TheBigGuy wrote:
And the poster boy for trying to avoid paying taxes on his yacht is democrat icon and noble peace prize winner John Kerry who tried to hide it in Newport Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes in Massachusetts as a Senator. Frankly Years ago the federal government taxed the yacht building industry in the US out of business and overseas via a foolish luxury tax that was eventually repealed.

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

In short, someone purchasing a $500,000 boat would be paying less than 7% in sales tax. That is lost tax money so millionaires can buy toys.

For registration... if the boat resides in NJ the majority of the year then it must be registered in NJ, even for residents out of state. I'm not sure how that plays into the sales tax aspect (maybe on transfer of ownership between private parties).

If a yacht owner purchases a yacht out of state, are they required to pay NJ sales taxes on it?

JPhurst wrote:
May be diverting the topic, but it's interesting enough....

The boroitis phenomenon that created the ridiculous number of municipalities in New Jersey pre-dates the issue of school segregation. It's not that whites wanted to go to school with blacks back then, it's just that they didn't need to gerrymander municipalities to do it. They just had de jure segregation.

Nevertheless, these boundaries are now used by people to keep schools segregated. It would take really bold action to de-segregate. Delaware did it at one time. In response to court mandated desegregation, municipal and suburban boundaries were just about completely decoupled from school district boundaries. Delaware became one of the least segregated states in the country. Unfortunately, with the lifting of the court order and the proliferation of charter schools, segregation is coming back.

Pebble wrote:

In short, someone purchasing a $500,000 boat would be paying less than 7% in sales tax. That is lost tax money so millionaires can buy toys.

For registration... if the boat resides in NJ the majority of the year then it must be registered in NJ, even for residents out of state. I'm not sure how that plays into the sales tax aspect (maybe on transfer of ownership between private parties).

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

MidwestTransplant wrote:
I would like to respond to your first point, however, as I've seen this argument made a lot. The yacht tax that people constantly refer to is a registration tax - yacht owners need to register their yacht somewhere, but the jurisdiction in which the yacht is registered doesn't actually matter. Consequently, yacht registration fees are a race to the bottom. If youcap the registration fees, yacht owners will simply register their yacht in a less expensive jurisdiction, leaving NJ with $0 in registration fees. It's a much simpler form of the standard argument regarding increasing taxes on the wealthy - they'll just move to a lower tax jurisdiction. However, since re-registering one's yacht in another state doesn't involved uprooting one's family, there's little reason not to do so.

I'm referencing the recent sales tax law changes, not registration fees.
NJ.com
Quote:

New Jersey's sales tax is 7 percent, meaning that a buyer would have to spend $285,715 on a boat to pay $20,000 in sales tax. But under the bill, there would be no difference between how much that buyer would pay versus someone buying a $1 million boat.

In short, someone purchasing a $500,000 boat would be paying less than 7% in sales tax. That is lost tax money so millionaires can buy toys.

For registration... if the boat resides in NJ the majority of the year then it must be registered in NJ, even for residents out of state. I'm not sure how that plays into the sales tax aspect (maybe on transfer of ownership between private parties).

MidwestTransplant wrote:
I would like to respond to your first point, however, as I've seen this argument made a lot. The yacht tax that people constantly refer to is a registration tax - yacht owners need to register their yacht somewhere, but the jurisdiction in which the yacht is registered doesn't actually matter. Consequently, yacht registration fees are a race to the bottom. If you uncap the registration fees, yacht owners will simply register their yacht in a less expensive jurisdiction, leaving NJ with $0 in registration fees. It's a much simpler form of the standard argument regarding increasing taxes on the wealthy - they'll just move to a lower tax jurisdiction. However, since re-registering one's yacht in another state doesn't involved uprooting one's family, there's little reason not to do so.

New Jersey's sales tax is 7 percent, meaning that a buyer would have to spend $285,715 on a boat to pay $20,000 in sales tax. But under the bill, there would be no difference between how much that buyer would pay versus someone buying a $1 million boat.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

The larger picture is that we need the right people moving here - people with money, education and generally desirable people to make this their home. NJ also needs companies to set up shop here and grow existing presences. You don't do that by removing all of the incentives for them to do that. This is what liberals fail to understand.

Why would educated, high income people move to a state that doesn't have access to the high paying jobs in Manhattan? Rail access was the key to bringing those workers back.

New Jersey has a horrible record of retaining its college educated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c ... 1/24/gIQARhUoNQ_blog.html

And businesses are not interested in "setting up shop" in suburbs. That's why New Jersey's office vacancy rate is between 25 and 30% while Manhattan is under 10% -- some submarkets in Manhattan are under 5% vacancy rate. There is a competitive advantage to have a business in urban centers where there is a better availability of labor to choose from. When you locate a business in the suburbs, its much more difficult to attract talent from competitors.

Pebble wrote:

Step 1 would be to not decrease taxes on millionaires (See the yacht tax reduction).

Step 2 would be to increase the gas tax, something that hasn't been done in decades. (Before you flip out with hyperbole, raising a tax has multiple levels and NJ could raise it some while still keeping gas prices lower than every other state.)

Step 3... Close up the corporate tax giveaways that allowed Goya and Prudential to literally move 1 mile over from their current location and suddenly become tax free for a substantial period of time. (This was something started by Christie.)

Essentially, get rid of Christie. The guy seems to open up tax loopholes instead of closing budget gaps.

None of this will happen, though.

devilsadvocate wrote:

The larger picture is that we need the right people moving here - people with money, education and generally desirable people to make this their home. NJ also needs companies to set up shop here and grow existing presences. You don't do that by removing all of the incentives for them to do that. This is what liberals fail to understand.

bodhipooh wrote:

Long Island?! Are you being serious?? Surely, you must be joking. If you are going to move out of NJ because of exorbitant property taxes, you wouldn't move into LI, where property taxes are just as onerous.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
The larger picture is that we need the right people moving here - people with money, education and generally desirable people to make this their home. NJ also needs companies to set up shop here and grow existing presences. You don't do that by removing all of the incentives for them to do that. This is what liberals fail to understand.

Factually inaccurate in just about every way imaginable. Incentives can work, but not always. Making the incentives too steep leaves you and I paying the bill.

As for the first sentence, well, I can only say that it is impossible for everyone on the planet to be "desirable." There are those who live near me with great wealth and those that live near me without. There are examples in both categories where the neighbors are good and the neighbors are poor.

If you think internment camps and ghettos are the way to go, by all means, stick with the failed plans that have existed...

ianmac47 wrote:
So the choices really are pay for the short term capital expense of construction or pay for the difference in lost revenue when that money shifts from northern New Jersey to upstate New York and Long Island.

devilsadvocate wrote:
The larger picture is that we need the right people moving here - people with money, education and generally desirable people to make this their home. NJ also needs companies to set up shop here and grow existing presences. You don't do that by removing all of the incentives for them to do that. This is what liberals fail to understand.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
[quote]
Step 1 would be to not decrease taxes on millionaires (See the yacht tax reduction).

Step 2 would be to increase the gas tax, something that hasn't been done in decades. (Before you flip out with hyperbole, raising a tax has multiple levels and NJ could raise it some while still keeping gas prices lower than every other state.)

Step 3... Close up the corporate tax giveaways that allowed Goya and Prudential to literally move 1 mile over from their current location and suddenly become tax free for a substantial period of time. (This was something started by Christie.)

Essentially, get rid of Christie. The guy seems to open up tax loopholes instead of closing budget gaps.

None of this will happen, though.

Right, as a NJ voter no way will I vote for anyone that is interested in your proposals.

...not many would because people have no concept of the larger picture. Instead it's all about "getting theirs" and screwing anyone else.

The state has massive debt. Millionaires buying yachts will not "pay their fare share" because the tax is capped at $20k. Goya isn't going to "pay their fare share" nor will Prudential.

devilsadvocate wrote:

Right, as a NJ voter no way will I vote for anyone that is interested in your proposals.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Where would he get the money to fund a new tunnel?

The guy slashed taxes on millionaires and he'll look to do it again. He's a spiteful, petty man. He'll view his inability to become a national candidate not on his own failings as a person but as some concept of blaming teachers unions and urban liberals. As such, he'll act as he's always acted which is to search out a way to screw them.

Where would you propose he get the money for the tunnel? Increasing taxes on an already over-taxed NJ population? Reducing spending or eliminating waste that is next to impossible, politically?

The federal government is the only real option for the lion's share of the estimated and eventually higher actual cost.

Step 1 would be to not decrease taxes on millionaires (See the yacht tax reduction).

Step 2 would be to increase the gas tax, something that hasn't been done in decades. (Before you flip out with hyperbole, raising a tax has multiple levels and NJ could raise it some while still keeping gas prices lower than every other state.)

Step 3... Close up the corporate tax giveaways that allowed Goya and Prudential to literally move 1 mile over from their current location and suddenly become tax free for a substantial period of time. (This was something started by Christie.)

Essentially, get rid of Christie. The guy seems to open up tax loopholes instead of closing budget gaps.

None of this will happen, though.

Right, as a NJ voter no way will I vote for anyone that is interested in your proposals.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Where would he get the money to fund a new tunnel?

The guy slashed taxes on millionaires and he'll look to do it again. He's a spiteful, petty man. He'll view his inability to become a national candidate not on his own failings as a person but as some concept of blaming teachers unions and urban liberals. As such, he'll act as he's always acted which is to search out a way to screw them.

Where would you propose he get the money for the tunnel? Increasing taxes on an already over-taxed NJ population? Reducing spending or eliminating waste that is next to impossible, politically?

The federal government is the only real option for the lion's share of the estimated and eventually higher actual cost.

Step 1 would be to not decrease taxes on millionaires (See the yacht tax reduction).

Step 2 would be to increase the gas tax, something that hasn't been done in decades. (Before you flip out with hyperbole, raising a tax has multiple levels and NJ could raise it some while still keeping gas prices lower than every other state.)

Step 3... Close up the corporate tax giveaways that allowed Goya and Prudential to literally move 1 mile over from their current location and suddenly become tax free for a substantial period of time. (This was something started by Christie.)

Essentially, get rid of Christie. The guy seems to open up tax loopholes instead of closing budget gaps.

None of this will happen, though.

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Where would he get the money to fund a new tunnel?

The guy slashed taxes on millionaires and he'll look to do it again. He's a spiteful, petty man. He'll view his inability to become a national candidate not on his own failings as a person but as some concept of blaming teachers unions and urban liberals. As such, he'll act as he's always acted which is to search out a way to screw them.

Where would you propose he get the money for the tunnel? Increasing taxes on an already over-taxed NJ population? Reducing spending or eliminating waste that is next to impossible, politically?

The federal government is the only real option for the lion's share of the estimated and eventually higher actual cost.

Pebble wrote:

Where would he get the money to fund a new tunnel?

The guy slashed taxes on millionaires and he'll look to do it again. He's a spiteful, petty man. He'll view his inability to become a national candidate not on his own failings as a person but as some concept of blaming teachers unions and urban liberals. As such, he'll act as he's always acted which is to search out a way to screw them.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey's two Democratic senators and the head of the federal transportation department said after a meeting in Newark on Tuesday morning that they were all "committed to working together" to find a way to pay for a Hudson River tunnel project.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015 ... _tunnel.html#incart_river

Article title should have been "Words are said which will never be backed up"

Christie is a fraud, like a rest. He'll do nothing but talk.

Its possible now that Christie knows he will never be president that he would support funding a new tunnel. Assuming he doesn't go to jail, he still has two and a half years left in the state.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey's two Democratic senators and the head of the federal transportation department said after a meeting in Newark on Tuesday morning that they were all "committed to working together" to find a way to pay for a Hudson River tunnel project.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015 ... _tunnel.html#incart_river

Article title should have been "Words are said which will never be backed up"

Christie is a fraud, like a rest. He'll do nothing but talk.

user1111 wrote:
Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey's two Democratic senators and the head of the federal transportation department said after a meeting in Newark on Tuesday morning that they were all "committed to working together" to find a way to pay for a Hudson River tunnel project.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015 ... _tunnel.html#incart_river

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

How about this? You adjust your ideology to agree the first place the government should look for new revenue is in cutting the bloat and waste from itself and reallocating it. Then, after trimming the fat, if there is not enough money, we can require corporations and high net worth individuals (the devil is in the details, which is why we wait) to pay their "fair share."

I don't disagree that New Jersey should merge about 2/3 of its municipalities and eliminate about 80% of school districts. However, the primary reason this has not been done is that white school districts don't want their children to attend schools with minorities, and municipalities don't want to merge either because they prefer racial or economic segregation over lower taxes. However, that's describing a problem of property taxes, not income taxes, and has nothing to do with state funded infrastructure projects or other state services.

Please explain how county government has anything to do with parents not wanting their kids to attend schools with minorities.

And guess what? In a delicious bit of irony (though wholly expected by anyone with conservative views on race), the "progressive" limousine liberals of NYC's Upper West Side who love to shove the benefits of diversity down everyone's throats are refusing to comply with a direct order to send their kids to a school filled with blacks.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/parents- ... kids-to-dangerous-school/

My favorite quote: ?It?s not a racial issue,? one parent insisted. ?It?s the test scores and the violence.?

Oh, really? Isn't that what many have been saying for decades?
So maybe the NJ parents you are judging feel the same way as your "progressive" NYC brethren.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Back to the tunnel - here's an op-ed piece supporting Christie's cancelling the ARC project, the writer basically concluding (cost issues aside) the ARC tunnel was not the best design, and better options would enable more connections to NYC's transit network.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2015/01/why-t ... nnel-deserved-to-die.html

Problems which the GATEWAY plan could solve - thus the urgency in getting both governors off their respective soapboxes and into the hard work of raising political and financial support for this project! Sure, it will be expensive but it will be 21st century solution providing maximum inter-connectivity for the metro area, vs. a 19th century solution (the ARC plan) providing yet another terminal.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Back to the tunnel - here's an op-ed piece supporting Christie's cancelling the ARC project, the writer basically concluding (cost issues aside) the ARC tunnel was not the best design, and better options would enable more connections to NYC's transit network.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2015/01/why-t ... nnel-deserved-to-die.html

Problems which the GATEWAY plan could solve - thus the urgency in getting both governors off their respective soapboxes and into the hard work of raising political and financial support for this project! Sure, it will be expensive but it will be 21st century solution providing maximum inter-connectivity for the metro area, vs. a 19th century solution (the ARC plan) providing yet another terminal.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

How about this? You adjust your ideology to agree the first place the government should look for new revenue is in cutting the bloat and waste from itself and reallocating it. Then, after trimming the fat, if there is not enough money, we can require corporations and high net worth individuals (the devil is in the details, which is why we wait) to pay their "fair share."

I don't disagree that New Jersey should merge about 2/3 of its municipalities and eliminate about 80% of school districts. However, the primary reason this has not been done is that white school districts don't want their children to attend schools with minorities, and municipalities don't want to merge either because they prefer racial or economic segregation over lower taxes. However, that's describing a problem of property taxes, not income taxes, and has nothing to do with state funded infrastructure projects or other state services.

JCMan8 wrote:
It is amusing you talk about unsophisticated individuals yet don't know the difference between "fair" and "fare." You also cut out the entire argument that the government isn't "starved" of anything, the revenue is already there in the form of bloat and corruption and can simply be reallocated.