Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2008, 04:08 PM
 
1,787 posts, read 5,750,214 times
Reputation: 1301

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravy Boat View Post
This idea makes some theoretical sense but is completely impractical. In a broad sense, government takes in tax money and provides services for citizens. The system would be too unwieldy if the government had to determine which citizen is using how much for what. I know you have the specific example of education but it would not be fair to limit your system for education. For example, why should people who don't drive have to pay for upkeep of certain roads? Why should the young have to fund senior citizen services? Why do the non-swimmers have to fund lifeguards? Why does any law-abider have to pay for police? To get into the line item of each service is just too much of a nightmare.
I don't have endless pockets and this is one nightmare that I would welcome to curb the never ending spending in my town/school district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2008, 04:18 PM
 
Location: NJ
12,283 posts, read 35,705,123 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by amgoff View Post
And unfortunately, that generalized point of view is part of the problem... so is the notion of staying par for the course simply because it's the way things have always been done.

Change isn't a bad word... and it's direly needed in a state such as ours.

How is it even possible to compare the funding of a school district to the funding of a fire department? It's not and you know it... Some municipal services such as fire and police are ones that there will always be the possibility of need. Homeowners without children and who never plan on having children will never need the services provided by the local school district - plain and simple.

Not once did I suggest that homeowners without children should not have to contribute to their local school tax, but only that those households which use the service should be responsible for shouldering their equal share... especially when their overall tax burden is generally less than those without children. I don't care how one would want to spin it, but there's no reason why those households who will never use such a service should ever be disproportionately responsible.

Again... such generalized view points get us nowhere. I never thought I'd see someone defending the status quo in NJ... especially with regard to property taxes. If there's any place that need sweeping reforms - it's NJ.

May I assume that you're a parent? If so, I can completely understand why you would be opposed to such an idea... but in this day and age, all I can say is... tough.

I stand by my argument... there's no reason why parents shouldn't be proportionately responsible for the funding of their own children's education... whether it be through a fairer property tax structure or by some other means. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to more of a tuition based system either.
he's not defending NJ, believe me, lol. show me a state where you DON'T pay if you don't have children.

how do you propose we implement such a program? i'd seriously like to see specifics on HOW you, Guv. Amgoff, would tackle such a thing. talk about adding an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of a bureaucratic mess which, BTW, would have to be funded to implement and upkeep. who funds it? how about, since those without children benefit the most, pay for this
program.

what happens when someone loses their job and gets their house foreclosed on? do they forfeit the right to send their child to school? what about renters? do they get a free ride? how do we determine how much each child costs? do kids who requires special education cost more? what if the parents can't afford it? what then?

i'm shocked that you would actually think adding yet another department to our already bloated state government is the way to go!

Last edited by tahiti; 05-27-2008 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 04:45 PM
 
Location: The Garden State
1,334 posts, read 2,995,337 times
Reputation: 1392
The spirit of America is to put our children first. To give them the best education we can so they can better this great country. If anything teachers are under paid. $50,000.00 a year is lower middle class in Jersey and people are upset there getting that much? Thats really pathetic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 06:06 PM
 
9,124 posts, read 36,396,090 times
Reputation: 3631
Quote:
Originally Posted by amgoff View Post


May I assume that you're a parent? If so, I can completely understand why you would be opposed to such an idea... but in this day and age, all I can say is... tough.
Yes, you can asume that. However, that's not the reason I'm opposed to such an idea- I'm opposed to it because if you're going to make one portion of the tax system elective, you have to make all of them elective. I want to opt out of welfare services, as I feel I don't need them and shouldn't have to pay for them, the same way you feel that you don't need the school system. Under your system, I should be allowed to opt out of paying that portion of the tax, and would then opt to pay it later if I needed the services, the same way you'd have to pay for the school taxes if you later decided to have children. I'd also like to opt out of paying for trash collection, since I'm going to recycle everything possible, and compost whatever isn't recyclable. I'll install a well on by property and opt out of coverage by the fire department too- if my house catches fire, I'll either put the fire out myself or let the house burn.

The problem here isn't with everyone paying into the school taxes- it's with the absurd amount that you're being charged for that tax. There are dozens of states in the nation that charge a fraction of what NJ does in property taxes, and yet they're still able to deliver a quality education. I won't re-start the constant "but NJ has much better schools and that's why we pay so much" debate, since we all know that it's the corruption, NJEA, and Abbott district waste that contributes to the high tax rates- not the superior education quality. Rather than fight to reform the taxation system, why not fight to change the corruption and politics that create the problem in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 06:52 PM
 
619 posts, read 2,200,727 times
Reputation: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by timneh5 View Post
In some level or another, we're all teachers in life.
Ah right...it's the "anybody who went to school can teach" argument.

Quote:
I'm not sure I understand why you asked me that question. . .do I need to be a teacher to get over my high school tax bill?

Thank you for the welcome!
Pretty sure the poster wondered why, if teaching in NJ was such a embarrassment of riches, you weren't signing up for the gig...

It seems like quite a few posters are in the wrong profession. Just jealous of the teachers, eh? Yeah, they get all the glory.


Ooops, wait, I meant to say...yes, you are correct. Teachers are grossly overpaid for the insubstantial role they play in society. Shame on them and shame on us all for letting them get away with it for so long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 07:20 PM
 
120 posts, read 482,260 times
Reputation: 77
Look, I respect everything teachers do, and I have no problem with them getting good salaries. Some of them are vastly underpaid, and that is a travesty that needs to be rectified. However, on the flip side, I think some of teachers' complaints about salaries are unwarranted. For instance, let's take a teacher in the Boston public school system (ref: http://www.btu.org/pdf/Teachers_Yr2.pdf (broken link)) . If you are a first year teacher with a bachelor's degree, you made over $43K this academic year ($46K with a masters). Granted, that is not rolling in the dough...especially in Boston. However, for a starting salary, that is more than most people make (my coworkers at a major insurance corporation were doing very pivotal work for the company and were paid 40k. If you stick with it, and eventually earn your master's, you will be earning over $60k by the beginning of your fifth year...or roughly age 25 or 26 if you graduated college in the "traditional" sense. By the beginning of your ninth year, or roughly age 29 or 30, you are making $75k. If you add other "side jobs" that about half of all teachers have, such as coaching, tutoring, or enrichment programs, that can be bumped up to $85k. That is not terrible...even for Boston. Again, it is not a huge salary...it's barely enough to buy a small condo, but I just don't see how teachers can complain and get away with it more than other people in other professions who are making the same or even less. For a "helping profession", that is without a doubt on the high end of the salary spectrum. Granted, Boston pays some of the highest wages in the state, but other districts aren't too far behind. I realize that it's not an easy job....and requires a lot of extra work in order to be successful. But salarywise, it is not as bad as many of them think.

Last edited by HurrMark; 05-27-2008 at 07:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Down Jersey
56 posts, read 200,411 times
Reputation: 30
But you see... I'm neither a parent, nor a socialist... and those are the two main groups who wouldn't like such a proposition. While I agree that everyone should contribute something, I don't think it's all that ridiculous for parents to have to "ante up" for their children's education.

There are already exemptions for those over the age of 65, so the system is already there... such a system needs to merely be extended.

I'll just reiterate... by no means am I suggesting that those without children be totally exempt from their local school tax burden... simply that those taxes be assessed proportionately to those who use the services of the school district.

School taxes account for almost half of my property taxes... I don't have children, I'm never going to have children, and I don't think I should have to pay as much as Joe American dad down the street with his 3 kids... Especially, when he is generally paying less in overall taxes than my wife and I are.

The current tax structure is completely unbalanced in this country on every level - national, state, and local in favor of families with children. Children cost money... if people aren't fully aware of this to begin with, then maybe they shouldn't be having any. So my sincerest apologies if I feel that we shouldn't have more of our money taken by the government simply because we chose not to have children.

This country wasn't founded on principles of the equal distribution of wealth... others have tried that and we've all seen how they turned out. In reality, all of this is nothing but a form of state-sanctioned (and forced) welfare... and I don't like welfare. I have no problem with charity... but it's not the government's place to hand it out.

The bottom line is, it's bad enough that the Federal government tries to take a quarter of our income each year, just to go and waste it on an untold number of frivolous, unnecessary programs which they have no business being involved with in the first place (the US Dept. of Eduction being one of them)... So the last thing I need is to be forced to pay an equal share for something I'm never going to use... especially in a state where property taxes are already a problem.

Again, I fully realize it's not a popular suggestion to those two aforementioned groups, but what's fair is fair...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 05:04 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,283 posts, read 35,705,123 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by amgoff View Post
But you see... I'm neither a parent, nor a socialist... and those are the two main groups who wouldn't like such a proposition. While I agree that everyone should contribute something, I don't think it's all that ridiculous for parents to have to "ante up" for their children's education.

There are already exemptions for those over the age of 65, so the system is already there... such a system needs to merely be extended.

I'll just reiterate... by no means am I suggesting that those without children be totally exempt from their local school tax burden... simply that those taxes be assessed proportionately to those who use the services of the school district.

School taxes account for almost half of my property taxes... I don't have children, I'm never going to have children, and I don't think I should have to pay as much as Joe American dad down the street with his 3 kids... Especially, when he is generally paying less in overall taxes than my wife and I are.

The current tax structure is completely unbalanced in this country on every level - national, state, and local in favor of families with children. Children cost money... if people aren't fully aware of this to begin with, then maybe they shouldn't be having any. So my sincerest apologies if I feel that we shouldn't have more of our money taken by the government simply because we chose not to have children.

This country wasn't founded on principles of the equal distribution of wealth... others have tried that and we've all seen how they turned out. In reality, all of this is nothing but a form of state-sanctioned (and forced) welfare... and I don't like welfare. I have no problem with charity... but it's not the government's place to hand it out.

The bottom line is, it's bad enough that the Federal government tries to take a quarter of our income each year, just to go and waste it on an untold number of frivolous, unnecessary programs which they have no business being involved with in the first place (the US Dept. of Eduction being one of them)... So the last thing I need is to be forced to pay an equal share for something I'm never going to use... especially in a state where property taxes are already a problem.

Again, I fully realize it's not a popular suggestion to those two aforementioned groups, but what's fair is fair...
so, in other words, you have no idea how to implement such a thing, but it should be done because the current system is not FFFAAAAIIIIIRRRRR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
604 posts, read 2,915,627 times
Reputation: 267
Very simple way to make the school tax fair for everyone.

Every single homeowner is required to "support" the school system.
Just an example here but suppose everybody kicks in say $5000. no matter the value of your home, then it is a per child fee say as an example $1,000. This way the retired folks still have to support the schools and the guy with the $2M mc mansion but no kids still has to support the schools but the guy with the $300k ranch and four kids pays $9,000 a year. now that's a fair system. Everybody is required to support it but those who use it pays more. What could be more fair?

I have no problem supporting our schools I only ask those that use the schools pay their fair share.

E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 06:19 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,283 posts, read 35,705,123 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by emanon View Post
Very simple way to make the school tax fair for everyone.

Every single homeowner is required to "support" the school system.
Just an example here but suppose everybody kicks in say $5000. no matter the value of your home, then it is a per child fee say as an example $1,000. This way the retired folks still have to support the schools and the guy with the $2M mc mansion but no kids still has to support the schools but the guy with the $300k ranch and four kids pays $9,000 a year. now that's a fair system. Everybody is required to support it but those who use it pays more. What could be more fair?

I have no problem supporting our schools I only ask those that use the schools pay their fair share.

E
are you willing to shoulder the cost of implementing such a program? since you benefit the most, I ask you pay your fair share of putting it in place.

can you address my questions about on how exactly this would work in the scenarios given in a previous post of mine?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top