U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 12-27-2017, 09:13 PM
 
885 posts, read 506,379 times
Reputation: 758

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
No Murphy is Governor elected you just can't admit you are crying over something becuase you're mad at the world.
You are funny. I'm not mad at the world, I'm disappointed that a socialist who profited off slave labor is going to be Governor because good people like you didn't bother to read up on the issues facing New Jersey and instead decided to vote based on emotion about federal issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homenj View Post
So you don't think public roads have anything to do with the economy? If not, think about that the next time you see people coming in and out of work, trucks delivering packages, etc.

We can agree to disagree on how much social spending we should partake in. However I personally don't like the word "socialism" being thrown around profusely.
I am not calling you a socialist and I don't call everyone on the left a socialist like some. But Phil Murphy adheres to a socialist ideology.

Yes, I support investing in infrastructure. Specific to New Jersey, I think we need to cut spending, audit NJDOT to find out why we are spending $2 million on road repairs so we can re-direct waste to actually investing in our roads, and we should eliminate project labor agreements. I'd also add that our Congressional delegation should fight for our share of federal aid for public works projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DefiantNJ View Post
I absolutely don't agree with most of what your wrote. But these two statements really caught my eye and these are the ones I disagree the most. Public transportation should be paid completely by user fees??? That would make it absolutely unaffordable to most people. Right now, NJT passengers are paying closer to 50% of the costs, from what I read. Raising their fairs 50% will drive them away from NJT and a lot of them might start driving imagine what would happen to the roads if thousand of cars are suddenly added?


Furthermore, if public transportation is to be funded by user fees then why not roads? Aside from the Turnpike and GSP, the users of the roads pay nothing. Why do you suggest that we subsidize the roads but not public transportation? Because of your conservative views? That is not a good reason.


As to education, it is a complex topic. Christie did really nothing to reform Abbot school districts that are administered by the state agency and that receive most of the state aid. I think state's aid is needed more on school infrastructure improvements rather than on actual teaching costs. And certainly the education costs are not going to decrease because of thousand of boards of educations every few miles. School districts need to consolidate.
I'll start of on education first. You are right, Chris Christie didn't do much to change Abbott, but let's also remember the Democrats in Trenton passed the current school funding formula and when Chris Christie proposed reform, it went nowhere. I have my issues with GOP leadership in Trenton, but they have been backing school funding reform for years now. This administration has invested in public education, which has been wasted in my opinion because the money doesn't go to 95% of districts and little has actually gone to teaching in the other 5%.

As far as public transportation, ridership on NJ Transit between October 2016 and October 2017 was at it's lowest level since 2012. A long time ago, our country decided we were a nation of highways and automobiles. Personally, I love trains and wish we had a better rail system here. But I don't see any value in having taxpayers subsidize public transportation other than county government funding dial-a-ride for the elderly, poor, and disabled because people like me have voted for local elected officials who support the idea that we should help those who truly need it.

There are over 6 million licensed drivers in New Jersey. Having a public infrastructure is crucial to our economy and even our health (getting to Doctors, food shopping etc.). The question is, how do we fund this infrastructure? Your argument about those who use roads not paying for them isn't entirely accurate as it relates to state roads. Yes, your local property taxes and county taxes pay for local and county roads. But state roads are funded through the gas tax, which is really a user fee under a different name. So in reality, drivers are paying for roads while also being forced to subsidize half the cost of public transit.

Yes, I am a staunch fiscal conservative. But this is about priorities. We have millions of people who drive in this state and a relatively small percentage of our residents use NJ Transit. Having roads is crucial to our economy and health, trains are not as much as I enjoy a nice train ride.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2017, 09:27 PM
 
10,022 posts, read 8,805,450 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leps12 View Post
I'd rather see our state sales tax REDUCED to 4% statewide and redo who gets UEZ. Certainly Downtown JC doesn't need UEZ anymore. Let's be the DESTINATION and get people from NY and PA to come into NJ for purchases. Sure DE has no sales tax, but someone living in NY would be less inclined to make the trip all of the way to DE.
Folks from NY already do & always have, for clothing at the very least.

That's not good business sense - you can't guarantee or rely on any solid number of folks from other states per annum to make the difference in sales tax up.

Let me guess, you don't own a business?

Quote:
Let's suck money in from other states and keep it. I view this as zero sum. We win, they lose. Same goes for tourism. We need to make a big statewide push for tourism to draw in money from other states and keep it here. Plus lower sales tax is good for middle class and lower in NJ since they are regressive.
Are you new to NJ? What type of a "statewide push"? Like these pre-Sandy commercials for tourism?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEFzzzzDxY8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNAnZ_NLcvk

Or some facts might send a tingle up your leg:

New Jersey tourism increased for 7th year in a row | NJ.com



Quote:
Legalize marijuana and let that be taxed at 8% along with alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, and firearms. Push tobacco purchasing age back down to 18...your body, your choice. I would say alcohol should be 18 as well but that's more unlikely due to the national implications and highway funding...which is totally wrong by the way.
So you want a 4% tax or an 8% tax?

Quote:
Municipalities should consolidate and share services...not just schools but police, fire, waste, other services. ALL services. This should help alleviate property tax burdens. I think we are at the point where we need such serious levels of consolidation that in order to get some real relief going, no level of government services should be able to be structured at a municipal level of less than 25,000 residents. It's utterly insane that we have 565 municipalities and over 600 school districts. Police, fire, waste might be even better served at the county level.
Schools are where they are. I'm going to assume that you mean BOEs & superintendents should be consolidated county-wise as opposed to per town.

I pay for my garbage service. Not included in my property taxes. My FD is volunteer - so more government controlled "services"? What would be next, an all state government controlled police force, fire, waste collection? You really want to get on that slippery slope?

Quote:
Murphy wants to close the loophole whereby companies headquartered in NJ shift their paper profits to a shell corporation in a tax haven state like DE. I have worked for several major companies in NJ, and every one of them has been doing it. That's good, very much needed, and will result in much needed additional revenue for the state, along with marijuana legalization which I think will be a big boon.
So you and Murphy want to chase more "major companies" OUT of NJ? They leave, jobs leave...

Quote:
Reinstate the estate tax which just got repealed this year, I would say for $2.5 million and above.
Hasn't even taken affect yet, but no. If you weren't smart enough or didn't work hard enough (not in a ditch digger type of a way) to amass millions in net worth - that was already taxed & spread around? Teach your kids to do better than you (in general, not "you" specifically) & knock of the envy for those who did & their beneficiaries. You (in general) don't get to live off of others in all ways, shapes & forms. Why would anyone think that is ok? You (in general) don't deserve one cent of someone else's anything. Ever.

Quote:
One killer thing is that those who live in NJ and work in NY pay state income tax to NY. Unless they are very high earners in the top bracket, NJ sees none of that money. That's horrible and should be renegotiated to have a reciprocal agreement like we have with PA, although i doubt NY would be interested in that at all. There is no benefit to them for that.
Wrong.


Quote:
Also we need to stop giving sweetheart corporate welfare deals with this Grow NJ program. Kill it dead. We should be making it easier for small businesses to thrive, but instead we tilt the scales with this program to large companies, and it comes at a tremendous cost to the state. Same goes for any city giving tax abatements to real estate developers. But we should also make NJ attractive for startups. If anyone should get abatements, it's them.
Which large companies, since this program was put in to action in 2012, have been taking advantage? I have no idea & assume you do.

Quote:
Millionaire's tax needs to be reconsidered given the GOP tax reform
Reconsidered in what way? That a millionaire isn't someone who makes $250K per year, but actually makes a million + per year?

Quote:
......and we need to curb salary increases for government employees, NJ transit, state police, etc as well as local police, firefighters, teachers, etc. The 2% cap is a good idea. Good luck with the teacher's union though. I'm all for PRIVATE unions, but public sector unions are wrong.
Unions need to be done with. At all levels.

Quote:
We should also nix the law limiting the amount of liquor licenses a town can have based on population. That's unnecessary overegulation and an obstacle into growing business. Also we should stop footing the bill for stupid projects like Revel and American Dream.
LOL! No. It's a town issue & it's a good thing where existing businesses (such as your example of liquor stores in NJ) grow & expand. How do you think a free for all will help grow a small business? Paying for the license (in the hundreds of thousands), renting out of a strip mall store, buying "infrasructure", inventory, pay roll...undercutting the next door liquor store by pennies while the old-timer has hundreds of thousands to out-buy the newbie on deals?


Some regulations are good - unless you want to see start ups or mom & pops go out of business while the Big Box Store comes in (with a shell company in DE) and undercuts them all.

Quote:
This is a game.
It's not a game, it's the bread and butter for a lot.

Quote:
I'm offering a mix of liberal and conservative economic ideas....
Not really.

Quote:
We don't NEED to become a low tax red state like Mississippi, Kansas, or even Florida. None of those places have much to brag about these days, so to say let's just slash taxes and spending everywhere we can and somehow things will magically work out is a foolish notion. But what we need to do is just be considerably more attractive than NY and CT, and close the gap as much as we can with PA. We just need to beat or be competitive with out mr surrounding states. People working in NYC will still always eventually need a suburb to live in. Let's do what we can to make them choose NJ over NY and CT. Choosing NJ over PA for Philly workers is a tougher task.
Why would people working NYC always eventually need a suburb to live in? I've got more than a few friends who live & work & are raising their kids in/have raised their kids in the city.

This is not a battle between NJ, NY & CT.

This is about NJ and how Phil Murphy is going to screw the tax paying base (those who actually pay taxes) further.

Last edited by Informed Info; 12-27-2017 at 10:15 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2017, 08:05 AM
 
16,909 posts, read 6,970,921 times
Reputation: 6875
Quote:
Originally Posted by njforlife92 View Post
You are funny. I'm not mad at the world, I'm disappointed that a socialist who profited off slave labor is going to be Governor because good people like you didn't bother to read up on the issues facing New Jersey and instead decided to vote based on emotion about federal issues.
.
Yes you are. All your post's to the contrary.You want to blame Murphy for stuff he hasn't done and you assume that Chris Christi 2.0 would have done any better,yet you go on and on about how bad Christi was. You 're mad at the world and that's okay but blame the right people Christi and Trump.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2017, 11:17 AM
 
1,046 posts, read 971,207 times
Reputation: 1279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Informed Info View Post
Folks from NY already do & always have, for clothing at the very least.

That's not good business sense - you can't guarantee or rely on any solid number of folks from other states per annum to make the difference in sales tax up.

Let me guess, you don't own a business?
I'm well aware of people coming from NY to buy clothing. But if we give ourselves an edge on everything, not just clothing, then more NY people could come over to shop, especially for big purchases like appliances and electronics. And people from PA would come over for 4% as well since they are 6%. But also with sales taxes for NJ residents, a lower rate does not necessarily translate 1 to 1 with lower revenue. Less sales tax spent per purchase means they will have a little extra cash to spend...which they could then spend on more purchases and recoup the sales tax. Think about if you buy a $5000 sofa. You currently pay $343.75 in tax. At 4% you pay $200. You pocket the $143.75 difference. Maybe you spend some or all of that $143.75 somewhere else. And if you do, some of that will possibly be collected in sales tax again, but regardless of that, you still will out more money into the businesses. Lower sales tax means reducing the deadweight loss. Econ 101.

Quote:
Are you new to NJ? What type of a "statewide push"? Like these pre-Sandy commercials for tourism?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEFzzzzDxY8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNAnZ_NLcvk

Or some facts might send a tingle up your leg:

New Jersey tourism increased for 7th year in a row | NJ.com
I'm also quite well aware that NJ tourism has been increasing every year. I follow NJ.com just as much as you do, buddy. But who's to say we can't increase it at an even greater pace? Are you positive we are maxing out our growth potential? I would love to see that hard evidence. I am actually very much thinking of this as a business. Companies do advertising campaigns because the amount invested in building awareness is supposed to be recouped and then some to leave the company better off overall. Have we hit our sweet spot? Again I would love to see the evidence. This is worth a shot. Invest more in advertising, see what happens. If the juice turns out to not be worth the squeeze, then scale back. But as in business, if you are afraid of a little failure, you can't achieve big success.

I have lived in NJ my whole life. Maybe that's why I haven't seen these commercials, because, you know, they should be airing outside of NJ markets? I see CA, FL, and TX ads on tv all the time. The point is you sell it to people from out of state because that's money from outside of your borders coming to inside of your borders. Do you think Sandals is running their commercials in the Bahamas or that the Jamaica Alright commercials are airing in their home country?



Quote:
So you want a 4% tax or an 8% tax?
4% sales tax statewide but specifically alcohol (liquor store purchases but not in restaurants, bars, or other venues like stadiums/arenas), tobacco, marijuana, guns, and automobiles are 8%. It's called a sin tax. You charge an additional tax for certain items that tend to have negative externalities. Read up.


Quote:
Schools are where they are. I'm going to assume that you mean BOEs & superintendents should be consolidated county-wise as opposed to per town.

I pay for my garbage service. Not included in my property taxes. My FD is volunteer - so more government controlled "services"? What would be next, an all state government controlled police force, fire, waste collection? You really want to get on that slippery slope?
Yes, consolidation of personnel in the BOE's. Obviously we can't consolidate school buildings to the point that they overflow their capacity. I don't doubt that there are some cases where a building can be shut down and kids moved from one building to another, if there are schools where their capacity is under filled. That would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. But when districts are consolidated, they also have larger purchasing power for all equipment and supplies and can negotiate lower unit costs with the distributors. For example, District A purchased 100 units of widgets per year and so does District B. Distributor says at those counts, each district will pay $5 per widget. But with A and B consolidated and one combined order of 200, they have the power to maybe negotiate that $5 cost down to $4.50.

Some towns have garbage collection as part of their property taxes. Some towns also have fire departments as part of it and not volunteers as well. I'm NOT advocating for forcing public services like that on towns if they don't already have it. But for those who do, there can be savings in consolidation. As you can see I'm very much about economies of scale. By the way, we already have state government police on our highways...duh.

Quote:
So you and Murphy want to chase more "major companies" OUT of NJ? They leave, jobs leave...
It's not that simple for companies to just up and leave. They face challenges with having to get their employees to move. Many are unwilling. I read something a while ago about how people these days are less likely to relocate than they were decades ago. I think part of that has to do with the fact that we have many more dual income households nowadays. Go back to the 50's when women were not as much part of a workforce, and if the husband got a new job and had to relocate, well, that was it. Nothing to worry about. But now if one person in the couple has to move for a new job, then the other person also needs to find a new job. That is a constraint, and companies know that it is harder these days to convince people to relocate. Obviously some companies still make the decision, for example here in NJ, Hertz moved to FL a few years ago. But companies having mass exoduses is not as rash as you would believe. Also, white collar companies care a great deal about being close to educated workforces, and NJ has a very educated workforce and is also surrounded by tons of higher ed institutions. Why do you think Amazon lists being near reputable colleges and universities as a major requirement for their HQ2 RFP?


Quote:
Hasn't even taken affect yet, but no. If you weren't smart enough or didn't work hard enough (not in a ditch digger type of a way) to amass millions in net worth - that was already taxed & spread around? Teach your kids to do better than you (in general, not "you" specifically) & knock of the envy for those who did & their beneficiaries. You (in general) don't get to live off of others in all ways, shapes & forms. Why would anyone think that is ok? You (in general) don't deserve one cent of someone else's anything. Ever.
I know it doesn't take effect until 2018, but guess what, it's just about here, and that will be another hole to fill that was not there before. And I understand your point of view and don't think it's asinine, but consider this. The estate tax in theory should be for very expensive properties that do qualify as true estates. Maybe in certain parts of NJ you could say $2.5 mil is not high enough. But I think there is some sweet spot that would universally apply to the state. For example, Phil Murphy's property itself should qualify. What's likely to happen as the current owners pass? They give it to their heirs. This huge transfer of wealth that happens that smoothly, and we ask for a little portion of it as a one time deal? There is a very good chance that someone who inherits this wealth isn't even "working" in the traditional sense and has just become part of old money where they can hire financial advisers to take care of keeping their stream of money coming in over time. Plus inheriting that estate should also be viewed as an investment, because there is potential to sell down the line and make a ton cash off of that, if they choose. Removing the estate tax shifts more burden from the wealthy to everyone else, and in the "old money" case, it's equivalent to how investment income can also be taxed at lower rates than "real work" income, so to speak. A trust fund baby who has a financial adviser handle their investments while they sit back and reap the benefits does not deserve to be taxed at a lower percentage rate than someone busting their ass in a 9 to 5 (or longer). I'm concerned with having an economy that is FAIR. But in this country, there are many ways in which we tax WORK and not WEALTH. Repealing an estate tax is often just another step in that direction, so while I understand your point of view, I must respectfully but vehemently disagree.


Quote:
Wrong.
Now you are being lazy. Why am I wrong? I'm not in this scenario, but from what I have read, if you live in NJ and work in NY, you pay taxes out of your paycheck to NY. Then in tax season, you fill out returns for both states. NJ lets you deduct what you paid to NY from what you owe to NJ, and because NY has higher rates on every bracket except the top, you would owe nothing to NJ. In order to owe something to NJ (let's assume you are single) you have to make about $650K per year or more. Please tell me how I am wrong.


Quote:
Which large companies, since this program was put in to action in 2012, have been taking advantage? I have no idea & assume you do.
$7 billion offered to bring Amazon to Newark? Not that they will take it though. $31 million to Mars recently announced for a few hundred Newark jobs. Maestro Technologies gets $17 million to move from Edison to Trenton. Then there is this for Camden alone...and this article is 2 years old and more has been added since then.
Here are the businesses offered millions for Camden move | NJ.com

Vineland' Progresso plant got replaced by F&S foods to move 340 or so jobs and create about 65 more. They move from Rosenhayn a few miles away and get $21.8 million in tax breaks for it. Over $343K per job in breaks in food manufacturing? It will be a LONG time before t pays out.

South Jersey Gas gets $12 million to move from Folsom to AC for no more than 40 new jobs, and quite possibly less.

We give away the farm to mostly companies already in NJ, and they just jump from one municipality to another, not creating new growth except for a few dozen to a few hundred new jobs which don't make up the ground lost by the tax breaks, and when the tax breaks end, the company will extort he state again for a new round of breaks because they have grown accustomed to us caving in, bending over, and taking it, leaving residents to foot the bill. Towns lose these jobs as they move somewhere else in the state on the state taxpayer done, and the town that loses the jobs likely also needs to raise property taxes to make up the difference, so residents in the town losing the company get hit with a double whammy at the star AND local level, while everyone else in the state gets hit at the state level. And the town gaining the company may not even get property tax relief because the city can offer the company property tax abatements as well, so nothing is collected in the city.

Quote:
Reconsidered in what way? That a millionaire isn't someone who makes $250K per year, but actually makes a million + per year?
If you paid attention at all to the millionaires tax bill proposed by he State Senate and vetoed by Christie, then you would know the threshold WAS $1 million, not $250K. I'm saying reconsider in light of the GOP Tax Reform as in maybe we shouldn't do it at all. At the very least if we do still do it, make it less...maybe 10% instead of 10.75%.



Quote:
Unions need to be done with. At all levels.
I have no problems with private unions. But when you are paid by my tax dollars, you should not be able to squeze the state for more in the way that the teachers unions NJT union, and other public unions can.



Quote:
LOL! No. It's a town issue & it's a good thing where existing businesses (such as your example of liquor stores in NJ) grow & expand. How do you think a free for all will help grow a small business? Paying for the license (in the hundreds of thousands), renting out of a strip mall store, buying "infrasructure", inventory, pay roll...undercutting the next door liquor store by pennies while the old-timer has hundreds of thousands to out-buy the newbie on deals?


Some regulations are good - unless you want to see start ups or mom & pops go out of business while the Big Box Store comes in (with a shell company in DE) and undercuts them all.
Who is to say what the right number of bars for a town is? I know...the customer! That's what I'm really after with the liquor licenses. Let the free market decide. If a town can only fit one or two bars in its downtown because that's what its population allows, why does that make sense? With bars, more players isn't necessarily a bad thing for an individual business. Remove the shackles and maybe other bars pop up, and suddenly you have a DESTINATION. Now people want to go there. Certainly you understand what an entertainment district or a restaurant row is. In case you missed the memo in various news articles that have been written, following migration patterns, or reading every other thread on this forum, walkable downtowns with plenty of entertainment options are important to home buyers and renters in the market these days, make an area more attractive, and increase value. We should be able to do with our downtowns what towns in PA like Media, West Chester, Ardmore, and Doylestown can. Or Long Island with Patchouge, Glen Cove, Port Jefferson, and Rockville Center. Or Nyack in Rockland County. None of these are particularly large towns, but they have thriving entertainment districts and nightlife because they don't limit the number of liquor licenses. We can only do so much with places like Morristown and a few others that were grandfathered in before the ordinance was passed...other than that its mainly our bigger cities like Jersey City, Hoboken, and New Brunswick and the Shore towns. I recently went to a wedding in Lambertville. We wanted to post-party at bars. You know what we did? We crossed the bridge and went out in New Hope, a town that has less residents and a TON more bars...and why? Because it's perceived, rightly so, as a much better nightlife destination. It's a shame because that money could have been spent in NJ, but alas, regulation gets in the way. And liquor licenses are only so expensive in NJ BECAUSE they are so rare.


Quote:
It's not a game, it's the bread and butter for a lot.
No kidding. But you need to think of it as a game. We have neighboring states, and we need to take actions to give us comparative advantages against them. At its core, this is strategy and game theory.


Quote:
Not really.
Yes really. Advocating in some sense for a more fair and progressive tax structure, elimination of corporate welfare, and a higher minimum wage while also calling for removal of unnecessary nanny state regulations and more personal consumption freedom, as well as a shrinkage of overblown and inefficiently scaled levels of government provided services? I think so!


Quote:
Why would people working NYC always eventually need a suburb to live in? I've got more than a few friends who live & work & are raising their kids in/have raised their kids in the city
Well duh, the reasons most people give...space and schools. Not a whole lot of people want to raise one or more children in an apartment and pay individual private school tuition for all of them. And some who would like to can't afford it because it's gojngn to be super expensive, especially the more children you have, so the suburbs become increasingly more affordable. Not saying everyone moves to the suburbs when they have children, but most do, and there will always be a market for that. This is pretty obvious.

Quote:
This is not a battle between NJ, NY & CT.

This is about NJ and how Phil Murphy is going to screw the tax paying base (those who actually pay taxes) further.
It absolutely is and I would throw PA in there as well. We have two major cities near us and for the large suburban demand out there which will never completely go away (not by a long shot), we MUST do what we can to make ourselves he best option for these commuting workers. This is absolutely a battle, and if you don't view it that way, you are not taking this seriously.

And while I'm at it, just to be an ass, we should also sue Christine Whitman and take everything she and the generations of her family below her has until the end of time as reparations for raiding the public pension fund and getting us into that mess which is probably, alone with property taxes, the biggest problem we face. And I'm only half kidding. Knowing what we know now with this issue, anyone who is less than downright furious at her doesn't have a heartbeat.

Last edited by Leps12; 12-28-2017 at 11:45 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2017, 04:28 PM
 
885 posts, read 506,379 times
Reputation: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
Yes you are. All your post's to the contrary.You want to blame Murphy for stuff he hasn't done and you assume that Chris Christi 2.0 would have done any better,yet you go on and on about how bad Christi was. You 're mad at the world and that's okay but blame the right people Christi and Trump.
I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll try again.

Chris Christie has increased taxes by $1.2 billion, increased debt, partially skipped pension payments, spent too much on Abbott Districts, increased corporate welfare, and failed to help municipalities get property taxes under control, as they are up 18% under his watch.

However, Phil Murphy proposes over $1 billion in property taxes, tripling the state budget, spending more on Abbott Districts and thus increasing property taxes, more corporate welfare, and he opposes the good this Governor has done to get annual property tax hikes from the 7% average of increase we saw in the decade prior to his administration down to the average of 2% growth in property taxes we've seen under his administration. Kim Guadagno pledged not to seek another term if she got property taxes under control and she pledged to oppose tax hikes and make meaningful reforms to our pension and health benefits systems.

The bottom line is, Phil Murphy supports the same bad policies Governor Christie has supported, yet he also opposes the same good this Governor has fought for.

I blame Chris Christie for not adequately addressing many of the problems we face, but it's Democrats in Trenton and past Democratic Governors who created many of these problems. I also am not pleased with establishment Republicans for not standing up to these Democrats more effectively.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2017, 04:50 PM
 
16,909 posts, read 6,970,921 times
Reputation: 6875
Quote:
Originally Posted by njforlife92 View Post
I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll try again.

Chris Christie has increased taxes by $1.2 billion, increased debt, partially skipped pension payments, spent too much on Abbott Districts, increased corporate welfare, and failed to help municipalities get property taxes under control, as they are up 18% under his watch.

However, Phil Murphy proposes over $1 billion in property taxes, tripling the state budget, spending more on Abbott Districts and thus increasing property taxes, more corporate welfare, and he opposes the good this Governor has done to get annual property tax hikes from the 7% average of increase we saw in the decade prior to his administration down to the average of 2% growth in property taxes we've seen under his administration. Kim Guadagno pledged not to seek another term if she got property taxes under control and she pledged to oppose tax hikes and make meaningful reforms to our pension and health benefits systems.

The bottom line is, Phil Murphy supports the same bad policies Governor Christie has supported, yet he also opposes the same good this Governor has fought for.

I blame Chris Christie for not adequately addressing many of the problems we face, but it's Democrats in Trenton and past Democratic Governors who created many of these problems. I also am not pleased with establishment Republicans for not standing up to these Democrats more effectively.



Then change the title of the thread.You say KG said she wouldn't seek a second term if things didn't go as plain,ok so there is no difference between her and Murphy except he was honest about taxes and got elected anyway,I'll take the honest guy instead of Christi 2.0 any day.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2017, 07:58 PM
 
885 posts, read 506,379 times
Reputation: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
Then change the title of the thread.You say KG said she wouldn't seek a second term if things didn't go as plain,ok so there is no difference between her and Murphy except he was honest about taxes and got elected anyway,I'll take the honest guy instead of Christi 2.0 any day.
Kim Guadagno said she would not seek re-election if she didn't lower property taxes. She pledged to oppose tax hikes and more spending. Phil Murphy promised the opposite; he promised to increase taxes and spending. Saying they are the same is factually incorrect, this isn't that hard to figure out.

As far as Phil Murphy being honest, he was quite honest about his desire to increase taxes. Sadly, he is a slick politician who also dodged many tough questions about exactly how he's going to pay for new spending because even the tax hikes he's proposed doesn't fund all of his promises.

The point you fail to recognize, and so do many Murphy supporters, is that the election wasn't about Christie and Trump. I keep bringing this up, but it's important. Kim Guadagno was critical of much of Governor Christie's record. She made the argument that the economy in New Jersey improved under his watch, but that the state remains unaffordable. New Jersey's economy is better today than it was in 2010, but it still lags behind much of the country and our state still is unaffordable. Phil Murphy made the argument that New Jersey's economy is weak, but has only proposed policies that would make it weaker. On top of that, Phil Murphy has admitted that New Jersey is unaffordable, but he made it clear he has no intention of changing that.

We have to ask ourselves why we are in the mess we are in if we want things to change. Property taxes are high because of Abbott districts. Republicans in Trenton are united behind school funding reform, Democrats are opposed. People are leaving the state because of high property taxes and high income taxes. Democrats have rejected proposals to change both. The pension and health benefits systems are creating unsustainable debt and hurting our budgets because leaders in both parties have skipped payments in part or full. However, Republicans would change the systems for future retirees, Democrats oppose reform as their campaigns are funded by special interests supportive of the current system. Affordability on onerous regulations are reasons why companies have left our state and why job growth lags behind the rest of the country. Both political parties have wasted money on corporate subsidies, but it's the Democrats who oppose tax relief and reducing regulations. Not only that, the Democrats want more regulations, such as a $15 minimum wage.

You get the idea. Both political parties get some of the blame for the problems we face, but the Democrats resist real reforms that can help make our state affordable and prosperous. Phil Murphy wants to double down on the failures of past Democrats and some Republicans.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 02:29 AM
 
10,022 posts, read 8,805,450 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leps12 View Post
I'm well aware of people coming from NY to buy clothing. But if we give ourselves an edge on everything, not just clothing, then more NY people could come over to shop, especially for big purchases like appliances and electronics. And people from PA would come over for 4% as well since they are 6%. But also with sales taxes for NJ residents, a lower rate does not necessarily translate 1 to 1 with lower revenue. Less sales tax spent per purchase means they will have a little extra cash to spend...which they could then spend on more purchases and recoup the sales tax. Think about if you buy a $5000 sofa. You currently pay $343.75 in tax. At 4% you pay $200. You pocket the $143.75 difference. Maybe you spend some or all of that $143.75 somewhere else. And if you do, some of that will possibly be collected in sales tax again, but regardless of that, you still will out more money into the businesses. Lower sales tax means reducing the deadweight loss. Econ 101.

Yes, a lower sales tax would leave residents with more money in their pockets, but less tax revenue for the state. Even if the difference gets spent, it will still be a loss for the state. The out-of-stater's will be taking that savings back home with them to spend in their state.

What we don't know and can't assume is how many folks from PA, CT & NY would be running to NJ to save money on large purchases. As it is I don't know anyone who goes to DE to buy anything from my neck of the woods and we are about 2 hours from DE. The savings isn't always worth the time & effort for everyone. I wouldn't drive to DE to save a few hundred dollars.

Just using your example of a couch? Free delivery out of NJ & 3 hours in to CT? Western Pa? Manhattan? Or could/would the cost of delivery equal the savings in sales tax?

If you're looking to buy a car or another luxury item and save a few thousand? Wouldn't it make sense to keep driving to DE & pay zero in sales tax?

I understand the theory, but I don't see how it would work in real life. I don't think we (NJ) can reduce the sales tax and rely on out of state shoppers to make up the difference.

Quote:
I'm also quite well aware that NJ tourism has been increasing every year. I follow NJ.com just as much as you do, buddy. But who's to say we can't increase it at an even greater pace? Are you positive we are maxing out our growth potential? I would love to see that hard evidence. I am actually very much thinking of this as a business. Companies do advertising campaigns because the amount invested in building awareness is supposed to be recouped and then some to leave the company better off overall. Have we hit our sweet spot? Again I would love to see the evidence. This is worth a shot. Invest more in advertising, see what happens. If the juice turns out to not be worth the squeeze, then scale back. But as in business, if you are afraid of a little failure, you can't achieve big success.
The main tourist attraction we have is the Jersey Shore. The only tourist attraction that makes any money worth talking about.

Check out the visit.nj website. Who is going to travel to NJ to visit a museum? That takes 10 minutes to walk through & similar can be found in their own state? Unless one (from out of state) is really in to NJ culture, you head to the shore. Maybe AC. Even then? AC lost it's shine a long time ago.

Quote:
I have lived in NJ my whole life. Maybe that's why I haven't seen these commercials, because, you know, they should be airing outside of NJ markets? I see CA, FL, and TX ads on tv all the time. The point is you sell it to people from out of state because that's money from outside of your borders coming to inside of your borders. Do you think Sandals is running their commercials in the Bahamas or that the Jamaica Alright commercials are airing in their home country?
Maybe you don't/didn't have Comcast.

I've rented vacations homes in OBX and all they do is advertise for OBX in NC. Never seen a commercial for the Outer Banks in NJ. FL, CA & TX have a lot more to offer & year round than NJ ever has or will. Come from the west coast to ski on ice? When Tahoe or Winter Park or or Jackson Hole or Park City (if you want to get fancy: Aspen) is so much closer? Unless one is in to NJ history, you go to the city (NYC) for the museums & food & excitement. Not NJ.

Quote:
4% sales tax statewide but specifically alcohol (liquor store purchases but not in restaurants, bars, or other venues like stadiums/arenas), tobacco, marijuana, guns, and automobiles are 8%. It's called a sin tax. You charge an additional tax for certain items that tend to have negative externalities. Read up.
I own a business that deals with a "sin tax". I get it & this is why your 4% fantasy doesn't hold water.

What I also "get" is that CONVENIENCE is a BIG DEAL. Which is why most don't go out of their way to save a few bucks or a few hundred bucks or a few thousand bucks.

Might want to "read up" on that statistic.

Quote:
But when districts are consolidated, they also have larger purchasing power for all equipment and supplies and can negotiate lower unit costs with the distributors. For example, District A purchased 100 units of widgets per year and so does District B. Distributor says at those counts, each district will pay $5 per widget. But with A and B consolidated and one combined order of 200, they have the power to maybe negotiate that $5 cost down to $4.50.
What would those widgets be? You have to get real. Chalk? iPads? Desks? Erasers?


Quote:
Some towns have garbage collection as part of their property taxes. Some towns also have fire departments as part of it and not volunteers as well. I'm NOT advocating for forcing public services like that on towns if they don't already have it. But for those who do, there can be savings in consolidation. As you can see I'm very much about economies of scale. By the way, we already have state government police on our highways...duh.
My town does not have property tax paid garbage collection or FD.

I understand that we have NJ State Police.

The town in Warren County that my husband grew up in did not have it's own police force until maybe 10 years ago. NJ State Police took care of taking out the trash.

Quote:
It's not that simple for companies to just up and leave. They face challenges with having to get their employees to move. Many are unwilling. I read something a while ago about how people these days are less likely to relocate than they were decades ago. I think part of that has to do with the fact that we have many more dual income households nowadays. Go back to the 50's when women were not as much part of a workforce, and if the husband got a new job and had to relocate, well, that was it. Nothing to worry about. But now if one person in the couple has to move for a new job, then the other person also needs to find a new job. That is a constraint, and companies know that it is harder these days to convince people to relocate. Obviously some companies still make the decision, for example here in NJ, Hertz moved to FL a few years ago. But companies having mass exoduses is not as rash as you would believe. Also, white collar companies care a great deal about being close to educated workforces, and NJ has a very educated workforce and is also surrounded by tons of higher ed institutions. Why do you think Amazon lists being near reputable colleges and universities as a major requirement for their HQ2 RFP?
You are correct. It's not that easy. This is why Lucent, Bell Corp & AT&T just pink-slipped 'em all back in the early 2000s.

This is not 1950 something & how does Amazon come in to play?


Quote:
I know it doesn't take effect until 2018, but guess what, it's just about here, and that will be another hole to fill that was not there before. And I understand your point of view and don't think it's asinine, but consider this. The estate tax in theory should be for very expensive properties that do qualify as true estates.
It's not just about real estate.

Quote:
For example, Phil Murphy's property itself should qualify. What's likely to happen as the current owners pass? They give it to their heirs. This huge transfer of wealth that happens that smoothly, and we ask for a little portion of it as a one time deal?
It's not yours or anyone else's to ASK for.

It was bought & paid for by money that was already taxed and spread around.

Quote:
There is a very good chance that someone who inherits this wealth isn't even "working" in the traditional sense and has just become part of old money where they can hire financial advisers to take care of keeping their stream of money coming in over time.
And?

How is anyone else entitled to what one's family did for them?

They can lay around, snort meth & call hookers all day long with their inheritance - the general public is not entitled to one cent of it.

Quote:
Plus inheriting that estate should also be viewed as an investment, because there is potential to sell down the line and make a ton cash off of that, if they choose.
Nope. It's already been taxed in one shape or form & no one else is entitled to it.

Quote:
Removing the estate tax shifts more burden from the wealthy to everyone else, and in the "old money" case, it's equivalent to how investment income can also be taxed at lower rates than "real work" income, so to speak. A trust fund baby who has a financial adviser handle their investments while they sit back and reap the benefits does not deserve to be taxed at a lower percentage rate than someone busting their ass in a 9 to 5 (or longer). I'm concerned with having an economy that is FAIR. But in this country, there are many ways in which we tax WORK and not WEALTH. Repealing an estate tax is often just another step in that direction, so while I understand your point of view, I must respectfully but vehemently disagree.
You can vehemently disagree all you want. NO ONE is entitled to a family's wealth other than the members of that family & how the wealth was dispersed.

Quote:
Now you are being lazy.
Not one day in my life have I been "lazy".

Quote:
Why am I wrong? I'm not in this scenario, but from what I have read, if you live in NJ and work in NY, you pay taxes out of your paycheck to NY. Then in tax season, you fill out returns for both states. NJ lets you deduct what you paid to NY from what you owe to NJ, and because NY has higher rates on every bracket except the top, you would owe nothing to NJ. In order to owe something to NJ (let's assume you are single) you have to make about $650K per year or more. Please tell me how I am wrong.
You think that everyone who lives in NJ and works in NY pays zero income tax to NJ?

You have to file a resident tax return & will be taxed on the income - even if it came out of NY.


Quote:
Who is to say what the right number of bars for a town is? I know...the customer!
Bars don't have the same licenses that liquor stores do.

Duh?

So much for what you "know" about it all.


Quote:
No kidding. But you need to think of it as a game. We have neighboring states, and we need to take actions to give us comparative advantages against them. At its core, this is strategy and game theory.
It's only a game for those who have nothing to lose because they have nothing.

Quote:
Yes really. Advocating in some sense for a more fair and progressive tax structure, elimination of corporate welfare, and a higher minimum wage while also calling for removal of unnecessary nanny state regulations and more personal consumption freedom, as well as a shrinkage of overblown and inefficiently scaled levels of government provided services? I think so!
Yawn.


Quote:
Well duh, the reasons most people give...space and schools. Not a whole lot of people want to raise one or more children in an apartment and pay individual private school tuition for all of them. And some who would like to can't afford it because it's gojngn to be super expensive, especially the more children you have, so the suburbs become increasingly more affordable. Not saying everyone moves to the suburbs when they have children, but most do, and there will always be a market for that. This is pretty obvious.
Apparently it's not that obvious.

Because so many do - or are your friends broke as a joke and live in the city until they can't afford it?



Quote:
It absolutely is and I would throw PA in there as well. We have two major cities near us and for the large suburban demand out there which will never completely go away (not by a long shot), we MUST do what we can to make ourselves he best option for these commuting workers. This is absolutely a battle, and if you don't view it that way, you are not taking this seriously.
Live closer to your job. Don't make your choice of a commute my problem.

No battle, sunshine.

Common sense.

Quote:
And while I'm at it, just to be an ass, we should also sue Christine Whitman and take everything she and the generations of her family below her has until the end of time as reparations for raiding the public pension fund and getting us into that mess which is probably, alone with property taxes, the biggest problem we face. And I'm only half kidding. Knowing what we know now with this issue, anyone who is less than downright furious at her doesn't have a heartbeat.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...and then we should sue Florio for his stupid (toilet paper tax, anyone?) and McGreevey for coming out of the closet before his term was over & not keeping his mess to himself (boy toy given a gov't job) ...keep on with the stupid You've more than earned it.

Last edited by Informed Info; 12-29-2017 at 02:42 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 04:58 AM
 
16,909 posts, read 6,970,921 times
Reputation: 6875
Quote:
Originally Posted by njforlife92 View Post
Kim Guadagno said she would not seek re-election if she didn't lower property taxes. She pledged to oppose tax hikes and more spending. Phil Murphy promised the opposite; he promised to increase taxes and spending. Saying they are the same is factually incorrect, this isn't that hard to figure out.
The People -VOTERS of NJ had enough of the lies from the Christi(2.0) GOP faction and choose an honest Democrat instead,it makes you mad,get over it and stop crying.You assume way to much when you go by what KG promised and you spin what Murphy says way to much to the right.He was honest and said some answers would call for some tax increases and the people of NJ voted him in to try and fix the problem so get over it or at least wait till he gets in and goes against something he said he would do.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 10:59 AM
 
1,046 posts, read 971,207 times
Reputation: 1279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Informed Info View Post
Yes, a lower sales tax would leave residents with more money in their pockets, but less tax revenue for the state. Even if the difference gets spent, it will still be a loss for the state. The out-of-stater's will be taking that savings back home with them to spend in their state.

What we don't know and can't assume is how many folks from PA, CT & NY would be running to NJ to save money on large purchases. As it is I don't know anyone who goes to DE to buy anything from my neck of the woods and we are about 2 hours from DE. The savings isn't always worth the time & effort for everyone. I wouldn't drive to DE to save a few hundred dollars.

Just using your example of a couch? Free delivery out of NJ & 3 hours in to CT? Western Pa? Manhattan? Or could/would the cost of delivery equal the savings in sales tax?

If you're looking to buy a car or another luxury item and save a few thousand? Wouldn't it make sense to keep driving to DE & pay zero in sales tax?

I understand the theory, but I don't see how it would work in real life. I don't think we (NJ) can reduce the sales tax and rely on out of state shoppers to make up the difference.
Out-of-staters taking their savings back home to spend in their state? What don't you get about MORE out-of-staters coming to spend in NJ than before. Of course, if we have x out-of-staters spending now at 6.875% tax, then a drop to 4% would be a significant loss of revenue. But what if we grow that x to 1.2x? Yes, in that case, we would still be looking at an overall drop in revenue for the state, but what about revenue period? Not just for the state but for the business owners in the state? Whether it goes to the government or not, if we can bring more money from outside of our borders to inside of our borders, we should do it.

Plenty of people in SJ and PA make the trip to DE to make big purchases and save on the sales tax. You may not drive 2 hours to DE, but plenty of people do the 1 hour or less drive.

Of course, no one would come from Western PA or most of CT to NJ to buy a couch. Yes, that is too long a trip. But people living in NEPA and the Lehigh Valley to come to western NJ to save a few hundred bucks? Why not? People in NYC, Hudson Valley, and Long Island to come to Northeastern NJ? Again, absolutely. It's not that inconvenient. As you and I both acknowledged, people from NY already do it for clothing where they are saving much less than a few hundred, unless they are really splurging.

You CANNOT buy a car in DE and pay no sales tax. You pay the sales tax to the state you are registered in, so if you live in NJ and buy a car in DE, you still pay sales tax to NJ.

Quote:
The main tourist attraction we have is the Jersey Shore. The only tourist attraction that makes any money worth talking about.

Check out the visit.nj website. Who is going to travel to NJ to visit a museum? That takes 10 minutes to walk through & similar can be found in their own state? Unless one (from out of state) is really in to NJ culture, you head to the shore. Maybe AC. Even then? AC lost it's shine a long time ago.



Maybe you don't/didn't have Comcast.

I've rented vacations homes in OBX and all they do is advertise for OBX in NC. Never seen a commercial for the Outer Banks in NJ. FL, CA & TX have a lot more to offer & year round than NJ ever has or will. Come from the west coast to ski on ice? When Tahoe or Winter Park or or Jackson Hole or Park City (if you want to get fancy: Aspen) is so much closer? Unless one is in to NJ history, you go to the city (NYC) for the museums & food & excitement. Not NJ.
Yes, we should be selling the **** out of the Shore. My question is, do you think we are maxing out our penetration into the out-of-state market? I'm simply saying we should test out increased advertising and see what happens. If it doesn't work, we pull back. I have no idea what we are doing for outreach to other states, but I'm saying maybe we aren't doing enough. What I know is that I see a good amount of plates from the Midwest when I go to the Shore. They know a lake beach in Michigan just isn't the same. We should be doing more outreach to that region. And if you go to Cape May County, you know there are lots of Canadians, especially Quebecois. Again, we know this is a market...are we doing enough outreach?

I don't watch a lot of TV, so I don't see a whole lot of ads in general, but I know that most people watch more than I do and get more exposure. I see online ads for stuff in NJ as well as other places; it seems more like stuff from other places. Up here in Hudson County and over in NYC, those From Philadelphia With Love tourism ads are everywhere on signs and buses. Guess where they aren't, though? In Philadelphia. I mean, this is common sense.

Six Flags is actually a pretty big draw for out-of-staters. Agritourism with the wineries has also been growing at an impressive clip over the past several years. We should also be pitching the Delaware Water Gap.

Quote:
I own a business that deals with a "sin tax". I get it & this is why your 4% fantasy doesn't hold water.

What I also "get" is that CONVENIENCE is a BIG DEAL. Which is why most don't go out of their way to save a few bucks or a few hundred bucks or a few thousand bucks.

Might want to "read up" on that statistic.
Convenience is a big deal for small purchases. As the price tag goes up, the importance of convenience goes down. Do you see 7-11 selling TV's? I work in the retail industry, and I know that especially in this day and age, because it's so easy and CONVENIENT to do, price comparison by shoppers is increasingly more prevalent.

If you think people don't care about doing a little extra work to save a few hundred or a few THOUSAND bucks (are you kidding me?), then you are out of touch with most people's realities. Let's go back to buying cars. Do you think people don't shop around and look at different dealerships to see what offers are out there, etc? People want to save money. Isn't that why Walmart and Amazon have become the giants that they are?

Whether it's differences in prices of the items or the taxes charged, people take account for the money they spend, and if they find meaningful savings, they will take those measures as long as it's not an excessive burden.

Quote:
What would those widgets be? You have to get real. Chalk? iPads? Desks? Erasers?
All of the above and more. That's why I said widgets...too many things to list. How about sports equipment as well? Textbooks? Computers, printers, and copiers? Food distribution for lunches? Janitor equipment for maintenance and cleaning? Buses?

Quote:
My town does not have property tax paid garbage collection or FD.

I understand that we have NJ State Police.

The town in Warren County that my husband grew up in did not have it's own police force until maybe 10 years ago. NJ State Police took care of taking out the trash.
Again, not every town is like your town. Think about other people besides yourself here. Many towns do have these services provided, and consolidating with other towns could give economies of scale.


Quote:
You are correct. It's not that easy. This is why Lucent, Bell Corp & AT&T just pink-slipped 'em all back in the early 2000s.

This is not 1950 something & how does Amazon come in to play?
Lucent laid people off because of poor performance, not because of NJ taxes. I think you forgot about something called the "dot-com bubble" bursting in the early 2000's. You MAY have heard of it. And then they got bought out in 2006. Bell merged with GTE to become Verizon in 2000. Layoffs are quite common after mergers for obvious reasons. Let's say Company A has a Director of Pricing. So does Company B. The two companies merge. Now, the new company only needs one of them, and the other gets laid off.

Downsizing and layoffs happen for many reasons. Blaming this on NJ taxes? Where's the proof for these examples? The question at hand was are these companies moving their headquarters and operations from NJ to a lower tax state? In this examples, no. And funny that you should mention AT&T.

AT&T Announces Thousands of Layoffs, Firings Just in Time for Christmas

This after they get a MASSIVE federal tax cut from 35% to 21% which is supposed to boost jobs, and look at that? Workers being laid off are in lower tax states in the Midwest and South. HMM...

The point is labor economics is not simply reduced to everything about being a reaction to corporate tax policy. Corporate taxes are levied on a company's PROFITS. If a company is not profitable (read: BEFORE taxes), then tax policy is the least of their worries. Labor economics has more to do with a company's individual performance. People get hired if a company is growing and performing well and more work needs to be done. People get laid off if a company is trending red, are looking to push greater economies of scale, or technologies come along that make certain jobs obsolete. Let's talk about those coal miners in WV, PA, KY, etc.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...production.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_m..._1890-2014.png

1920 Production- ~ 660 Million Tons
2010 Production- ~1.08 Billion Tons
1920 Employment- ~785 Thousand
2010 Employment- ~135 Thousand

How could this be? 64% increase in production but an 83% decrease in employment? Why don't you take a guess? And then tell me again how Coal Country is going to "come back."

Amazon comes into play because one of their requirements for HQ2 is to in an area with an educated workforce and lots of great higher ed institutions nearby to draw from for their talent pool. NJ scores VERY high in this field, and this is an important field not just for Amazon but for ANY white collar company. You're not going to find the same talent pool as NJ in states like Mississippi, Idaho, Montana, or Oklahoma, tax situation be damned.

Quote:
It's not just about real estate.



It's not yours or anyone else's to ASK for.

It was bought & paid for by money that was already taxed and spread around.



And?

How is anyone else entitled to what one's family did for them?

They can lay around, snort meth & call hookers all day long with their inheritance - the general public is not entitled to one cent of it.



Nope. It's already been taxed in one shape or form & no one else is entitled to it.



You can vehemently disagree all you want. NO ONE is entitled to a family's wealth other than the members of that family & how the wealth was dispersed.
Then, by your logic there should be no income or property tax at all. Because no matter who you are, if you are getting taxed, it's getting redistributed to society at large. Let's see how well society functions then if we just decide, based on principle, that there should be no income or property taxes whatsoever. And you seem to think lower corporate taxes will make everything swell as well by your ill-informed logic above in regards to Lucent, Bell, and AT&T. So I'm beginning to think you are an (un) Fair Tax proponent. Might as well make a nationwide sales tax of 25%, huh? Yeah, let's see how that works.


Quote:
You think that everyone who lives in NJ and works in NY pays zero income tax to NJ?

You have to file a resident tax return & will be taxed on the income - even if it came out of NY.
Did I say EVERYONE? Please, tell me where oh where did I say everyone? The facts hold up. If you make less than $650K and work in NY, you do not owe to NJ. And no, that does not cover EVERYONE living in NJ and working in NY, but it covers the vast majority. That means these people use state services but don't pay for them the same way that people who work in NJ do. They pay to NY state services (which they don't get to use, for the most part).

https://statisticalatlas.com/state/N...usehold-Income

Facts be damned, right?

Quote:
Bars don't have the same licenses that liquor stores do.

Duh?

So much for what you "know" about it all.
No duh. I know that bars have different licenses than liquor stores. I know in general that liquor laws in NJ are among the most arcane in the nation. I care more about the consumption licenses being expanded. When a town only has a handful of consumption licenses to hand out, the rarity of the commodity drives up the price, which is why they are so expensive, and often prohibitively so for a small business. So, who takes the liquor license? Applebee's, because they have the capital to invest. The current system stifles competition, provides barriers to entry, and also prevents particularly smaller towns and cities from developing better nightlife districts to provide cultural value to residents, that is, if they so choose (remember we let the CONSUMER decide how many bars there should be...this is a local level issue and hell, those bunch of towns in South Jersey that are dry can still remain dry as well if that's what the residents want, but there is no reason that the state level government should be impeding local-level business like this). Changing the laws would benefit suburbs the most. I seem to "know" more about economics than you do. Don't blame me for majoring in it in college.


Quote:
It's only a game for those who have nothing to lose because they have nothing.
Points just fly right over your head. You seem to lack the ability to understand both metaphors and literal facts. This is serious business, but you need to think strategically. It's chess.


Quote:
Yawn.
Your laziness is showing again. The facts make sense, but you don't like them, so you try to kill meaningful discourse with a non-sequitur. I understand how this works...you're not that clever.


Quote:
Apparently it's not that obvious.

Because so many do - or are your friends broke as a joke and live in the city until they can't afford it?
"So many do..."

And yet, so many don't. Two parents with three kids, working in NYC. Do you think a 3 bedroom apartment in Manhattan or a 4 bedroom house in a safe part of Brooklyn or Queens is cheap? Do you think NYC private school tuition for 3 kids is cheap? Do you think anyone who can't afford, or doesn't want to pay this, is "broke as a joke?" Suburbs are where most of the middle class will be. Cities, especially NYC, are where the middle class disappears and the divide is really only between rich and poor. The rich can stay because they can afford the things above which are NOT cheap. The poor stay because they get stuck and don't have the capital to put a down payment for a house in the suburbs...not to mention getting cars, etc. The fact is, as millenials ramp up into the "having babies" phases of their lives, a whole ton of them are going to be looking to move to suburbs. Definitely the majority if you ask me. Now, if you work in Brooklyn or Queens, you're probably moving to Long Island. If you work in the Bronx, you're probably moving to Westchester, maybe Rockland, maybe Fairfield County in CT. Staten Island? Probably moving to NJ. Manhattan workers are the battleground where they could choose any state. NJ should be fighting to win them over.


Quote:
Live closer to your job. Don't make your choice of a commute my problem.

No battle, sunshine.

Common sense.
People ARE choosing to live closer to their jobs. That's why Warren, Sussex, Hunterdon Counties are not growing or are losing population. No one wants to commute to NYC from there. It's a cultural change in priorities. But for reasons outlined above, that doesn't mean that it's feasible for people who work in NYC to stay living in NYC. Eastern Morris, Essex, Union, Northern Middlesex, and Bergen Counties in particular absolutely will be battling with Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, Western Suffolk, and Fairfield Counties. You need to follow the demographic trends. Millenials, the largest generation, are entering the baby-making phase...there will be huge demand for suburban houses, despite the fact that at the same time, more millenials than previous generations are more willing to stay in the city.


Quote:
Yeah, yeah, yeah...and then we should sue Florio for his stupid (toilet paper tax, anyone?) and McGreevey for coming out of the closet before his term was over & not keeping his mess to himself (boy toy given a gov't job) ...keep on with the stupid You've more than earned it.
Any politician who screws the state over should be held accountable. Hell, McGreevey was just as awful as Whitman on skipping pension payments. But Whitman set the precedent. McGreevey paid the price for, if you want to call it quasi-nepotism (which he deserves all of the criticism for, but you also bad mouth him for "coming out of the closet?" That's disgusting. I don't care that he was gay, privately or publicly, and neither should you. The homosexuality isn't the problem. It's the nepotistic nature...if his "boy toy" was a woman, it would have been equally as bad), and had to resign. Whitman got away scar-free and then went on to pull such doozies as illegally patting down an innocent black man in Camden "for fun" and telling everyone the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe one week after 9/11.

I haven't earned your "stupid" at all. Nobody earns or deserves your "stupid."

Last edited by Leps12; 12-29-2017 at 11:10 AM..
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2021, 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