avinandre wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

Condos with tax abatement still pays fair taxes..

All the rental buildings are still getting 30 year tax abatements. T

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Since JC gets almost as much from other state taxpayers to support JC schools as its total budget it's laughable to say JC had high taxes, especially given the proposed 1.62 rate.

Where is stateaidguy when you need him? That 1.62 rate is a pretty big hammer...

If you think that 1.62 is a big hammer, just wait a year or two. Once the county decides to adjust the JC contribution, it will go up. And, there is a very good chance that the state will cut back on the school funding, which will also lead to a higher school tax for residents. Also, if the market valuations drop, the rate will have to go up to compensate for the drop. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rate of 2% (or, higher) in the next few years.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
I don't feel bad for a person sitting on a multimillion dollar pot of equity.

You see it as equity, others see it as a home.

papadage wrote:
I don't feel bad for a person sitting on a multimillion dollar pot of equity.

avinandre wrote:
This a general term used to provide housing to people under threshold may be by rental units with much lower rent in that area. Builder allocate some % units under affordable housing and get tax rebates ..

However this doesn't work rents are still higher and no one gains except for poor billionaire builders.

example:
http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... y_struggles_to_defin.html

The tax burden falls on to us.

Quote:

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
At every council meeting the public officials are saying we need affordable housing, ignoring the fact that affordable housing will not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Those taxes are pushed off to the homeowners I mentioned. It is wrong to say one group should have affordable housing and another group is not paying their fair share of taxes.

This post makes no sense. Affordable housing means housing that is affordable for people who earn x% of the area median income, not tax-free housing. If that housing is less valuable than other housing then it would, of course, be taxed based on a lower assessed value. Do you confuse affordable housing with public housing?

Monroe wrote:
Enough. If you own a million dollar property you'll likely pay $16,250 in taxes. In most NJ suburbs that's a deal, because those taxpayers are sending $500 million each year to pay to educate JC kids.

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

Prices have inflated a lot in last 3 years so I don't think that equate well here and reval is happening at the peak.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

Condos with tax abatement still pays fair taxes..

All the rental buildings are still getting 30 year tax abatements. T

But precisely ZERO of that PILOT money goes towards JC schools. The state makes up the difference.

What is so hard for you guys to understand about abuses and overused of abatements? Yes they're useful. But downtown hasn't needed to give them out for the last 10 years, but they have. Like candy.

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

Condos with tax abatement still pays fair taxes..

All the rental buildings are still getting 30 year tax abatements. T

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
At every council meeting the public officials are saying we need affordable housing, ignoring the fact that affordable housing will not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Those taxes are pushed off to the homeowners I mentioned. It is wrong to say one group should have affordable housing and another group is not paying their fair share of taxes.

This post makes no sense. Affordable housing means housing that is affordable for people who earn x% of the area median income, not tax-free housing. If that housing is less valuable than other housing then it would, of course, be taxed based on a lower assessed value. Do you confuse affordable housing with public housing?

Yvonne wrote:
At every council meeting the public officials are saying we need affordable housing, ignoring the fact that affordable housing will not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Those taxes are pushed off to the homeowners I mentioned. It is wrong to say one group should have affordable housing and another group is not paying their fair share of taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
At every council meeting the public officials are saying we need affordable housing, ignoring the fact that affordable housing will not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Those taxes are pushed off to the homeowners I mentioned. It is wrong to say one group should have affordable housing and another group is not paying their fair share of taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

I can think of many people who paid $40,000 to $70,000 for their homes and got $30,000 or more tax bill. In the meanwhile the city has been handing out tax abatements for newer developments at every chance they get. "Make JC Yours" was all about selling JC cheap with those tax abatements.

papadage wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
The tax payment should be similar for all. While builders like lefrak get big tax abatement on rental properties in Newport ? Does tax system treat everyone similarly ? A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..


Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Property taxes should be fair. If your house (living in downtown is worth 1,000,000 - you should pay 16,000 and if you live in a poorer area of our city, say Greenville, and your house is worth 200,000, you should pay 3200. That's fair and equal. If a lawyer, living in a brownstone, worth 1,000,000 cannot afford to pay another 6,000 (and with new tax law, exempt it from his taxes beyond 10,000), he or she needs to reconsider what to do with the property. I have a feeling the lawyer will be able to afford the 60 percent increase. I know it sucks, but fair is fair and other parts of the city should not be taxed unequally and disadvantaged.

The mortgage alone, without taxes, on a $1MM property, assuming a 20% down payment, totals to more than the entire median household income of the US. An average family could not afford to live in a place like that, even if they did not need to eat, or have any electricity usage, or any other expenses at all. Not even any federal taxes.

Translation:

Yes.. only rich people can afford million dollar properties.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

I can think of many people who paid $40,000 to $70,000 for their homes and got $30,000 or more tax bill. In the meanwhile the city has been handing out tax abatements for newer developments at every chance they get. "Make JC Yours" was all about selling JC cheap with those tax abatements.

avinandre wrote:
The tax payment should be similar for all. While builders like lefrak get big tax abatement on rental properties in Newport ? Does tax system treat everyone similarly ? A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..


Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Property taxes should be fair. If your house (living in downtown is worth 1,000,000 - you should pay 16,000 and if you live in a poorer area of our city, say Greenville, and your house is worth 200,000, you should pay 3200. That's fair and equal. If a lawyer, living in a brownstone, worth 1,000,000 cannot afford to pay another 6,000 (and with new tax law, exempt it from his taxes beyond 10,000), he or she needs to reconsider what to do with the property. I have a feeling the lawyer will be able to afford the 60 percent increase. I know it sucks, but fair is fair and other parts of the city should not be taxed unequally and disadvantaged.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Property taxes should be fair. If your house (living in downtown is worth 1,000,000 - you should pay 16,000 and if you live in a poorer area of our city, say Greenville, and your house is worth 200,000, you should pay 3200. That's fair and equal. If a lawyer, living in a brownstone, worth 1,000,000 cannot afford to pay another 6,000 (and with new tax law, exempt it from his taxes beyond 10,000), he or she needs to reconsider what to do with the property. I have a feeling the lawyer will be able to afford the 60 percent increase. I know it sucks, but fair is fair and other parts of the city should not be taxed unequally and disadvantaged.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
are you nuts?

Some things are self evident. What is not is that this creature claims to have taught children in school! That essay gets a D.

tictaktoe wrote:
are you nuts?