Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
38 user(s) are online (27 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 4
Guests: 34

TheJSQuare, Monroe, JCMan8, terrencemcd, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 ... 30 31 32 (33) 34 35 36 »


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/13 21:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3044
Offline
IMO, people should not compare their taxes with those in NYC since those are subsidized by corporations. Taxes in the rest of NY State are not that low compared with Jersey

Posted on: 2013/7/8 16:30
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 15:25
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 360
Offline
I agree with those not understanding those bashing the the PILOT.

I was told by the tax assessor herself that the PILOT rate was *MORE* than it would be for someone who purchased a property at my price would pay otherwise. I'm only keeping it because it will protect me down the line. How does that make me a freeloader?

Also, Hoboken announced a tax REDUCTION...that's right...so if their reval ever happens, it won't be as bad. And yet they manage mostly better services.

Simply put, I do not trust JC or most NJ municipal governments to handle my money. The services in JC are simply not correspodent with the tax rate.

The solution isn't to find a different way to generate money- but rather to ask where is my going and why. The recent police retirements should tell us exactly why we should be paying less. Our streets are not made safer by golden parachutes.

Posted on: 2013/7/8 16:27
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/13 11:03
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4205
Offline
Quote:

CdeCoincy wrote:
Just a paranoid thought before the morning meds kick in. Is it possible that the reval is being postponed so that the inflated prices paid by yuppies, gays and Australians can be factored in, thus justifying a significant increase in Greenville taxes? (and perhaps lessening the tax burden downtown?)

Am I the only one old enough to remember the basic slogan of 1960s planning: Urban Renewal is Negro Removal.


I don't get the gender preference are they getting a special grant to make them stand out ? If those that did pay inflated prices that the market value in the area will be inflated as well. And if they did pay inflated prices then their mortgages will be under water.

Posted on: 2013/7/5 10:01
Get on your bikes and ride !
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/6/14 8:07
Group:
Banned
Posts: 848
Offline
Just a paranoid thought before the morning meds kick in. Is it possible that the reval is being postponed so that the inflated prices paid by yuppies, gays and Australians can be factored in, thus justifying a significant increase in Greenville taxes? (and perhaps lessening the tax burden downtown?)

Am I the only one old enough to remember the basic slogan of 1960s planning: Urban Renewal is Negro Removal.


Posted on: 2013/7/5 9:50
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 835
Offline
Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:
You pay $6500 now which is comparable to non-abated properties but your locked-in for the length of the abatement. 15, 20 yrs. That a huge benefit to you because you are protected from the rate increases such as Healy's double digit hikes in the past few years. In 10 years your going to be winning.


At least the abatements have an expiration date, which is more than can be said at this point for all those homes being undertaxed at their 1987 values. People like Yvonne and Fletch would like everyone to believe that those of us on PILOTs pay no tax. In Yvonne's case it's to deflect attention from the fact that she's paid obscenely low taxes for years on a seven-figure property right on Van Vorst Park, as Brewster has repeatedly pointed out. The tax and sale records are public, and the links were posted on another thread awhile back.

Also, the PILOT doesn't fix your taxes at the same amount for the entire term - I wish that were the case. During the latter half of the abatement period, you're supposed to see a gradual increase as your taxes are normalized. However, I heard through the grapevine that the tax collector had forgotten for years to apply the normalization for some buildings in Newport, and some people were hit with a doubling in tax overnight as they entered the final years of their abatement. Also, when homes come off the abatements, they're assessed the current value - not the value 15, 20 or 30 years earlier. Like I said previously, the PILOT basically shelters me from the lunacy of JC tax hikes and provides some predictability in my costs until I'm nearly done paying my mortgage. I actually would prefer a city income tax - at least if the income ain't there, they can't tax it.

Posted on: 2013/7/3 23:37
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/23 12:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 442
Offline
I personally have no problem with the abatements or PILOTs but the numbers that you have don't seems right. If the luxury apartment is paying $5K in taxes that seems too low. I think it's fair to say that a luxury 1 br is easily worth 350,000. that would mean that this example is paying about 1.5% in taxes where the current rate in JC is more like 2%. Fair value taxes would be around 7K.
Also $5500 for a crystal point 1 br unit is crazy low. That should be around 8K at least, if we consider actual value.
You pay $6500 now which is comparable to non-abated properties but your locked-in for the length of the abatement. 15, 20 yrs. That a huge benefit to you because you are protected from the rate increases such as Healy's double digit hikes in the past few years. In 10 years your going to be winning.


Quote:

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop has said during the debates he plans to give abatements to other parts of the city. There will be a backlash if reval happens and taxes are raised substantially then new construction is protected with abatements. This is the reason I believe the reval has been cancelled.


i dont understand why abatement hits such a nerve with people here. The abatement in jersey city is completely different than what's in NY(which is real abatement where you dont pay taxes or pay pennies on dollar).

In JC, for example my 1br condo has abatement, but i am still paying $6500 a year in taxes so is everyone else in my building, and all the other condo buildings. I also own another unit in a similar type "luxury" highrise where there is no abatement, and the regular property tax is about $5000 which is even lower. Even crystal point which caused so much drama for having granted a lower abatement rate, their resident is still paying $5500+ a year for 1br in taxes.

The only thing abatement does is funnel the money to jersey city instead of the state as i understand it, which is beneficial to the city. It's not like anyone is getting a free ride with abatement.

So why is there so much anger towards it?

Posted on: 2013/7/3 19:25
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/1/23 14:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 284
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop has said during the debates he plans to give abatements to other parts of the city. There will be a backlash if reval happens and taxes are raised substantially then new construction is protected with abatements. This is the reason I believe the reval has been cancelled.


i dont understand why abatement hits such a nerve with people here. The abatement in jersey city is completely different than what's in NY(which is real abatement where you dont pay taxes or pay pennies on dollar).

In JC, for example my 1br condo has abatement, but i am still paying $6500 a year in taxes so is everyone else in my building, and all the other condo buildings. I also own another unit in a similar type "luxury" highrise where there is no abatement, and the regular property tax is about $5000 which is even lower. Even crystal point which caused so much drama for having granted a lower abatement rate, their resident is still paying $5500+ a year for 1br in taxes.

The only thing abatement does is funnel the money to jersey city instead of the state as i understand it, which is beneficial to the city. It's not like anyone is getting a free ride with abatement.

So why is there so much anger towards it?

Posted on: 2013/7/3 17:53
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4501
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Brewster, I paid the taxes the city sent me and I paid on time. However, I did appeal after reval, I received an $375,000 assessment along with a 16,000 tax bill in 1988.


And when you sold the ratio of assessment to value was 14.2. You were actually paying 1% of value when you were theoretically paying 2.2%, and there are plenty of people in JC paying well over 3%. Those people in other wards were paying your fair property tax for you. It's that simple. Why is it they deserve that exactly? Because they weren't as educated and tax savvy as you, and trusted that JC would spread the tax load fairly?

Posted on: 2013/7/2 19:23
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3671
Offline
Brewster, I paid the taxes the city sent me and I paid on time. However, I did appeal after reval, I received an $375,000 assessment along with a 16,000 tax bill in 1988.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 17:35
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4501
Offline
Quote:

rasoszynski wrote:
Did anyone sell their town home in 2010-2011 fearing the reval? How do they feel now that it's on hold especially as housing prices have climbed over the last year?


Actually, Yvonne did just that, after paying obscenely low taxes for decades.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 16:30
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#86
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/14 15:24
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 14
Offline
People were discussing progressive tax ideas, I just added it to the pile. All the concerns you mention are valid and point to the depth of corruption in JC.

To your point that a JC municipal tax would be a competitive disadvantage driving people to Hoboken, it works both ways: How long do you think Hoboken will let us go on without a reval when their reval results might drive people to JC? Maybe this is all part of the plan. In Hoboken, you have new condo owners paying 30K/year prop tax dying to stick it to town house owners paying 18K/year prop tax.

Did anyone sell their town home in 2010-2011 fearing the reval? How do they feel now that it's on hold especially as housing prices have climbed over the last year?

Wait, Hoboken has a taxi authority and JC doesn't? Is that why you can't reliably get a cab in JC? The more you know.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 15:52
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 15:25
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 360
Offline
An income tax in JC would be the greatest thing to ever happen to Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken, and Harrison, among others.

Why do you think people come to JC in large part? To avoid the NYC income taxes.

People have researched this, and the income tax costs more than the property taxes.

And do you really want to trust the city, even with Fulop at the helm, with more money? Do you think the JCPA employee will do a better job giving you a parking ticket because he enjoys his shore house especially much where he keeps his six figure pension?

Will this tax lead to taxi enforcement (which Hoboken does with no income tax)? Will it stop Spectra or the Pulaski shutdown?

Does it do anything for NYC but drive people away?

Posted on: 2013/7/2 14:05
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3671
Offline
I agree with the idea of an income tax for JC. Eliminate property taxes but do keep land tax which is lower. NYC also has a sales tax.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 13:31
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 15:25
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 360
Offline
I'm in a PILOT and my taxes are still outrageous.

The PILOT holds the taxes to what the owner when the PILOT incepted paid. But now the unit isn't worth as much, despite it recovering some value. The taxes should be about $600 less in a non PILOT building, but I'm not exiting the PILOT so I won't get slammed down the line. If my unit was walking distance away in Hoboken, I would be paying less taxes. Senseless.

Taxes in JC are out of whack with NJ especially when you consider what other towns get. Even in Hoboken, they pay less and manage a taxi authority and municipal garages. We get what? The incinerator authority? Granted other towns also are inconsistent but few are as wasteful.

Perhaps Fulop is going to start slashing waste and then come back to EVERYONE with lower bills.

Also...as to abatements...they SHOULD be given to non-downtown developments...for certain.

Developers don't need incentive to build downtown- it's already popular.

But OTOH, why not induce someone to build luxury condos in the Heights, or Greenville, or Bergen Laffeyette...A) it could improve the neighborhood and B) it will bring in people to share the burden with us, be they wealthy professionals, investors, or whoever...and likely they will not be people adding kids to the system or really using many services....

I think people want to think JC abatements are like NYC abatements where people are living in luxury condos and paying a few hundred bucks a year in taxes. Go Zillow or Trulia any JC PILOT building and learn the truth. The first people who got them in Port Liberte are getting totally killed.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 13:24
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4501
Offline
Quote:

rasoszynski wrote:
Let me inject an even less popular idea than Aniara's: A Municipal Income Tax. You don't get much more progressive than that.

Ever wonder how NYC has relatively low property taxes, except on landlords? That's how. Although because NYC is a renter city the increased tax on rental property owners versus owner occupiers is steep and brings in a haul. Does JC do that?

Back to assessment & the reval: How did we figure out the ratio? How do you determine what side of the magic 33 you're on?

Since the Hoboken reval is underway with appraisers currently out in the field what are the chance Hoboken could sue JC to force our reval? Hoboken is tiny, their reval could be done rather quickly.

Thanks,
Rachel


Yes, income would be better than a sq ft tax to be sure. In my experience it's not true that the wealthier necessarily live in more space, I'll bet there's more studios Downtown than elsewhere. Most people wouldn't put up with that without a real location incentive.

But property tax is the closest thing we have to a "wealth tax", to really get at the heart of the matter of each paying according to his ability to pay. It's not about charging for what a household uses, it's about getting what is needed to run the city in a progressive way. Otherwise, and I'm sure Boris would love this, we could just divide the whole budget by population and call it a day. Every man, woman and child pay's their 1/255,000th.

It was my understanding that taxes on businesses was what allowed such low residential taxes.

Your ratio is the assessment divided by market value, then multiplied by 100.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 12:03
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#81
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/14 15:24
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 14
Offline
Let me inject an even less popular idea than Aniara's: A Municipal Income Tax. You don't get much more progressive than that.

Ever wonder how NYC has relatively low property taxes, except on landlords? That's how. Although because NYC is a renter city the increased tax on rental property owners versus owner occupiers is steep and brings in a haul. Does JC do that?

Back to assessment & the reval: How did we figure out the ratio? How do you determine what side of the magic 33 you're on?

Since the Hoboken reval is underway with appraisers currently out in the field what are the chance Hoboken could sue JC to force our reval? Hoboken is tiny, their reval could be done rather quickly.

Thanks,
Rachel

Posted on: 2013/7/2 10:25
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/28 23:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 692
Offline
Quote:

Aniara wrote:

One solution would be to stop using property value as basis for taxation. No matter how you twist or turn it, property value is a poor indication for how much the municipality spend on services to said property (and its inhabitants). I would suggest that a fair way of valuing a property would by by internal square feet since this is generally a better indicator of government services being provided (trash collection, education, FD, PD etc).

This would still be a progressive taxation since "well off people" tend to live on more square ft then poor people and hence get to pay a higher amount of tax per person.



Current system tells people that as soon as they make their houses better and neighborhood cleaner, the value of their houses will be reassessed and the taxes raised. I mean, - if we want safe and clean streets, the minimal common sense says that we should at least stop punishing those who help clean them up.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 0:38
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/24 19:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 261
Offline
I'm aggravated with the stoppage of the reval b/c most of the properties have already looked at. I don't want to deal with that again. Also, sooner orlater a reval has to be done. The can't keep being kicked down the road, that only exacerbates the problem.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 23:15
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3671
Offline
The reval will not be true because one fourth of the city is tax abated which means those properties will not be affected. After all the purpose of a reval is to bring all properties up in order to pay their fair share of taxes. This is part of the reason I am against tax abatements.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 23:05
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/23 12:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 442
Offline
Imagine that Fulop finds so many inefficiencies and wasted government money that he is able to roll back some of Healy's tax hikes? Then I might be ok with no reval.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 22:42
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#76
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/7/1 16:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4
Offline
After reading the full threat its clear that there are many sensibly points well argued but also plenty of anger and fear.

Fact remains that a revaluation would cause not just taxes to change across Jersey City, it would also cause house values to rise and fall accordingly. Most of us will probably agree that this is problematic for people who have purchased houses in the past 10 year span.

One solution would be to stop using property value as basis for taxation. No matter how you twist or turn it, property value is a poor indication for how much the municipality spend on services to said property (and its inhabitants). I would suggest that a fair way of valuing a property would by by internal square feet since this is generally a better indicator of government services being provided (trash collection, education, FD, PD etc).

This would still be a progressive taxation since "well off people" tend to live on more square ft then poor people and hence get to pay a higher amount of tax per person.

I'm not naive enough to think that this idea would be liked by anyone, but nevertheless it was worth taking the 3 minutes and type it out :)


Posted on: 2013/7/1 16:34
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/4/14 23:58
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 813
Offline
We've been in our condo apartment for 7 years. During this time, our taxes went from $4200 to almost $8000 today. So that's almost 50% in 7 years - our combined family income didn't rise accordingly, not even close. As a matter of fact, I lost my job during the financial crisis. So life is pretty tough.

And with two kids in private school, plus that $8000 tax bill, the argument whether to "burb it or not" is definitely getting more attention in our family.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 16:04
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 835
Offline
When I bought my first condo in JC, the tax at the time seemed doable at just over $6,000. I had assumed some tax hikes in line with or just over the rate of inflation. In six years, successive double-digit take hikes by Healy had raised that to $9,000. I wish my income rose as quickly. The fact was, the only way I could continue to afford to live in JC was to ditch that place and buy in a building with a PILOT. At $7,000 for a one-bedroom, I'm still paying quite a bit of tax, but at least I know I'm shielded from crazy annual increases until my mortgage is nearly paid off. Just down the street from my first condo, some d-bag one-percenter had bought an entire brownstone for $1.1 million on which he's paying just over $11,000 in annual tax. He was literally crowing about that. So, yeah, Pebble, f*ck him. If he can afford to pay that much for a home, he can afford to pay double or triple the tax.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 15:30
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4501
Offline
Quote:

CapnJon wrote:
when we bought in the Heights, we were told by the Tax Assessor that our taxes would hold at $2,500 per year for five years. We believed him. Within a few years we were up to $6K annually, and now, almost a decade later, are at more than $7K....


Capn, can you tell us your ratio, assessment/market value?

Pebble: If 2 people bought in Downtown and B-L 25 years ago just after the reval, when the tax rate were all level, the latter is now paying 2 to 3 times the effective tax rate of the former. They didn't "know what they were getting into". They depended on the City to tax them fairly, and the city failed due to the craven cowardice of it's politicians.

This is a regressive tax situation, plain and simple.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 15:18
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/21 9:53
From Jersey City Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 497
Offline
when we bought in the Heights, we were told by the Tax Assessor that our taxes would hold at $2,500 per year for five years. We believed him. Within a few years we were up to $6K annually, and now, almost a decade later, are at more than $7K....

Posted on: 2013/7/1 15:06
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1836
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

“You knew what you were getting into when you bought it” works with every other purchase made in this country. Why would it be different now?

The resale value of the property with the overpriced taxes is not depressed. It was sold at the price it sold at because of the taxes. The price of the house would likely have been higher when the person was purchasing it if the taxes were lower.

Quote:

brewster wrote:
The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

Again, I don’t know what is fair or not. I know that it doesn’t seem fair that a lot of people will have their taxes raised so that people which seem capable of affording the higher taxes (if they couldn’t afford it, they wouldn’t have purchased it) get to now receive a government windfall.

This isn’t a civil rights issue where certain people are being held down. This is a consumer issue. Some people pay more than others. Those people that are paying more believe it’s unfair simply because someone else is getting it cheaper. I’m just not sure that it is.

Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Let’s talk about the flip side. Would you be happy if the city doubled your taxes causing your condo value to drop a lot more? What about if your taxes doubled and someone else had their taxes drop in half? That’s what will happen to other home owners, maybe not to that extreme, but it will go up for quite a few people.


If I had been paying, say, $3,000 - $4,000 a year in property tax on the same condo for years, then, yes, I'd accept that the tax would have to rise sharply, if not double. No one likes paying more for anything, but the reality is if I've been getting this great deal for a long time, I've got to expect the party to end at some point.

Who said they were getting a break? We have a ceiling for how much taxes can increase per year without a vote for a reason. Purchasing a home, you know that. As such, how do you claim that there is some sort of “party” that needs to end?

Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
It's the same thing with Amazon having to collect sales tax in NJ. It was a great incentive while it lasted, but at the end of the day it was unfair to other retailers, and the money to pay for public services has to come from somewhere. I'll still shop at Amazon and pony up the sales tax because they offer great customer service. At least they'll be winning my business on a level playing field. Your argument suggests that it's okay to leave the market distortion in place and that it's okay for some homeowners to be heavily subsidized by others.

Amazon isn’t charging sales tax in NJ because of an arbitrary idea of “level playing field.” They are charging sales tax in NJ because Gov. Christie gave Amazon a tax break to move a location to NJ. Now that Amazon has a hub in NJ, they are required to charge sales tax. Had they not taken the tax break to put in a warehouse, that wouldn’t have happened.

Additionally, Amazon isn’t property. Nobody has a requirement to spend a monthly sum with them to live.

How is it a market distortion if the prices are based on the existing tax levels?

Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Also your contention that people complaining about the tax unfairness didn't do their homework when they bought isn't so cut and dried. In the case of new construction or a condo conversion of an old building, prospective buyers are told taxes will only be set AFTER the sale. I have friends who bought at Dixon Mills and got sticker shock when they received the first tax bill. Of course, developers will provide an estimate on what the likely tax will be on the purchase, but they're almost always underestimated by a large margin. That's why I always tell friends and acquaintances to take the time to check with the tax assessor's office - don't ever believe what the realtor or developer tells you. That's the hard lesson every virgin home buyer learns.

That is a bit of double-speak. You say that people were surprised by the actual tax prices and that developers under-estimate and that people should check with the tax assessor’s office. Well, if they check with the tax assessor’s office, why would they be surprised? If you say people are doing their homework then how does that equate to just taking the developer’s word for it, which leads to surprise?

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:48
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1836
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

“You knew what you were getting into when you bought it” works with every other purchase made in this country. Why would it be different now?

The resale value of the property with the overpriced taxes is not depressed. It was sold at the price it sold at because of the taxes. The price of the house would likely have been higher when the person was purchasing it if the taxes were lower.

Quote:

brewster wrote:
The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

Again, I don’t know what is fair or not. I know that it doesn’t seem fair that a lot of people will have their taxes raised so that people which seem capable of affording the higher taxes (if they couldn’t afford it, they wouldn’t have purchased it) get to now receive a government windfall.

This isn’t a civil rights issue where certain people are being held down. This is a consumer issue. Some people pay more than others. Those people that are paying more believe it’s unfair simply because someone else is getting it cheaper. I’m just not sure that it is.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:36
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 835
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Let’s talk about the flip side. Would you be happy if the city doubled your taxes causing your condo value to drop a lot more? What about if your taxes doubled and someone else had their taxes drop in half? That’s what will happen to other home owners, maybe not to that extreme, but it will go up for quite a few people.


If I had been paying, say, $3,000 - $4,000 a year in property tax on the same condo for years, then, yes, I'd accept that the tax would have to rise sharply, if not double. No one likes paying more for anything, but the reality is if I've been getting this great deal for a long time, I've got to expect the party to end at some point. It's the same thing with Amazon having to collect sales tax in NJ. It was a great incentive while it lasted, but at the end of the day it was unfair to other retailers, and the money to pay for public services has to come from somewhere. I'll still shop at Amazon and pony up the sales tax because they offer great customer service. At least they'll be winning my business on a level playing field. Your argument suggests that it's okay to leave the market distortion in place and that it's okay for some homeowners to be heavily subsidized by others.

Also your contention that people complaining about the tax unfairness didn't do their homework when they bought isn't so cut and dried. In the case of new construction or a condo conversion of an old building, prospective buyers are told taxes will only be set AFTER the sale. I have friends who bought at Dixon Mills and got sticker shock when they received the first tax bill. Of course, developers will provide an estimate on what the likely tax will be on the purchase, but they're almost always underestimated by a large margin. That's why I always tell friends and acquaintances to take the time to check with the tax assessor's office - don't ever believe what the realtor or developer tells you. That's the hard lesson every virgin home buyer learns.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:24
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4501
Offline
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:07
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3671
Offline
Fulop has said during the debates he plans to give abatements to other parts of the city. There will be a backlash if reval happens and taxes are raised substantially then new construction is protected with abatements. This is the reason I believe the reval has been cancelled.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 13:25
Print Top




« 1 ... 30 31 32 (33) 34 35 36 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

remember me

Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2015