Why the NJ GOP should just give up (Newark: sales, rental)

[VeradoDan]

Paul Mulshine nailed it in today's Star-Ledger! He details how in Michigan (which was facing a similar tax problem as NJ currently is) they retooled their constitution to distribute state money from sales and income taxes equally between cities and suburban areas and essentially solved the state's property tax problems. Here in New Jersey, the two parties AGREE in their refusal to do anything to actually fix the problem.

Some of the details are astounding. This column is a must-read!

Why the Republican Party in New Jersey should just give up | Paul Mulshine - NJ.com

[JerseyG]

Using Michigan as a model ruins it.

[VeradoDan]

Originally Posted by JerseyG

Using Michigan as a model ruins it.

Paul addresses that in the comments section. That state is in ruins because all of the jobs left. That doesn't have much to do with property taxes - they solved that problem there.

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by VeradoDan

Paul addresses that in the comments section. That state is in ruins because all of the jobs left. That doesn't have much to do with property taxes - they solved that problem there.

Michigan being extremely non-business friendly helps contribute to jobs losses.

[DailyJournalist]

This is why I support Chris Daggett.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by VeradoDan

Paul Mulshine nailed it in today's Star-Ledger!

Good god, that guy is a boob.

First, he misdiagnoses the problem. Here are some errors he makes in his explanation of the problem:

• He claims (or cites a claim without comment) that the revenue raising system is "progressive". This is simply incorrect. Property taxes aren't progressive. The less money your household earns, the greater the portion spent on property tax.
• The distribution system isn't really "progressive" either.
• Distributing state money to Abbott districts is not the cause of high property taxes in other districts. This misdiagnoses is critical, because it leads to prescribing the wrong solution.
• The problem is not that "the state" doesn't give enough "aid" to the suburbs. The problem is that the costs are too high.

Now onto why his solution is wrong -- first, going from having the state give "aid" to Newark to having the state give "aid" to everyone will result in lower property tax -- and higher income tax. That "aid" has to come from somewhere, unless something is done to contain costs (and if it's handed out at the state level, who will be motivated to contain costs ?) If you are for high income tax, then I suppose that is fine. PM apparently doesn't like progressive taxation of any sort, so I'm surprised that he is for this. I suspect that it is because he hasn't thought through the policy implications very well.

Second, as I alluded to, it doesn't address the cost problem. There are glaring inefficiencies in the cost structure, and addressing these would make a substantial impact on the property tax burden as opposed to shifting the same cost burden from one revenue source to another.

[JerseyG]

Originally Posted by VeradoDan

Paul addresses that in the comments section. That state is in ruins because all of the jobs left. That doesn't have much to do with property taxes - they solved that problem there.

And those "problems" as far as property taxes paying for public schools has been solved a long time ago...in states that are not NJ or MI.

NJ is a democratic "take care of me NOW" state. How many counties with how many school districts with how many "supers" bringing in 200K + per year to do nothing other than beg for a bigger and better school ? Because a bigger and better school is going to make the kids who attend the school...that much smarter?

That's where the true problem lies.

[VeradoDan]

Originally Posted by JerseyG

And those "problems" as far as property taxes paying for public schools has been solved a long time ago...in states that are not NJ or MI.

NJ is a democratic "take care of me NOW" state. How many counties with how many school districts with how many "supers" bringing in 200K + per year to do nothing other than beg for a bigger and better school ? Because a bigger and better school is going to make the kids who attend the school...that much smarter?

That's where the true problem lies.

You're 100% correct. But don't discount the extreme amount of tax dollars that are redistributed to the cities every year while the suburbs are bled dry. While cutting the number of superintendents, school districts, police departments could be one part of the solution, none of these problems will be solved while our failing, crime-ridden, dirty cities are effectively stealing all of the suburban money by way of the policies of the Democrat machine.

[VeradoDan]

Originally Posted by DailyJournalist

This is why I support Chris Daggett.

Why? So you can pay a higher sales tax and STILL have nothing done about the property tax situation? I wouldn't vote for a guy whose plan centers around raising one tax so bring another down only slightly - much less a plan which hinges on summer rental revenue from essentially three counties propping up the entire state's tax structure.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by VeradoDan

You're 100% correct. But don't discount the extreme amount of tax dollars that are redistributed to the cities every year while the suburbs are bled dry. While cutting the number of superintendents, school districts, police departments could be one part of the solution, none of these problems will be solved while our failing, crime-ridden, dirty cities are effectively stealing all of the suburban money by way of the policies of the Democrat machine.

That is extremely misleading. It is a thinly veiled variation of the myth that your property taxes pay for Abbott funds.

The problem with this reasoning is that they are apportioned very differently. The top 1% of income earners account for about 40% of income tax revenue in NJ. So unless you're one of those 1%, money probably isn't on a net basis being redistributed from you to the Abbott districts.

Appealing to some arbitrary notion of "suburban money", suggests that you have more of a right to pick the millionaire next door's pocket than someone in Newark. The notion of "suburban" money is no less collectivist than that of the big government types who want to "spread the wealth".

It seems to me that those who are calling for more "aid" are effectively arguing that to correct the supposed "unfairness" of the top 1% of income earners subsidizing people in cities, the top 1% should subsidize them as well. Not only is this an obviously self serving and therefore morally indefensible line of argument, the economic rationale for it is very weak.

BTW, I'm a little surprised that you (Dan) are taken in by this line of argument, because elsewhere I believe in your posts you have correctly diagnosed the problem and proposed solutions that properly address it.