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.
That is extremely misleading. It is a thinly veiled variation of the myth that your property taxes pay for Abbott funds.
Oh here we go again.
You know exactly what people are saying and yet you often choose to distort this argument and twist people's words around. No one is saying that property taxes go into the poorer district.
In many suburban districts, the schools will be funded primarily with local property taxes, meaning that the town gets little state aid for the schools. However, the residents of such a town are also paying state income tax also (and sales tax) into the state coffers. There are towns where the schools are funded 100% by state aid, and towns where the schools are funded practically 100% by local sources of revenue.
You know exactly what people are saying and yet you often choose to distort this argument and twist people's words around. No one is saying that property taxes go into the poorer district.
It is misleading to talk of "dirty cities are effectively stealing all of the suburban money". Which suburban money ? State tax revenue is not separated into "suburban" money and "other" money. It's an arbitrary and contrived designation. Most state income tax revenue is actually "top percentile of income earners" money. Some of these people might live in the burbs. Some of them might live in Hoboken or Jersey City. In any case, the fact that they might live in your town doesn't necessarily mean that you have any more claim to their money than someone in some other town.
Quote:
In many suburban districts, the schools will be funded primarily with local property taxes, meaning that the town gets little state aid for the schools. However, the residents of such a town are also paying state income tax also (and sales tax) into the state coffers.
There are towns where the schools are funded 100% by state aid, and towns where the schools are funded practically 100% by local sources of revenue.
I addressed (and debunked) this line of argument in my other post (the part that you snipped)
There are citizens in many suburban towns in NJ that are paying substantial taxes to the state via state income tax and sales tax, yet whose towns receive little to no state aid back. Therefore, they end up footing very high property tax bills as well, to fund their local school districts.
The same thing happens on the Federal level BTW. NJ and its citizens only gets 50 cents back for every dollar it sends to the Federal gov't. Some states get almost two dollars back for every dollar they send.
While we're talking taxes, another thing that hasn't gotten much publicity is the fact that property taxes are no longer deductible on NJ income tax. That's a big, yet hidden and quiet, state tax increase, I know at least $1,000 bucks for our family.
There are citizens in many suburban towns in NJ that are paying substantial taxes to the state via state income tax and sales tax, yet whose towns receive little to no state aid back. Therefore, they end up footing very high property tax bills as well, to fund their local school districts.
First, I think the above is a canard for the following reason: most state tax revenue comes from the top percentile of income earners. So while there are some citizens in suburban towns who are bankrolling the Abbott districts via their income taxes, there are also some citizens in Jersey City and Hoboken who are doing so.
The fact that some other person in your town is bankrolling the Abbott districts doesn't mean that you are.
The middle class contribute some (but not a whole lot) to state taxes, but also benefit -- for example, state spending on colleges overwhelmingly favors the middle class (the rich don't need it, the poor are less likely to go to a 4 year college).
Second, I'm having trouble parsing your point of view here.
Would you state clearly whether you are for or against redistribution ?
It seems that the people who push this line of argument are against redistribution to other people, but for redistribution to them. I understand that everyone would like to pursue and lobby for their self interest, but let's not confuse crying for cash with a sound policy argument.
If you're arguing for more aid to these middle class districts, then that means more taxes for the people who are already paying income taxes.
If you're arguing that the top income earners should subsidize middle class families in addition to the poor (which is what increased aid would amount to), then why not just come clean about it ?
I'd be happy to answer specific questions about my line of reasoning.
The simple version, is that
(1) The fact that your property taxes are high has not a thing to do with Abbott districts.
(2)
The top 1% of income earners pay most of the income tax. Some of these people live in the suburbs, and some don't. Most people who live in the suburbs are not in this 1%.
Everyone else (e.g. the other 99%) struggles with property tax. Generally, the less income you make, the more of a burden the property tax.
For the sake of discussion, let's call the top 50% of income earners, excluding the top 1% the "middle class".
It is a fallacy to suggest that money goes from this middle class to the Abbott districts (because again, most state tax revenue came from that top 1%)
The danger in scapegoating the poor for high property taxes (besides being morally reprehensible) is that it diverts attention from the real reasons that property taxes are an onerous burden on the middle class -- the reasons are that (a) property tax is regressive, and (b) the costs are out of control.
The NJ GOP is just suffering with the rest of the GOP from the division within the party and the impending implosion. Finally, the talk-radio nutjobs like Rush and Mark Levin are calling to overthrow the GOP and "take it back", so we should see the in-fighting amongst conservatives increase for a couple years before they start getting their act back together. It will most likely be too late to win back the White House or the NJ governorship, but maybe one day the GOP can be relevant again, after the implosion.
I'd be happy to answer specific questions about my line of reasoning.
The simple version, is that
(1) The fact that your property taxes are high has not a thing to do with Abbott districts.
(2)
The top 1% of income earners pay most of the income tax. Some of these people live in the suburbs, and some don't. Most people who live in the suburbs are not in this 1%.
Everyone else (e.g. the other 99%) struggles with property tax. Generally, the less income you make, the more of a burden the property tax.
For the sake of discussion, let's call the top 50% of income earners, excluding the top 1% the "middle class".
It is a fallacy to suggest that money goes from this middle class to the Abbott districts (because again, most state tax revenue came from that top 1%)
The danger in scapegoating the poor for high property taxes (besides being morally reprehensible) is that it diverts attention from the real reasons that property taxes are an onerous burden on the middle class -- the reasons are that (a) property tax is regressive, and (b) the costs are out of control.
I agree with your last paragraph 100%. Property taxes are horribly regressive and even more so on lower-income homeowners than higher-income ones. And yes, the costs are out of control for a number of reasons.
To your point 1, it's not fair to scapegoat the Abbott districts for the property tax situation. But the fact remains that the Abbott districts receive 60% of the state education aid, while only educating 23% of the NJ students. That's where the perception comes in that the other districts are getting left out in the cold by the state (and sets up the suburban/urban divide).
Perhaps this is a fair distribution, I don't know. But you must admit there is the point where let's say, the 50% you mention, can't take any more tax increases (whether local or state)?
To your point 1, it's not fair to scapegoat the Abbott districts for the property tax situation. But the fact remains that the Abbott districts receive 60% of the state education aid, while only educating 23% of the NJ students. That's where the perception comes in that the other districts are getting left out in the cold by the state (and sets up the suburban/urban divide).
Perhaps this is a fair distribution, I don't know. But you must admit there is the point where let's say, the 50% you mention, can't take any more tax increases (whether local or state)?
I agree that it's an onerous burden on the middle class.
I think increasing aid is a very poor solution to the problem though. The problem is that aid from states doesn't provide very good returns to local tax payers (it desensitizes residents of those towns to the costs, which removes incentives for the towns to operate efficiently). And without addressing those costs, they keep going up for other reasons, some beyond the control of the towns (union contracts, underfunded pensions, etc) Once the aid is exhausted, the property tax payers are on the hook for what's left.
So I believe what would happen with increasing aid, is that costs would keep going upwards, the towns would find a way to keep spending (increasing costs would be at least one source of constant increases), and property taxes wouldn't change that much. Then the middle class are still stuck with onerous property tax burden, and possibly a more substantial state tax bill on top of that.
The two other approaches are to fund entirely from a revenue source besides property tax, or to find a way to bring costs to a level where the middle class can afford them. There is no reason why a middle class community shouldn't be able to fund a school. The reason that they can't in practice is that there are a number of absurd mandates that are imposed on them (they have to into pay defined benefit plans, they have to pay the PE teacher the same amount as the math teacher, they are not allowed to fire the deadwood, etc.)
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.
