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.
When the urban areas only cough up 5-10% of the costs of running their own fiefdoms, the remaining cash comes from somewhere. And it's not the good tax money fairy.
You can't blame your local politicians for that BS. Start with the courts that legislate and political machines that hold the power to redistribute everyone's money in a BIG way.
When the urban areas only cough up 5-10% of the costs of running their own fiefdoms, the remaining cash comes from somewhere. And it's not the good tax money fairy.
You can't blame your local politicians for that BS. Start with the courts that legislate and political machines that hold the power to redistribute everyone's money in a BIG way.
I've asked the same question you're asking and haven't gotten an answer either. Just like us not knowing where exactly our tax money goes to, how do you know urban areas only cough up 5-10%? Do you have a link that shows that?
Here are some personal facts about my tax situation:
in the 3 yrs since Corzine, my property tax hikes have averaged about 3% a year.
my state income tax has only risen proportional to income
70% of my prop bill goes to local schools. a few hundred goes to open space. a smidge goes to local tax, and another smidge goes to county. I don't believe any gets siphoned off to abbott districts (maybe county???????) , but again, i don't know and noone seems to be able to tell me. the county tax, next to open space, is the smallest amount.
please note: I'm NOT defending Corzine. I'm simply stating facts.
so, if we keep throwing money to the monster that is newark, paterson, etc- where is this money coming from ? our state income tax hasn't risen. sales tax has, but that doesn't fund abbott to my knowledge. everything seems to "think" it's property taxes, but it can't be confirmed or denied, and it certainly doesn't seem like it. if you can't blame local politicians for abbott, how can you blame corzine for your local tax rate?
I've asked the same question you're asking and haven't gotten an answer either. Just like us not knowing where exactly our tax money goes to, how do you know urban areas only cough up 5-10%? Do you have a link that shows that?
Here are some personal facts about my tax situation:
in the 3 yrs since Corzine, my property tax hikes have averaged about 3% a year.
my state income tax has only risen proportional to income
70% of my prop bill goes to local schools. a few hundred goes to open space. a smidge goes to local tax, and another smidge goes to county. I don't believe any gets siphoned off to abbott districts (maybe county???????) , but again, i don't know and noone seems to be able to tell me. the county tax, next to open space, is the smallest amount.
please note: I'm NOT defending Corzine. I'm simply stating facts.
so, if we keep throwing money to the monster that is newark, paterson, etc- where is this money coming from ? our state income tax hasn't risen. sales tax has, but that doesn't fund abbott to my knowledge. everything seems to "think" it's property taxes, but it can't be confirmed or denied, and it certainly doesn't seem like it. if you can't blame local politicians for abbott, how can you blame corzine for your local tax rate?
tahiti, doc1, Determining just what money goes where in NJ is a daunting task. But what I've been able to learn throughout the years is that property tax money supplies the school system for you particular town as well as providing police protection and money for road repairs for roads controlled by your town. County money can go for schools that are run by the county as well as county roads.There may be money provided by the state for road repairs in certain circumstances. Sales tax money generated by the businesses in your town go to the state as well as state income tax money.
The major problem that the smaller towns and suburbs face is the way the state doles out money collected from sales and income tax in regards to the schools. Abbott schools get about 60% of the 7.8 billion that will go to K-12 education in 2009, for the entire state. That means the wealthier suburbs pay almost 100% through property taxes for education. Poorer communities get some money from the state, while the lion's share goes to NJ's poor cities and poor semi-suburbs.
So, in essence, the wealthier suburbs are less likely to get any state money to offset their educational expenses, so property taxes have to remain high to support their schools. It's not a question of property taxes being sent to the state, rather it is a lack of getting any money from the state to help lower property tax rates in many communities. I once calculated that if my old home town of Paterson had to fund its schools 100% through property taxes, say like Ridgewood, that it would cost each homeowner about $25,000 just for the school portion of the property tax. So my old house (a Cape Cod on 50x100 lot) might have a tax bill of well over $30,000! I feared that one day, the suburbs might revolt over the taxes they pay for education, dismantle "Thorough and Efficient Education" (a joke!), reverse "Abbott vs Burke" and my tax bill might more resemble the tax bill on a house in Alpine! LOL!! This is one of the many reasons, I sold my house to move to NC. Thank God!!!
tahiti - You're right about the "educational portion" of your property tax approaching 70%. But over the years, educational goals seemed to exponentially expanded. When suburban parents want their autistic child sent to a really good public or private school, do they know that the cost for their child in that school might range between $60,000 and $100,000? All those extra teachers and teaching assistants as well as physical and occupational therapists don't come cheap! I'm sure those parents wouldn't want little Johnnie or Susie to be placed in a state school or mental institute with 50 in a room, only to be dumped into a "Greystone" when they "aged out". Class size has gotten a lot smaller than it was from the days I was in school. I routinely had classes with 30 to 35 students in them. Nowadays, parents would be upset with classes that size! So more teachers are required. High schools have "Deans" in them - unknown in my day, except for college. High tech, which didn't exist years ago, takes a good chunk of money. Who would want to send their kids to school without them! Any volunteers? Also, Miss Crabtree isn't working in the schools anymore. The old maid, who seemed to make up a good portion of the teachers I had in the sixties and who lived slightly less frugally than a nun, is long gone! Now everyone wants money! What a surprise! So school isn't cheap anymore, that's for sure.
Here in NC, no teacher union, no binding arbitration so it makes for low taxes, everyone's happy except for the teachers!
tahiti, doc1, Determining just what money goes where in NJ is a daunting task. But what I've been able to learn throughout the years is that property tax money supplies the school system for you particular town as well as providing police protection and money for road repairs for roads controlled by your town. County money can go for schools that are run by the county as well as county roads.There may be money provided by the state for road repairs in certain circumstances. Sales tax money generated by the businesses in your town go to the state as well as state income tax money.
The major problem that the smaller towns and suburbs face is the way the state doles out money collected from sales and income tax in regards to the schools. Abbott schools get about 60% of the 7.8 billion that will go to K-12 education in 2009, for the entire state. That means the wealthier suburbs pay almost 100% through property taxes for education. Poorer communities get some money from the state, while the lion's share goes to NJ's poor cities and poor semi-suburbs.
So, in essence, the wealthier suburbs are less likely to get any state money to offset their educational expenses, so property taxes have to remain high to support their schools. It's not a question of property taxes being sent to the state, rather it is a lack of getting any money from the state to help lower property tax rates in many communities. I once calculated that if my old home town of Paterson had to fund its schools 100% through property taxes, say like Ridgewood, that it would cost each homeowner about $25,000 just for the school portion of the property tax. So my old house (a Cape Cod on 50x100 lot) might have a tax bill of well over $30,000! I feared that one day, the suburbs might revolt over the taxes they pay for education, dismantle "Thorough and Efficient Education" (a joke!), reverse "Abbott vs Burke" and my tax bill might more resemble the tax bill on a house in Alpine! LOL!! This is one of the many reasons, I sold my house to move to NC. Thank God!!!
tahiti - You're right about the "educational portion" of your property tax approaching 70%. But over the years, educational goals seemed to exponentially expanded. When suburban parents want their autistic child sent to a really good public or private school, do they know that the cost for their child in that school might range between $60,000 and $100,000? All those extra teachers and teaching assistants as well as physical and occupational therapists don't come cheap! I'm sure those parents wouldn't want little Johnnie or Susie to be placed in a state school or mental institute with 50 in a room, only to be dumped into a "Greystone" when they "aged out". Class size has gotten a lot smaller than it was from the days I was in school. I routinely had classes with 30 to 35 students in them. Nowadays, parents would be upset with classes that size! So more teachers are required. High schools have "Deans" in them - unknown in my day, except for college. High tech, which didn't exist years ago, takes a good chunk of money. Who would want to send their kids to school without them! Any volunteers? Also, Miss Crabtree isn't working in the schools anymore. The old maid, who seemed to make up a good portion of the teachers I had in the sixties and who lived slightly less frugally than a nun, is long gone! Now everyone wants money! What a surprise! So school isn't cheap anymore, that's for sure.
Here in NC, no teacher union, no binding arbitration so it makes for low taxes, everyone's happy except for the teachers!
i enjoyed reading this and thank you for responding. and i did the math, it is 70% so yup, I'm correct! (it's actually 71%).
so would it be a fair assumption that folks in paterson, newark, camden, etc pay significantly less in school tax (as a percentage) since they receive the lion's share of state aid (btw - do you have a link for that 60% abbott receives?)? i would love to find this out, i'm afraid i don't know anyone to ask in those cities. another question - people in essex county say they have higher taxes because they "fund newark". If suburban towns have to fully fund their own school districts, how is it they are "funding newark" if the monies are coming from state aid?
so it seems one easy answer is to redistribute the funds, can Christie do this? If he can't, will he too be vilified?
i'm finding this thread very telling, and proof partisan politics are alive and well here!
..... if you can't blame local politicians for abbott, how can you blame corzine for your local tax rate?
Blaming Corzine for our current mess makes no sense at all. Our legislators and activist courts have the most to do with NJ's condition. Then throw in a previous governors. They're all complicit.
Corzine has simply added to it by doing things such as not standing up to public worker unions (as opposed to behaving like a labor organizer) and by not doing much, if anything.
Remember when the legislature worked overtime to trim a billion or so from the budget? After all of their efforts, he scrapped it. (Wanted to "do it himself"). Yeah. Great job.
For a link as to "who pays and how much" to run their kingdoms, poke around here.
tahiti;6920114]......
so it seems one easy answer is to redistribute the funds, can Christie do this? If he can't, will he too be vilified?
As long as our courts legislate, and our legislators don't, it's hard to say what a governor can do. I'd love to see one at least TRY. Give us that, at least.
Quote:
i'm finding this thread very telling, and proof partisan politics are alive and well here!
Not following you there.
Last edited by doc1; 01-09-2009 at 05:44 PM..
Reason: typos, as usual
i enjoyed reading this and thank you for responding. and i did the math, it is 70% so yup, I'm correct! (it's actually 71%).
so would it be a fair assumption that folks in paterson, newark, camden, etc pay significantly less in school tax (as a percentage) since they receive the lion's share of state aid (btw - do you have a link for that 60% abbott receives?)? i would love to find this out, i'm afraid i don't know anyone to ask in those cities. another question - people in essex county say they have higher taxes because they "fund newark". If suburban towns have to fully fund their own school districts, how is it they are "funding newark" if the monies are coming from state aid?
so it seems one easy answer is to redistribute the funds, can Christie do this? If he can't, will he too be vilified?
i'm finding this thread very telling, and proof partisan politics are alive and well here!
tahiti - Here are a few links to articles discussing Abbott Schools and their funding.
NorthJersey.com: Abbott funding would end under new school plan (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Abbott_funding_would_end_under_new_school_plan.htm l - broken link)
As far as I can determine, most of the large cities pay nearly the same percentage of their property taxes as do the suburbs. It's just that the amount is actually far short of what is required to run the schools. For example, there are 23,000 homes in Paterson and if they all paid the city average of $6350 in taxes apiece, that would generate approximately $146 million. Well, the cost of running the Paterson school system is more than $525 million, so even if every tax dollar were used, it would fall far short of what it costs to operate the schools. That amount is just the school money and doesn't even take into consideration police, fire, and other municipal services. Just the cost of the high schools alone, would nearly consume every tax dollar paid by Paterson residents (Quick Math 8000 high school students at $16,000 per student). I'm sure that all the other cities would closely mirror those numbers in proportion to their population. I read somewhere that Newark's education budget is nearly $1.5 billion. The citizens of those NJ cities don't feel the amount they pay in taxes is chump change either! But to approach the percentages that the suburbs pay towards education would require astronomical tax increases or paying school staff half the minimum wage. I'm not sure when this started to get so out of whack, perhaps in the late 60's when "white flight" occurred!
As far as Essex county goes, I'm fairly sure that they are complaining about their share of county taxes. I read that Short Hills pays nearly the same amount of taxes to Essex County as Newark does, based mainly on property values of businesses and residential housing. This is what was behind the attempt of Short Hills and Montclair to secede from Essex County and ally themselves with Morris and Passaic Counties repectively. I checked out one of my old tax bills from a few years back and found that the Passaic County tax made up about 25% of my total tax bill. Check your own tax bill to see what percentage your county takes out of your total tax bill. I would think Essex County's taxes are a lot higher per assessed 100 than Passaic's. Feel free to chime in Essex County people!
doc1 - Any politician that tries to go against the entrenched establishments of education and other special interests is likely to be hoisted by their own petard in short order, despite the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" of the tax-paying public. "Evolution" happens on a faster basis than tax reform in NJ is ever likely to!
Last edited by TheEmissary; 01-09-2009 at 06:15 PM..
NorthJersey.com: Abbott funding would end under new school plan (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Abbott_funding_would_end_under_new_school_plan.htm l - broken link)
As far as I can determine, most of the large cities pay nearly the same percentage of their property taxes as do the suburbs. It's just that the amount is actually far short of what is required to run the schools. For example, there are 23,000 homes in Paterson and if they all paid the city average of $6350 in taxes apiece, that would generate approximately $146 million. Well, the cost of running the Paterson school system is more than $525 million, so even if every tax dollar were used, it would fall far short of what it costs to operate the schools. That amount is just the school money and doesn't even take into consideration police, fire, and other municipal services. Just the cost of the high schools alone, would nearly consume every tax dollar paid by Paterson residents (Quick Math 8000 high school students at $16,000 per student). I'm sure that all the other cities would closely mirror those numbers in proportion to their population. I read somewhere that Newark's education budget is nearly $1.5 billion. The citizens of those NJ cities don't feel the amount they pay in taxes is chump change either! But to approach the percentages that the suburbs pay towards education would require astronomical tax increases or paying school staff half the minimum wage. I'm not sure when this started to get so out of whack, perhaps in the late 60's when "white flight" occurred!
As far as Essex county goes, I'm fairly sure that they are complaining about their share of county taxes. I read that Short Hills pays nearly the same amount of taxes to Essex County as Newark does, based mainly on property values of businesses and residential housing. This is what was behind the attempt of Short Hills and Montclair to secede from Essex County and ally themselves with Morris and Passaic Counties repectively. I checked out one of my old tax bills from a few years back and found that the Passaic County tax made up about 25% of my total tax bill. Check your own tax bill to see what percentage your county takes out of your total tax bill. I would think Essex County's taxes are a lot higher per assessed 100 than Passaic's. Feel free to chime in Essex County people!
doc1 - Any politician that tries to go against the entrenched establishments of education and other special interests is likely to be hoisted by their own petard in short order, despite the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" of the tax-paying public. "Evolution" happens on a faster basis than tax reform in NJ is ever likely to!
you rock! I will look at these, thanks!!!! My county tax is 10% of my total bill. I would be interested in the Essex #, I'll ask my friend.
Blaming Corzine for our current mess makes no sense at all. Our legislators and activist courts have the most to do with NJ's condition. Then throw in a previous governors. They're all complicit.
Corzine has simply added to it by doing things such as not standing up to public worker unions (as opposed to behaving like a labor organizer) and by not doing much, if anything.
Remember when the legislature worked overtime to trim a billion or so from the budget? After all of their efforts, he scrapped it. (Wanted to "do it himself"). Yeah. Great job.
For a link as to "who pays and how much" to run their kingdoms, poke around here.
you rock! I will look at these, thanks!!!! My county tax is 10% of my total bill. I would be interested in the Essex #, I'll ask my friend.
tahiti - Many of the social service programs fall under the purview of expenses that comprise county taxes. Welfare payments which would consume a good chunk of change come out of county tax money helped by state as well as federal money. That could well be the reason your Morris County taxes are low relative to the town you live in. Dover, for example, would not be driving costs up for Morris county to the same degree that Paterson and Newark would do to Passaic and Essex.
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.
and i did the math, it is 70% so yup, I'm correct! 
(it's actually 71%).
, so even if every tax dollar were used, it would fall far short of what it costs to operate the schools. That amount is just the school money and doesn't even take into consideration police, fire, and other municipal services. Just the cost of the high schools alone, would nearly consume every tax dollar paid by Paterson residents (Quick Math 8000 high school students at $16,000 per student). I'm sure that all the other cities would closely mirror those numbers in proportion to their population. I read somewhere that Newark's education budget is nearly $1.5 billion. The citizens of those NJ cities don't feel the amount they pay in taxes is chump change either! But to approach the percentages that the suburbs pay towards education would require astronomical tax increases or paying school staff half the minimum wage. I'm not sure when this started to get so out of whack, perhaps in the late 60's when "white flight" occurred! 
