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.

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.

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.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Doesn't it smack you of "taxation without representation?"

No more so than if I went into NY and had to pay higher sales tax. I don't get a say. There's a pretty good argument for this merely from a macro POV, these employees drive JC roads and benefit from JC 1st responder services, etc without paying anything to this city. I've heard this argument defending NYC's tax. It makes a lot of sense for a city with a big non-resident commuter population, unlike many sprawling smaller cities in this country that include much of the nearby suburbs in their borders.

Sure you can argue their employers pay property tax or PILOTS, and they spend money here, but that's not nearly as much as if they lived here.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the city exempts nonresident city employees.

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.

The situation about over-aid of the local BOE is a tricky one, and I don't pretend for a second to have a solution. But, I do know this situation is untenable for much longer. In the eyes of other municipalities, we are getting a sweet deal by assuming a tiny portion of our local BOE, assessing a paltry 0.4% for our schools, and yet refusing to find ways to streamline operations, or cut back, but smugly accepting their money to enable the situation while claiming poverty. Clearly, this is now a hot button issue, and I very much doubt it will go away. The reval simply exposed what many had suspected, and now a day of reckoning may be upon us.

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.

Monroe wrote:
Brewster, 80,000 people commute to work in JC every day? Care to cite something to show this??

Monroe wrote:
The thread is about JC looking for more ways to avoid self funding it own school children's education.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

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.

To the school funding issue we're talking about, non-residents don't have a choice over the redistribution of tax money for schools. Trenton takes into account what it feels is the ability of each town to self fund their own schools, and gives much less back to affluent towns, more to others, and an obscene amount to Abbott districts. I guess someone from, say, Mendham could 'choose' to move to East Orange, but that's not really a choice, is it?

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.

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.

bodhipooh wrote:

It sort of proves the point that once the government gets to enjoy the proceeds of a tax, it will find ways to spend it and be in need of more.

Monroe wrote:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _to_include_airbnb_o.html

It already exists.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Doesn't it smack you of "taxation without representation?"

No more so than if I went into NY and had to pay higher sales tax. I don't get a say. There's a pretty good argument for this merely from a macro POV, these employees drive JC roads and benefit from JC 1st responder services, etc without paying anything to this city. I've heard this argument defending NYC's tax. It makes a lot of sense for a city with a big non-resident commuter population, unlike many sprawling smaller cities in this country that include much of the nearby suburbs in their borders.

Sure you can argue their employers pay property tax or PILOTS, and they spend money here, but that's not nearly as much as if they lived here.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the city exempts nonresident city employees.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Refresh my memory... wasn't there supposed to be a hotel room tax that was supposed to allocated to schools? They want to be revenue creative, the city should be going after AirBnBs. I see more people @ Grove or Exchange with large suitcases and they do not appear to be looking for hotels.

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.

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.

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

Monroe wrote:
When suburban taxpayers pump 1.2 billion dollars into JC schools every three years-which spend 25% more per student than the state average, and have putrid graduation rates (minus McNair), you're damn right other state taxpayers get a say. And they do, finally, through the state legislators who see how unfair it is to their own cities and schools.