I think the municipal consolidations idea is FANTASTIC. And, the Newark history is right on (so I understand). In fact, I think those of us in Hudson don't even understand the true value of such consolidations because we live in cities that are, arguably, big enough to have their own systems. NJ's real problem is the HUGE number of little towns all over the state that EACH have their own schools, town government, police department, fire department, etc. I mean this is not Montana, these towns are smushed up right next to eachother. Consolidation would be SO much more efficient and we could even leave Hoboken alone so we wouldn;t have to win them over and they are far from the "worst" example.

Ever since the state supreme court decision that said the at least some NJ property taxes had to be spread around for schools in poorer areas statewide (read, JC) we are all in this together, at least to a certain extent. If the smaller towns costs were lower, they could both cut their property taxes by part of the reduction and the rest could be spread around more effectively. You, know, to us

If I am correct there is something like 500 plus independent muncipalities in New Jersey, that all have there own police, fire, ambulance, school etc. services.
This is why cities like Newark fell apart.
Orginally Newark consisted of most of Essex county before the oranges, irvington, bellville ,etc. split off into their own cities in the late 19th century. It was Newark's failure to consolidate all it's suburbs that led to it's downfall. So Newark was left with a huge expensive infrastructure to pay for all the suburban commuters, without the tax base to support it. Basically New Jersey went the opposite route of New York City, and split up into increasingly smaller towns.
If all of Hudson County, Bayonne, Jersey City, Union City and Hoboken got together and merged into one City - let's call it Hudson City, then people's average tax bills would go down signifigantly, because the cost of maintaining the infrastructure would go down. However, I think you are right, Hoboken would never give up their mayor and school system, even though it would be less expensive for Hoboken Taxpayers...

From what I've read, the problem is, and what Manzo tries to address, that NJ taxes are regressive rather than progressive, that RE taxes cost the middle class and the poor more, while income taxes hit the rich more. According to this website posted by niceguyeddie, our overall taxload isn't high, it's simply unfairly distributed and enforced. The actual rates are so high because so many weasel out of paying.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1834.html

"- New Jersey?s surprisingly low state and local tax burden, as calculated by the Tax Foundation, is a powerful signal that the state?s tax system is riddled with credits, deductions and exemptions. With corporate and individual tax rates at 9 percent (without the surtax) and 8.97 percent respectively, New Jersey should be on the top of the tax burden ranks. It is not because its tax systems are riddled with holes."

This table http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/469.html
says we are only 0.2% above national average in tax burden.

My point is that there's lots of hyperbole thrown around about our taxes, most of it false and inflammatory stuff about how we are overtaxed.

As for mergers, hahahahahaha!!. just like people will say all politicians are rascal and should be thrown out, except their congressman, they'll say mergers are a great idea but would never give up their local gov't. There's just too much graft and nepotism opportunities there for that to happen. Hoboken giving up its Mayor would be like a Texas town giving up football.

Quote:
If you read the story again, Manzo's proposal to raise the income tax and using part of it to pay for schools could slice overall taxes for 95 percent of residents.

I actually don't know much about this Manzo "smart" bill (sounds like patriot act to me).

Does anyone know how to to determine how much "school tax" I pay? Is it different for Jersey City because of our state funded situation?

If so, this smart bill could really hurt JC residents (assumption).

As much as I like all the NYC newcomers to Downtown Jersey City -- there are one or two that I wouldn't mind seeing move back to NYC (..and I hope they take their guns with them...)

Quote:

I will support and vote *anyone* running against Manzo. He is what is wrong with the Democratic party. His only solution for a fiscal problem is to raise taxes.

If I want high income tax I'll move back to NYC.

I forget where I read it but NJ supposedly has one of the lower income tax rates in the country. Manzo's proposal is to use an income tax hike to lower the total tax burden.

Using income tax for schools urged
Its rate would have to rise, but the overall N.J. tax burden for most people would fall, a legislator said.
By Tom Hester Jr.
Associated Press

TRENTON - Nearly all residents would get an overall tax cut if New Jersey relied on income taxes rather than property taxes to pay for schools, a Hudson County Democrat told fellow lawmakers yesterday.

Assemblyman Louis Manzo wants residents to pay 16.1 percent more in income tax to raise $1.9 billion for schools. For example, his plan would add $161 to the income-tax bill of someone who now pays $1,000.

Combined with $700 million from the state's property-tax rebate program and $1 billion diverted from sales-tax revenue, the proposal could slice overall taxes for 95 percent of residents, Manzo told a committee debating whether the state constitution needs amending to provide property-tax relief.

Nearly $8 billion in property taxes still would have to be collected for schools, but Manzo said his plan would be more fair than depending on those levies because income taxes are based on how much people earn.

"Everyone would pay their fair share," Manzo said.

He said the plan would not mean less funding for schools, which use 55 percent - or about $11 billion - of the $20 billion in property taxes collected annually in New Jersey.

"Addressing the school-tax portion of the property-tax component is the most practical way to provide New Jerseyans with the most meaningful property-tax relief and reform," Manzo told the committee.

This sounds like a good plan, I'd like to read an report on impact. Corizine would get some credibility with me if he can pull this off. He'd better not touch income tax or it will get ugly very quickly.

Want tax reform? Consider mergers
Jersey Journal - Joe Albright - Thursday, October 19, 2006

Solutions for property tax relief - real or theoretical - are resembling two-stage rockets. Neither is getting off the ground.

Two elements are entwined in the problem - immediate relief or long-term reform. And it also is ingrained with politics - Democrats are feeling the most pressure, since their 22-18 control of the state Senate and 49-31 margin in the Assembly are at stake in the November election next year, when all 120 seats will be contested.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine, of Hoboken, wants remedies enacted by this Jan. 1 to reduce the state's highest-in-the nation property taxes, which average $6,000 statewide, and legislators on four committees charged with tax relief responsibilities face a Nov. 15 deadline to come up with their recommendations.

Without questioning the sincerity of lawmakers burdened with the issue, they are still shadow boxing - no one has landed a hard punch on the target.

With, perhaps, one exception.

In June, state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, R-Monmouth, reintroduced a bill he first advanced three years ago - the Municipal Alignment Reorganization and Consolidation Commission.

Under his proposal, a nine-member commission - with Corzine and the bipartisan legislative leadership each appointing four members, and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court naming the ninth - would have 24 months to come up with a list of proposed municipal consolidations.

The commission members would consider geographic factors, impact on local economies, potential tax savings, reduction in government costs, and community interests.

They would then present their recommendations to Corzine and the Legislature, who would be given 12 months to review them.

Using an approach like that employed when decisions are on military base closings nationally, the Legislature would have to either approve or reject the entire proposed list. There also is some sentiment to allow voters in the affected communities to decide by referendum whether to accept the merged status.

It may be the best chance for the Property Tax Relief Mission to get underway with the famous words, "We have lift off. All systems go."