NJ, already the worst for business taxes, is trying to make themselves even less competitive

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

 I posed a query to BG9.

Explain to me in terms, so simple, that a ten year old might understand: that excising BG9's post from my own, would not render your quote, attributed to me, out of context.

If you, for a moment, thought that I did not understand a progressive tax rate structure; you have demonstrated a lack of intellect beyond my imagination, and can cross me off your Christmas Card List. You won't be on mine.

TomR

Tom_R said:

I reread that which I wrote earlier, and I regret It.

Please don’t sweat it, TomR. I hang out here to learn, maybe raise a worthwhile point or question, and have some fun, and the other day I tugged myself into that last category. It wasn’t the first time I ended up going solo.

ETA: Cross-posted with your latest comment. Same reply as above.

Tom_R said:

I reread that which I wrote earlier, and I regret It.

Light bulb goes off: I wasn’t the excusee. l really did quote you out of context. My lack of intellect does have its sense of timing. Please accept my apology.

1. NJ is raising income taxes on residents with incomes of $5 million or more, to fix our budget problems. 

2. All 100 of these persons may move to Pennsylvania. 

3. NJ corporate taxes are also going up.

4. The corporations won't leave NJ, though, because workers in other states are not as smart as NJ workers. (?)

5. Gov. Murphy has said that over the next 7 years, he will bring about fairer school funding.

6. I guess it's good that he had stated that the present fundings are unfair.

7.  One poster wants schools to be funded by way of state income tax, not local property tax. I infer that this poster thinks, against all evidence, that Trenton would be fair in how it divvied up this money among NJ's school districts. He is a believer. 

brealer said:

7.  One poster wants schools to be funded by way of state income tax, not local property tax. I infer that this poster thinks, against all evidence, that Trenton would be fair in how it divvied up this money among NJ's school districts. He is a believer. 

 It would likely be fairer than it is now.

And you use "Trenton" as a bogeyman, but of course it would be done through legislation, put together by representatives across the state.

Tom_R said:

 I posed a query to BG9.
Explain to me in terms, so simple, that a ten year old might understand: that excising BG9's post from my own, would not render your quote, attributed to me, out of context.
If you, for a moment, thought that I did not understand a progressive tax rate structure; you have demonstrated a lack of intellect beyond my imagination, and can cross me off your Christmas Card List. You won't be on mine.
TomR

 I for one did not think you didn’t understand the concept. Which is why I thought the question had a touch of snideness that begged for a not entirely serious response.

drummer boy, the money would flow in to Trenton, but it would never flow back out to our district. (Lots of it would never flow back out at all.)

How many voters are there in Jersey City? How many here?

brealer said:
drummer boy, the money would flow in to Trenton, but it would never flow back out to our district. (Lots of it would never flow back out at all.)


How many voters are there in Jersey City? How many here?

 Why doesn't taxation at different levels throughout the State or funding of schools at different levels throughout the State violate the 14th Amendment?

this thread just got 800 x more interesting. Talk some more, Lost.

brealer said:
drummer boy, the money would flow in to Trenton, but it would never flow back out to our district. (Lots of it would never flow back out at all.)


How many voters are there in Jersey City? How many here?

 If this were the result our district would likely have a slam dunk case against the state. It would almost certainly violate the state constitution’s guarantee of public education for all children. 

why doesn't our district already have a slam dunk case against the state?

brealer said:
why doesn't our district already have a slam dunk case against the state?

 currently funding is mainly through local property taxes. State aid has been apportioned in an attempt to modify the effects of differences across districts. Bu if that were switched to a state tax funding formula like an income tax, every student in the state is guaranteed equal opportunity to public education. It would be next to impossible to withhold the main source of funding for any district and not be in violation of the constitution. 

not a lawyer. Not a 14th amendment expert. 

But wouldn't the argument be: To compensate for Trenton's unjust privileging of Jersey City's district and others, our towns must rely on confiscatory property taxes to fund their shared district. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Tom_R said:

I reread that which I wrote earlier, and I regret It.

Light bulb goes off: I wasn’t the excusee. l really did quote you out of context. My lack of intellect does have its sense of timing. Please accept my apology.

 As a thinking man recently wrote; don't sweat it.

Now and again, we all step on it. Sometimes, it's because we read too fast, more often, because our reading is half-fast.

Thanks for the acknowledgment.

TomR