Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bab- I like your plan but you are exagerating the savings. Those things you posted do happen and they are wrong and should be stopped but they cause virtual no impact finacially.
Building on a conversation in the "New Jersey Comeback" thread, I had the idea to start this thread to solicit peoples real ideas about what they would do if they were the governor of NJ.
Here are mine:
1. I would get my buddies in the Legislature to propose an amendment to the state constitution. This amendment would reword the sections on education funding to require the state to fund all districts equally on a per student basis. So, each district receives a set amount of money per student. This will eliminate the inequalities in financing among districts and allow them to better plan their spending.
4. I would create a property tax relief fund that would work by incentifying local governments to cut property taxes. For every net dollar saved in a towns municipal/school budget and passed onto the taxpayers, I would give them an additional .25 cents in state aid. Essentially, this means that the local municipalities only need to cut .75 cents in order for local residents to receive a dollars worth of property tax reduction. I would pay for the program initially by ending the direct property tax relief payments currently being made to targeted individuals. Instead of trying to control property taxes with a cap, I will incentify their reduction by offering money.
Interesting ideas NJ Goat. I'm a former NJ resident and my current state has tried forms of your #1 and #2 ideas with mixed results.
1)In Vermont EVERY town gets the exact same amount of money for each student enrolled. Towns send education property tax to the state based on their grand list (the sum of all of the property value in the town). The money is then sent back based on the number of students.
So, a rich town will generally send more money than a poor town, but everyone gets the same slice of pie. Towns can spend more than the "per student" quota, but if they do so, the state imposes a tax penalty and homeowners will see their property-tax bills increase.
Also, education property tax is pro-rated for families earning less than $97,000 per year; it's capped at 2 percent of gross income.
It's helped poor towns tremendously when it comes to funding education but it's enraged rich towns who send more money than they get back. It's also caused education property tax to more than double since it was enacted in the 1990s, b/c poor towns will pass bonds for expensive school-related projects since they don't have to pay for them; their residents' education property tax bills are capped, for the most part.
4) As noted above, Vermont does that with the education-property tax portion of residents' property-tax bills. It's certainly prevented poor and middle-class families from being hit with unaffordable bills, but it shifts the burden on a relatively small population of rich folks.
Also, a lot of rich folks abuse the system and figure out ways to receive the cap. It might work better if the formula were different.
Anyway, at least you have some new, creative ideas. My relatives who still live in NJ are paying property taxes as high as $20,000 and they certainly don't live in mansions. And those who own small businesses face a nightmare of regs and taxes.
Not to mention my plan would save the taxpayers billions of dollars and would allot the money in a much more fair and equitable manner then the current system.
I like the rule, but I question where the "billions" of savings is coming from. I'm not sure there are any savings at all when you eliminate double dippers.
I also think some adjustment would have to be made for the one-superintendent-per-county idea. A superintendent in Bergen or Essex Counties is going to have a lot more responsibility than a superintendent in Cape May or Cumberland Counties.
I do think it's past time for some consolidation, though.
Re the double-dippers--in New York State, you simply CANNOT hold a state job when you are collecting a state pension. If you work a state job, your pension checks stop until you leave the other state job. Simple. Logical.
mightyqueen - and while that is correct to do it really saves the taxpayers very little in NJ. It does however save the pension funds from paying out from their funds.
Were you also aware that for the majority of NY tiered pensions the members did not have to contribute. It was all from the employer. NJ's plans always had contributions from the workers.
I would not do what the Governor of PA is doing for a super-profitable oil company because of a promise of "jobs." I thought the government should get out of the way of the "free" market? Can any Republican explain how this works? Would Marc P. please pick up the courtesy phone...
The $1.65 billion tax deal the Corbett administration is negotiating with Shell Oil Co. to locate an ethane processing plant in western Pennsylvania is shaping up to be the biggest such state investment Pennsylvania history.
And now it appears, it's just getting bigger.
Under the deal, taxpayers would foot the bill for hazardous materials clean up at the western Pennsylvania site, a cost that could easily soar into the tens of millions, according to a report by CapitolWire news service.
Corbett officials told legislative staff that on top of the $1.65 billion in tax credits over 25 years starting in 2017, and other sweeteners that come with a tax-free Keystone Opportunity Zone, the state would be picking up the bill to clean up the waste from a zinc smelter site.
The Horsehead Corp. plant, which is still operating at its Beaver County facility, is a repeat violator of federal clean air and water laws, CapitolWire reports.
As for the jobs, a commenter notes that in the oil & gas business, many of them go to out-of-staters:
For those "thinking" it's bring good jobs to PA. ...Well get informed. The so called GOOD JOBS are filled with those from out of state. Don't believe? Go to Washington, PA...No motel rooms available, no houses for rent.,etc. ...all taken by out of state working for gas industry. Jobs for locals...mostly for Guards ...at sites.... minimum wage or up to $10. pr hour, no benefits. Probably 80% of jobs created go to out of state employees..maybe 90%. Only benefit to the state.."maybe" income tax but probably not. But local renters are happy, can rent even the worst housing.
mightyqueen - and while that is correct to do it really saves the taxpayers very little in NJ. It does however save the pension funds from paying out from their funds.
Were you also aware that for the majority of NY tiered pensions the members did not have to contribute. It was all from the employer. NJ's plans always had contributions from the workers.
It's a matter of right and wrong. The point is that the pension system can be abused in that way. There was just another thread on this recently.
Yes, I am aware of the different tiers of NY pensions and that they have differing rules. Tier 1, of which few are left, did not contribute at all. I contributed, but only up to a point when they told us contributions were no longer required. The newest tier will always contribute.
The other thing I would do is make sure any tax incentives or subsidies given to companies that relocate offices to NJ have the stipulation that they cannot leave for X amount of years or else they have to pay it all back plus interest. This would be to prevent a governor giving a sweetheart deal to someone only to have them jump ship once a better deal comes along or state policies change.
The other thing I would do is make sure any tax incentives or subsidies given to companies that relocate offices to NJ have the stipulation that they cannot leave for X amount of years or else they have to pay it all back plus interest. This would be to prevent a governor giving a sweetheart deal to someone only to have them jump ship once a better deal comes along or state policies change.
Yes indeed! We have to ensure that those sucking off the government teat don't run elsewhere just because it suits their needs. And IMO any corporation that has many billions in profits SHOULD NOT be getting New Jerseyan's tax dollars for any reason whatsoever. It would be better off building up small & mid-sized businesses that have more ties to NJ and don't off-shore their profits or pay no tax to the state.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
