NJ, already the worst for business taxes, is trying to make themselves even less competitive
cramer said:
"Murphy said he will sign a bill to overhaul the state's school funding formula. Money will be shifted over seven years from districts considered overfunded under the school funding formula to underfunded districts."
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/06/nj_budget_5_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_new.html
We'll see.
Usually when I read stuff like that its lets cut the state funding for upper and middle class district in order to give more to the poorer districts like Newark.
Enjoy the forthcoming property tax hikes.
BG9 said:
cramer said:Usually when I read stuff like that its lets cut the state funding for upper and middle class district in order to give more to the poorer districts like Newark.
"Murphy said he will sign a bill to overhaul the state's school funding formula. Money will be shifted over seven years from districts considered overfunded under the school funding formula to underfunded districts."
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/06/nj_budget_5_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_new.html
We'll see.
Enjoy the forthcoming property tax hikes.
Or, read stuff like this: a projected increase of $484,000 (about 11 percent) for SOMSD in 2018-19.
ETA: That’s a greater percentage increase than Newark, Camden, Paterson, Passaic, Salem, et al.
DaveSchmidt said:
BG9 said:Or, read stuff like this: a projected increase of $484,000 (about 11 percent) for SOMSD in 2018-19.
cramer said:Usually when I read stuff like that its lets cut the state funding for upper and middle class district in order to give more to the poorer districts like Newark.
"Murphy said he will sign a bill to overhaul the state's school funding formula. Money will be shifted over seven years from districts considered overfunded under the school funding formula to underfunded districts."
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/06/nj_budget_5_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_new.html
We'll see.
Enjoy the forthcoming property tax hikes.
It's better than a sharp stick in the eye.
"Even with the increases, though, most districts are receiving less than they should under the funding formula. Murphy said he wants to close that gap over the next four years."
https://www.nj.com/education/2018/03/murphy_wants_more_money_for_546_districts_is_yours.html
eta - Murphy also wants to have pensions fully-funded by 2023. It's difficult to see how this can be done without further tax increases.
Having said what I said so far, I'm not crazy about NJ raising taxes, because it places us in competition with other states. The feds should be the ones doing the majority of taxing, and then funneling it back out to the states, as that would create a more even playing field.
Not holding my breath for that one.
Tom_R said:
I really want to understand this, so please explain, in terms a ten-year-old could understand, what is a progressive tax?TomR
The wikipedia article on progressive tax explains it well and in a nicely unbiased way.
Tom_R said:
Tax the rich. Yeah, they have more, so we should take it. After all, if we we don't take it from them, we'll have to cover the difference.
We're all enjoying the benefit of our roads, our public transportation system, our bridges and tunnels. We may get little from Trenton for our schools, Police and Fire Departments, but we still like the help.
If we're all enjoying the benefit of State government; shouldn't we all contribute more, when the State needs more?
Tax the rich. Yeah, they have more, so we should take it.
Do I scent revolution in the air?
TomR
Yes revolution will come if the growing disparities of wealth and income are not corrected. We know this from history. I'd prefer not to have a violent change, and it's possible, but not with the direction we're going in now. If more folks knew how rich the rich are, the riots would start quickly.
So yes, tax the rich. That's not all we should do, but you use those words as if they're bad. Taxes from the rich used to build stuff for everyone. Now they don't, and things are not going well for most people.
drummerboy said:
Having said what I said so far, I'm not crazy about NJ raising taxes, because it places us in competition with other states. The feds should be the ones doing the majority of taxing, and then funneling it back out to the states, as that would create a more even playing field.
Not holding my breath for that one.
I'm not sure I agree that the feds should do more taxing. Why should I care if it's the feds, the states or my city who taxes me, as long as my community and I have what we need. If Mississippians don't want decent roads or schools, let them decide that. They've been talking about too much taxation there, and I don't agree, and you know what would happen if we stopped sending them money.
Tom_Reingold said:
drummerboy said:I'm not sure I agree that the feds should do more taxing. Why should I care if it's the feds, the states or my city who taxes me, as long as my community and I have what we need. If Mississippians don't want decent roads or schools, let them decide that. They've been talking about too much taxation there, and I don't agree, and you know what would happen if we stopped sending them money.
Having said what I said so far, I'm not crazy about NJ raising taxes, because it places us in competition with other states. The feds should be the ones doing the majority of taxing, and then funneling it back out to the states, as that would create a more even playing field.
Not holding my breath for that one.
The only reason is that businesses might favor the lower tax state, causing economic harm to the higher taxed states if they're seen as punitive. That's the whole point of this thread, I think.
Though in practice I have to admit, that doesn't seem to have hurt the northeast very much. The higher tax states are generally doing better economically than the lower taxed ones.
The problem is similar to using property taxes to fund schools. It ends up causing a very uneven distribution of resources and wildly disparate outcomes. Schools are a common good - school taxes should be spread throughout the state through the income tax, and then sent back to the communities based on some equitable formula.
Those are good points, drummerboy. And we in the northeast have shown that high taxes don't ruin an economy. But you list good reasons to have federal taxes anyway.
DaveSchmidt said:
Tom_R said:Timmy, your Mom and I have decided that divvying up household chores according to the number of bedrooms each of us occupies — we all need a bedroom, right? — hasn’t been fair, with you doing half the chores by yourself and Mom and I splitting the other half. From now on, because we’re bigger and stronger than you, Mom and I will do the bulk, and when you get bigger and stronger, you can help out more.
I really want to understand this, so please explain, in terms a ten-year-old could understand, what is a progressive tax?
TomR
Hold on. Your Mom just spotted a one-bed condo with concierge service. See ya, Timmy.
Stupid comparison. Don't insult us.
yahooyahoo said:
DaveSchmidt said:Stupid comparison. Don't insult us.
Tom_R said:Timmy, your Mom and I have decided that divvying up household chores according to the number of bedrooms each of us occupies — we all need a bedroom, right? — hasn’t been fair, with you doing half the chores by yourself and Mom and I splitting the other half. From now on, because we’re bigger and stronger than you, Mom and I will do the bulk, and when you get bigger and stronger, you can help out more.
I really want to understand this, so please explain, in terms a ten-year-old could understand, what is a progressive tax?
TomR
Hold on. Your Mom just spotted a one-bed condo with concierge service. See ya, Timmy.
Stupid question. We were already insulted.
Tom_Reingold said:
Those are good points, drummerboy. And we in the northeast have shown that high taxes don't ruin an economy. But you list good reasons to have federal taxes anyway.
drummerboy is right about staying competitive. This is the real issue - as people become increasingly mobile with the ability to work from anywhere we will only see an increased exodus from states in the northeast. It's already happening. And Tom, while you're not wrong that it hasn't hurt us, it may pick up steam now. States are falling all over themselves trying to lure new businesses into the northeast. How are they doing that? By offering massive tax incentives.
What remains to be seen is whether this exodus to lower tax jurisdictions puts a strain on their budgets and the cycle will repeat. I'm counting the days until another major NJ employer like J&J or Merck decides they've had enough. My old employer moved most of its operations to Texas. They could've chosen to stay in NJ but they felt the business climate was better in Texas. Now many of the old AT&T buildings lay dormant. They didn't leave solely for tax related reasons but definitely a consideration.
I know the retort will be, "But this is where the employment pool is best" and that may be true but as a younger and more tech savvy generation starts to rise up in the ranks there will be a bigger and bigger move towards telecommuting and working from home. So much so that the employment pool will be everywhere. There will be little reason to stay in a state that has the highest corporate taxes, one of the highest individual income tax rates and the highest property tax rates in the country.
@sportsnut, I'm sorry you feel the future looks so bleak. I think New Jersey is one of the most prosperous places I've ever seen, now that we've moved out. If you're sliding down some hill, you started higher up, and you're still higher than what I see in New York City and Ulster County, NY. When things swing back up, New Jersey will have a head start. I've seen dire predictions of exodus from New Jersey, but what I see is net immigration to the state, because it's so prosperous. Not everyone gets to enjoy the prosperity, and that's a deep structural problem, but you find it everywhere. The middle class is still pretty huge in New Jersey.
sportsnut said:
Tom_Reingold said:drummerboy is right about staying competitive. This is the real issue - as people become increasingly mobile with the ability to work from anywhere we will only see an increased exodus from states in the northeast. It's already happening. And Tom, while you're not wrong that it hasn't hurt us, it may pick up steam now. States are falling all over themselves trying to lure new businesses into the northeast. How are they doing that? By offering massive tax incentives.
Those are good points, drummerboy. And we in the northeast have shown that high taxes don't ruin an economy. But you list good reasons to have federal taxes anyway.
What remains to be seen is whether this exodus to lower tax jurisdictions puts a strain on their budgets and the cycle will repeat. I'm counting the days until another major NJ employer like J&J or Merck decides they've had enough. My old employer moved most of its operations to Texas. They could've chosen to stay in NJ but they felt the business climate was better in Texas. Now many of the old AT&T buildings lay dormant. They didn't leave solely for tax related reasons but definitely a consideration.
I know the retort will be, "But this is where the employment pool is best" and that may be true but as a younger and more tech savvy generation starts to rise up in the ranks there will be a bigger and bigger move towards telecommuting and working from home. So much so that the employment pool will be everywhere. There will be little reason to stay in a state that has the highest corporate taxes, one of the highest individual income tax rates and the highest property tax rates in the country.
When J&J and Merck have had enough of what - years of record breaking profits?
drummerboy said:
When J&J and Merck have had enough of what - years of record breaking profits?
Profit based corporations exist for one reason only, to make a profit. The good "citizen", we're environmental, diversity, we're social is just schmear, a topping to be disregarded if profits would be endangered.
So, record breaking profits has nothing to do with this. If profits can be increased by leaving, record breaking or not, they will. Its call capitalism. But everything has to factor into the equation - employee pool, transportation options, etc.
However, I'm still in favor of the state taxing them more.
drummerboy said:
sportsnut said:When J&J and Merck have had enough of what - years of record breaking profits?
Tom_Reingold said:drummerboy is right about staying competitive. This is the real issue - as people become increasingly mobile with the ability to work from anywhere we will only see an increased exodus from states in the northeast. It's already happening. And Tom, while you're not wrong that it hasn't hurt us, it may pick up steam now. States are falling all over themselves trying to lure new businesses into the northeast. How are they doing that? By offering massive tax incentives.
Those are good points, drummerboy. And we in the northeast have shown that high taxes don't ruin an economy. But you list good reasons to have federal taxes anyway.
What remains to be seen is whether this exodus to lower tax jurisdictions puts a strain on their budgets and the cycle will repeat. I'm counting the days until another major NJ employer like J&J or Merck decides they've had enough. My old employer moved most of its operations to Texas. They could've chosen to stay in NJ but they felt the business climate was better in Texas. Now many of the old AT&T buildings lay dormant. They didn't leave solely for tax related reasons but definitely a consideration.
I know the retort will be, "But this is where the employment pool is best" and that may be true but as a younger and more tech savvy generation starts to rise up in the ranks there will be a bigger and bigger move towards telecommuting and working from home. So much so that the employment pool will be everywhere. There will be little reason to stay in a state that has the highest corporate taxes, one of the highest individual income tax rates and the highest property tax rates in the country.
That's really silly. Enough is never enough.
What are the taxes on you-know-who's estate out in Bedminster? Can they be increased. Since he who shall not be named owns a house in New Jersey is he not a resident of NJ and should he not pay State Income Taxes?
As to "taxing the rich" They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks and he said "That's where the money is".
Now before someone points out that Willie was a thief I would ask "And the bankers are not thieves"?
And therein lies the crux of the disagreement. Some believe that the rich have earned their money through their sweat and taxation is akin to theft. Others believe the rich have become rich through thievery and taxation is just taking back some of what was stolen. Was Robin Hood a criminal or where the criminals the Usurper Prince John and his minions including the Sheriff of Nottingham?
"What are the taxes on you-know-who's estate out in Bedminster? Can they be increased"
"Trump's farming tax break: Thanks to a small goat herd, along with hay farming and wood cutting, Trump's golf clubs in Bedminster and Colts Neck both receive the state's farmland tax break.
The benefit reduces the property taxes on the part of the land devoted to agriculture, according to the Wall Street Journal."
http://www.dontmesswithtaxes.com/2016/04/happy-earth-day-to-goat-farmer-donald-j-trump.html
.
cramer said:
"What are the taxes on you-know-who's estate out in Bedminster? Can they be increased"
"Trump's farming tax break: Thanks to a small goat herd, along with hay farming and wood cutting, Trump's golf clubs in Bedminster and Colts Neck both receive the state's farmland tax break.
The benefit reduces the property taxes on the part of the land devoted to agriculture, according to the Wall Street Journal."
http://www.dontmesswithtaxes.com/2016/04/happy-earth-day-to-goat-farmer-donald-j-trump.html
.
This is the kind of crap that drives me nuts.
Oh, BTW, for those who don't read the article here are a few others that have taken advantage of the tax break offered to "farmers":
"Others who reportedly have used the state's agricultural tax break include former N.J. Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, magazine publisher Steve Forbes and favorite son rock star Bruce Springsteen."
LOST said:
What are the taxes on you-know-who's estate out in Bedminster? Can they be increased. Since he who shall not be named owns a house in New Jersey is he not a resident of NJ and should he not pay State Income Taxes?
As to "taxing the rich" They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks and he said "That's where the money is".
Now before someone points out that Willie was a thief I would ask "And the bankers are not thieves"?
And therein lies the crux of the disagreement. Some believe that the rich have earned their money through their sweat and taxation is akin to theft. Others believe the rich have become rich through thievery and taxation is just taking back some of what was stolen. Was Robin Hood a criminal or where the criminals the Usurper Prince John and his minions including the Sheriff of Nottingham?
When the poor steal from the rich, it is fast and illegal and violent. When the rich steal from the poor, it is slow and legal and non-violent.
LOST said:
As to "taxing the rich" They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks and he said "That's where the money is".
yes and no. There aren't enough super wealthy people to generate the kind of revenue to meet the state budget. Upper middle class people are also going to be expected to pay a higher rate than the working poor.
but really, isn't that how it should be? The working poor don't get off without paying taxes. At the federal level, there are social security taxes that kick in at the first dollar earned. And then there are sales taxes and other taxes on goods like alcohol and tobacco. And indirectly, renters are providing the revenue that their landlords use in part to pay in property taxes.
Should the state be levying income taxes on people living paycheck to paycheck and barely paying the rent and putting food on the table? I know people in places like SOMA don't think of themselves as well-off, but if we get to take nice vacations, park a new fully loaded SUV in the driveway, take in a Broadway show once in a while, go to a pricey restaurant, etc. we're a lot better off than the guy cleaning the floors and toilets in the Prudential building.
So there are two issues -- the people above the median income are the ones where the money is. And the second issue is -- should the state be taxing the money that the working poor would be spending on food or medicine so that people like us in Maplewood can pay lower taxes? Is it that the right thing to do? Is it even good policy? There is evidence that letting poor people keep more of their money is a better economic stimulus than letting rich people keep more of their money.
yahooyahoo said:
DaveSchmidt said:Stupid comparison. Don't insult us.
Tom_R said:Timmy, your Mom and I have decided that divvying up household chores according to the number of bedrooms each of us occupies — we all need a bedroom, right? — hasn’t been fair, with you doing half the chores by yourself and Mom and I splitting the other half. From now on, because we’re bigger and stronger than you, Mom and I will do the bulk, and when you get bigger and stronger, you can help out more.
I really want to understand this, so please explain, in terms a ten-year-old could understand, what is a progressive tax?
TomR
Hold on. Your Mom just spotted a one-bed condo with concierge service. See ya, Timmy.
ml1 said:
the question kind of begged for that sort of response though, didn't it?
drummerboy said:
yahooyahoo said:Stupid question. We were already insulted.
DaveSchmidt said:Stupid comparison. Don't insult us.
Tom_R said:Timmy, your Mom and I have decided that divvying up household chores according to the number of bedrooms each of us occupies — we all need a bedroom, right? — hasn’t been fair, with you doing half the chores by yourself and Mom and I splitting the other half. From now on, because we’re bigger and stronger than you, Mom and I will do the bulk, and when you get bigger and stronger, you can help out more.
I really want to understand this, so please explain, in terms a ten-year-old could understand, what is a progressive tax?
TomR
Hold on. Your Mom just spotted a one-bed condo with concierge service. See ya, Timmy.
If any of the three of you had read that which preceded that which I wrote, you might, just might, understand the context in which the request had been posed.
But why bother if one can get a seemingly witty, albeit morally bankrupt, shot at somebody.
AS TO WHY, DaveSchmidt chose to excise BG9's quoted post from my own, I'll leave that to Herr Schmidt to explain. BG9 has not yet deemed it fit to address my request; although they have posted in this thread since the request.
Abusing the truth; half-truths, and, quite possibly outright falsehoods, not long ago, gave us a person we now call President Trump.
I hope the three of you are comfortable with that which you've each done.
Felix Unger
P.s., drummerboy, The next time I see you post an out-and-out lie, I will not be polite, as I was the last.
Tom_R said:
P.s., drummerboy, The next time I see you post an out-and-out lie, I will not be polite, as I was the last.
A lie? Pray tell what are you referring to?
Tom_Reingold said:...
Tom_R said:Yes revolution will come if the growing disparities of wealth and income are not corrected. We know this from history. I'd prefer not to have a violent change, and it's possible, but not with the direction we're going in now. If more folks knew how rich the rich are, the riots would start quickly.
Tax the rich. Yeah, they have more, so we should take it. After all, if we we don't take it from them, we'll have to cover the difference.
We're all enjoying the benefit of our roads, our public transportation system, our bridges and tunnels. We may get little from Trenton for our schools, Police and Fire Departments, but we still like the help.
If we're all enjoying the benefit of State government; shouldn't we all contribute more, when the State needs more?
Tax the rich. Yeah, they have more, so we should take it.
Do I scent revolution in the air?
TomR
So yes, tax the rich. That's not all we should do, but you use those words as if they're bad. Taxes from the rich used to build stuff for everyone. Now they don't, and things are not going well for most people.
I did use the word RICH. I think you understood the sarcasm, but in an abundance of caution, I query: can we continue this conversation using the term "high income earners" in place of rich. Or we can use the term RICH in place of high income earners. (Fewer keystrokes).
We don't tax people because they're rich, nor for their wealth, despite the assertions of drummerboy.
TomR
p.s., With regard to the portion of your post I excised; see above.
Tom_R said:
AS TO WHY, DaveSchmidt chose to excise BG9's quoted post from my own, I'll leave that to Herr Schmidt to explain.
It’s my habit to conserve greenspace on MOL. I figure anyone who has scrolled down to my comment has already seen the previous exchange.
As for my parable, it described in simple terms (the given parameter) a regressive practice, a progressive practice and a potential consequence of that progressive practice that worries some people. And to think I had hopes for a Caldecott Medal.
yahooyahoo said:
DaveSchmidt said:Stupid comparison. Don't insult us.
Tom_R said:Timmy, your Mom and I have decided that divvying up household chores according to the number of bedrooms each of us occupies — we all need a bedroom, right? — hasn’t been fair, with you doing half the chores by yourself and Mom and I splitting the other half. From now on, because we’re bigger and stronger than you, Mom and I will do the bulk, and when you get bigger and stronger, you can help out more.
I really want to understand this, so please explain, in terms a ten-year-old could understand, what is a progressive tax?
TomR
Hold on. Your Mom just spotted a one-bed condo with concierge service. See ya, Timmy.
I reread that which I wrote earlier, and I regret It.
I was not pleased with some whom I believe purposefully sought to make me a fool.
To have included you as part of a threesome has made me the fool.
Again, my regrets.
TomR
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:Profit based corporations exist for one reason only, to make a profit. The good "citizen", we're environmental, diversity, we're social is just schmear, a topping to be disregarded if profits would be endangered.
When J&J and Merck have had enough of what - years of record breaking profits?
So, record breaking profits has nothing to do with this. If profits can be increased by leaving, record breaking or not, they will. Its call capitalism. But everything has to factor into the equation - employee pool, transportation options, etc.
However, I'm still in favor of the state taxing them more.
The corporation structure exists to shield the owners/shareholders from liability.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
looks like maybe we're going to need to hold a bake sale for Eli Manning. How is the guy expected to make ends meet after this tax hike?