hero69 wrote:
why isn't nj actively thinking about increasing gas, cigarette and alcohol taxes. What about revenue from legalized marijuana.

so far, i have been UNDERWHELMED by Sweeney...the guys seems to be lacking although he is a vast improvement over that last clown.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
To JPHurst's point, Steve Sweeney recently expressed such sentiment and that school district consolidation is necessary.

For instance, New Jersey has over 600 school district, which is more than it has municipalities at a count of 535.

T-Bird wrote:
I guess those vaunted NJ suburban schools failed you. Again, the subject is Sweeney.

Go over to the Abbot thread and rub yourself blind.

T-Bird wrote:
Untrue. People working here but living outside JC could choose to work elsewhere. Or they could move to JC. They do have choices. They may not like them, but they have them.

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote: I dont think the sales tax analogy is an apt one: you can *choose* not to shop in NYC and instead take your money elsewhere. And, that's exactly the point: non JC residents lack that choice when it comes to their money and its "transfer" to the city's coffers.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Brewster, I'm ok with the tax-but disturbed that JC would find a way to exempt JC residents from the tax.

Why? Something well north of 80k people commute to JC, that's what it was a decade ago, best data I could find. They spend at least 40 hrs a week here, why is it outrageous to suggest they contribute more than maybe buying lunch?

As for school aid, bullshit. You've made clear for years that you want state support to JC ended, not just cut back to SFRA levels. Your stuff is nothing more than classic right wing social darwinism orthodoxy: everyone look out for themselves, and justify failure with your armchair sociology.

JPhurst wrote:
The state should also phase out aid to all k-6 or k-8 districts, and impose a 10% surcharge on such districts until they merge into full k-12 districts. These micro districts create extra layers of administrative waste and are largely designed to segregate students from broader based populations which would include poorer and minority students.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Does this mean that if you're a resident of JC you would be untaxed on the 1%, while JC workers from other towns have to pay it?

Sounds like yes, unless JC decides to tax it's residents too. So...NYC does it, Newark does it, will the world end if we do it too rather than raise the rate 25%? Obviously this is a component of how NYC keeps it's residential property taxes so low.

I'd rather see school cost reformed, but that ain't going to happen, we're talking seriously entrenched interests. And BTW, a lot of those so interested city employees don't even live here, same as you don't.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
New Jersey's effective property tax rate is around 2.26%.

JC's effective rate is around 1.6%.

So yes, even after the reval bumps up some people's property tax rate (and lowers others), JC's property tax rate is lower than most of NJ.

So I guess the people downtown who are going from $14,000 to $40,000 should find comfort that they are paying low taxes?

jerseymom wrote:
By Terrence T. McDonald tmcdonald@jjournal.com
The Jersey Journal

Bill would allow towns to delay revaluations to curb 'fiscal shock'

Jersey City lawmakers in the state Legislature want to halt implementation of this year's property revaluation until 2019, citing the "fiscal shock" faced by property owners anticipating huge tax hikes.

The bill, (S-2566), would allow municipalities who did not apply reval results to tax bills before April 1 to postpone doing so until Jan. 1, 2019. The delay would allow for towns to provide "revaluation relief abatements" or "mitigate fiscal shock" from steep tax hikes. The bill was introduced last week.

More

hero69 wrote:
hopefully, nj will use its windfall to fund its pension liabilities