
05-20-2011, 11:30 AM
|
|
|
14,781 posts, read 41,653,295 times
Reputation: 14594
|
|
NJ currently has a projected budget surplus of $913 million versus the current proposed budget for 2012. The money is largely coming from increased income tax revenue that will be realized in full by July 2012. Again, this is a projection, but they are pretty darn sure it will come true.
So, what should we do the money?
Both sides of the Legislature are currently looking at funding every pet project under the sun.
Some are advocating using the money for debt reduction.
Some want it invested in the pension fund.
Some are advocating that it should be used as credits to encourage job creation.
Others think the money should be returned to the citizens via rebate checks.
What do you think?
|

05-20-2011, 12:22 PM
|
|
|
Location: Randolph, NJ
4,073 posts, read 8,562,314 times
Reputation: 3255
|
|
Only sensible route would be to whittle away at the underfunded pensions or cut debt.
|

05-20-2011, 12:58 PM
|
|
|
Location: Pennsylvania & New Jersey
1,544 posts, read 4,112,220 times
Reputation: 1761
|
|
Having a surplus is huge unexpected news to me. Where did you read this? Aren't we looking at a deficit of $11 billion for next year?
If by some miracle we end up with a budget surplus, I concur with HalfFull. Our state's unfunded (i.e. 'neglected') liabilities would barely be affected by $913 million, but at least it would be a start.
|

05-20-2011, 01:00 PM
|
|
|
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 38,358,297 times
Reputation: 24549
|
|
i dont know about this but if there is surplus and there is debt then id say put it all towards debt.
|

05-20-2011, 01:36 PM
|
|
|
1,527 posts, read 3,936,549 times
Reputation: 438
|
|
I thought because it is from the income tax, per the NJ Constitution, it all has to go to property tax relief.
|

05-20-2011, 02:01 PM
|
|
|
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 20,638,290 times
Reputation: 3728
|
|
the way i read about the $913M unexpected increase in revenue is that it's just $913M more than we expected, but doesn't push us into a surplus. So, shouldn't it simply be used to plug the remaining deficit? If it truly is a surplus, then why not plow it 100% into the underfunded pension fund and then use that as a good-faith move to start the negotiations on getting to sensible benefits for new employees and maybe some existing? does that answer make too much sense? ok....give it to a company to build another casino in AC
|

05-20-2011, 02:10 PM
|
|
|
Location: New Jersey/Florida
5,801 posts, read 12,049,074 times
Reputation: 4317
|
|
Keep it in the bank for a partial payment when and if the supreme court says we owe the Abbott Districts 1.6 billion.
|

05-20-2011, 02:11 PM
|
|
|
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 38,358,297 times
Reputation: 24549
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
then why not plow it 100% into the underfunded pension fund and then use that as a good-faith move to start the negotiations on getting to sensible benefits for new employees and maybe some existing? does that answer make too much sense?
|
it may make sense to you, but i think we should continue to not fund the pensions and hope that we can default on that obligation. so that would be wasted money.
i understand you dont think thats the right thing, but that is an option id like to keep open.
|

05-20-2011, 02:35 PM
|
|
|
Location: Randolph, NJ
4,073 posts, read 8,562,314 times
Reputation: 3255
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JERSEY MAN
Keep it in the bank for a partial payment when and if the supreme court says we owe the Abbott Districts 1.6 billion.
|
If it was earmarked for that possibility, my twisted logic would conclude that there would be a 99.9% certainty that it would have to be paid.
|

05-20-2011, 03:05 PM
|
|
|
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 20,638,290 times
Reputation: 3728
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
it may make sense to you, but i think we should continue to not fund the pensions and hope that we can default on that obligation. so that would be wasted money.
i understand you dont think thats the right thing, but that is an option id like to keep open.
|
i understand that. i just don't think it's the right thing to completely default on a promise to citizens of your state. how would you like it if NJ just decided to keep the extra money you sent in to the state if they withhold too much? that's a horrible precedent.
use it to renegotiate some sort of fair agreement.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|