JPhurst wrote:
No property tax or other local tax levy from those places go to Jersey City.

The funding comes from the state, which raises it primarily through the income tax.

And most state taxes are paid based on where the income is generated, not where the earner resides. Again, the resident of, say, Maplewood, says "why are my taxes going to Jersey City?" But if that resident is working in New York City, their taxes aren't going to Jersey City, because they're not paying income tax to the state at all (maybe some on passive investment income).

If they are paying to New Jersey, it's because they work or run their business, or collect their rents, in New Jersey. Now maybe our Maplewood resident does this all in Maplewood. But they may also earn it in Hoboken, or Trenton, or Jersey City, depending on where they work and do business, collect their rents, etc.

Similarly, a NY or PA resident (or any other out of state resident)that works in NJ pays income taxes that go to NJ. So do they have a right to complain that their money is going to schools in New Jersey?

JPhurst wrote:
This is broader data but it demonstrates where the wealth is generated. Cities.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-cit ... -biggest-economies-2017-9

tern wrote:
Taxes are designed to reallocate resources from rich areas to poor, that is one of their main purposes!

To highlight this redistribution and say it indicates a problem, is backwards, that is what taxes do!


Robin.

JPhurst wrote:
Not just sales tax but income tax from jobs in the city.

Monroe wrote:
JC school taxes are incredibly low.

Monroe wrote:
Will this cost JC taxpayers more money? I’m sure the residents outside downtown don’t care about Fulop’s virtue signaling if it costs them more money to accomplish this.

Monroe wrote:
JC taxpayers pay such a tiny percentage of educating their own children that these posts are hilarious.

mscottc wrote:
He makes a very valid point about media and liberalism, one I've been making to my more conservative friends for quite a while now. Journalism as a career tends to attract liberals. I'm making a very generalized statement, and yes there are some very good conservative journalists. But all in all, most Journalists get into the business to help enlighten the world, to change the world for what they perceive is a better way. These are people who do lean liberal. But, and hear this very carefully, most good journalists realize their only real stock in trade is their reputation for fairness and honesty. They work very hard to report the news as they see it, verifying facts, double or triple sourcing what they put on the air or in print. I don't know the standards at NJ.com, but I know the standards where I work. I'm proud of the work the journalists I support do. And I know they do all they can to present a fair and balanced reporting of the day's news.

Monroe wrote:
JC taxpayers pay such a tiny percentage of the school budget it shouldn’t be much. And JC residents will still be umdertaxed by NJ standards, by the tax assessment per $100,000 of home value.

Yvonne wrote:
First, there are 55,000 other taxpayers in JC besides [me]

but apparently, it went down from the proposed 47% to 39%, so we have something to be happy about.

Secondly, no one living in a tax abatement building will see an increase

nor someone living in rent control since their increase are based on the rent leveling board of one to four percent.

So this is an unfair tax increase since it only affects one group of citizens in JC.

Then you have the fact the Councilman Solomon froze rents including 2 to 4 families, excluding owner occupied during this 39% increase. The frozen rents stops in August but I am sure Solomon will want an extension.

135jc wrote:
Some help all the building and business increase of the last 20 yrs has done to help keep taxes down.

JCGuys wrote:
It will be very interesting to see if Jersey City will be able to break even on this development with the economy catering.

Those bond interest payments still must be made.