaries never increased to what the private sector enjoys.

this may be how it works in lalaland but in the real world, that isnt the case for many public vs private jobs. especially for the lower end employees.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by mike0421

Great post.

I always come back to the same conclusion, as BPerone mentions here. There are different ways to run local governments, small scale and large scale. New Jersey is in the minority in this regard, mainly because of historical geography combined with bigoted and prejudiced ulterior motives that led to the bifurcation of many of these towns in the first place. This is the underlying question where the 'rubber really hits the road', when you ask a New Jerseyan if they'd rather have the presence of 'home rule' with all the associated costs, and the perceived higher level of services, or, would they prefer lower taxes and the perceived lower level of services? Sure, most would like the lower taxes, but when faced with the prospect of merging services or annexation as the price for doing so, that's when I find most New Jerseyans prefer to open their wallet and pay more. There is more of a uniqueness to this system of redundant government (much like the full service gas station laws) that seem to make New Jersey just a little different when it comes to comparisons to other states. I waver back and forth on this, because I know deep down that NJ neighborhoods, with their relative human scale characteristics and design are IMO vastly superior to other places I've had the privilege of visiting. I am not so sure, however, if the small spatial boundaries and highly localized governments are the cause.

Very good points, Mike. Just yesterday, our town had a vote on whether or not to approve yet another $10 million for the town's schools, and it was approved with an overwhelming majority. We have a small but vocal minority of people (radical conservatives) in our town who always clamor to cut funding to the school and even to regionalize the school, but the vast majority of the townspeople always vote to keep our school and to fund it, even with our taxes being high as a result.

That is what the people want, so why is it that the people in the minority whine about not getting their way? Our town has always been this way, presumably these people in the minority loved the town enough to move here, so why do they want to change it in a way that will reduce its value? The only reasons are politics and to save a few bucks. But after a while, why don't they realize they are in the minority and always will be and just move to a place that better suits their political and economic sensibilities?

And that's the issue with all of NJ. It is what it is, and it is what it has been historically.

It's kind of like these people out in the Las Vegas area who support the development of the area near Red Rocks... They support developing the area because they'd like to live there; they'd like to live there because it's beautiful and unspoiled. In other words, they want to live in a beautiful, unspoiled place so much that they're willing to spoil it and detract from the beauty by developing it.

The people who want to change NJ into just another midwestern or southern state are doing the same thing, they want to cut off their nose to spite their face.

There are almost no state quite like NJ. The people who don't like how things are in this state have dozens of other states to choose from which will give them more of what they want, but those of us who truly LOVE NJ don't have an option, we need to keep it a state which believes in investing in itself in order to maintain our high level of services and our high salaries and business opportunities.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

No, I'm not.

You say that higher taxes would lower property values. the property values are high, so that either means you are wrong, or that so many other things outbalance the tax burden that people are willing to pay MORE to live here.

It could be that there are factors that correlate with both high property taxes and high housing values. For example, a high GDP in a densely populated area would be associated with both of these things.

The fact that property taxes are high in an area with high property values does not mean that property tax hikes make property values go up.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by KathyA11

Sure they do - it's called the TARP bailout.

They also pick taxpayers' pockets when they give themselves exorbitant salaries and bonuses, then lay off rank and file and outsource their jobs overseas. This results in unemployment benefit payouts, and lowered payroll tax receipts. A lowered standard of living snowballs, and hurts everyone.

I agree that there are certain politically well connected private sector employers who can pick the taxpayers pocket, almost as effortlessly as the government. They are sufficiently well connected that though they aren't the government, the government does their bidding.

However, this opportunity (to pick the taxpayers pocket) is not available to the majority of private sector employers. Your corner store ma-and-pa shop can't do that for example.

In my opinion, no-one (TARP recipients, or union employees) should be grabbing the tax payers wallet. The fact that some bankers did so doesn't make it right for others to do the same. I don't see how you can be against bankers doing this and for government employees doing the same.

[KathyA11]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

im supposed to take what you say as a fact?

Frankly, I don't care whether you do or not. You're not here for a rational discussion -- you're here to bash and call attention to yourself. Attempting to have a rational discussion with you is a waste of phosphors.

Buh-bye, now.

[KathyA11]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

this may be how it works in lalaland but in the real world, that isnt the case for many public vs private jobs. especially for the lower end employees.

Wrong again. You see, I have actual real-world experience in the public sector -- over three decades of it. I know how low the salaries are. But you won't take anything I say as fact, so I'm not continuing this discussion with you. I have important and interesting things to do instead.

[KathyA11]

Originally Posted by elflord1973

In my opinion, no-one (TARP recipients, or union employees) should be grabbing the tax payers wallet. The fact that some bankers did so doesn't make it right for others to do the same. I don't see how you can be against bankers doing this and for government employees doing the same.

Don't twist my words. I responded to one statement you made. Go back and read it instead of attributing statements to me that I never made.

This is a no-head-game free zone. I won't play them with you. Find yourself another opponent.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by KathyA11

Don't twist my words. I responded to one statement you made. Go back and read it instead of attributing statements to me that I never made.

This is a no-head-game free zone. I won't play them with you. Find yourself another opponent.

I should clarify -- when I wrote "I don't see how you can be against bankers doing this and for government employees doing the same." I probably should have written "one" instead of "you" -- I didn't intent to attribute that position to you, though it does read as though I did.

Rather, my intent was to clarify that I oppose picking the tax payers pocket, whether it is the government employees or bankers who do it.