Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
45 user(s) are online (43 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 45

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 »


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
Quote:

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taxed the yacht building industry in the US out of business and overseas via a foolish luxury tax that was eventually repealed.

That's such a great point. I'm so glad you brought up John Kerry after my gushing comments about him and his glorious record of paying boat taxes... Oh wait, that never happened. You're just trying to take a cheap shot at a democrat for being a hypocrite. Why don't you wake me when Trump ceases being the top Republican candidate.

Overall, your entire post made no sense in the context of (1) New Jersey and (2) the fact that Christie needlessly capped potential tax income.


Quote:

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?

According to the state website, if you are a resident of NJ then you'll pay NJ sales tax.

Posted on: 2015/8/20 18:46
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 760
Offline
Quote:

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.


I'm not a fan of racial segregation, but then again I doubt almost anyone else in NJ is either. They are, however, for good schools populated by good students. That, on the other hand, has a correlation to race. So if you're in a predominantly white, high income neighborhood where the kids are college bound and primarily concerned with how good of a school they can get into when it is all over, do you really want to import a bunch of black people from the ghetto who may well have real issues just so that you feel better about American society? I'm going to go with "no" and "not only no, but if this happens I would have to find somewhere else to send my kid because their safety trumps your white guilt." If that means utilizing charter schools, private schools or moving somewhere else then that is what I'll do. Instead, I suggest that liberals stop trying to socially engineer society and to the extent that they want to improve the lot of black people that they work to improve their communities by ensuring that top students are rewarded and bad influences are punished. I wouldn't hold my breath on that since the BLM crowd are basically promoting the opposite of that (and if you can't see why that is, you're not thinking very hard).

By the way, I encourage you to try to find me something suggesting that a large number of white people have problems with blacks with good kids from upper middle class socioeconomic backgrounds attending their schools. Lets admit that this isn't the issue at all, and this is about about sending kids from Newark and other ghettos to nice school districts where they will inevitably destroy everything.

Posted on: 2015/8/20 18:29
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#53
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/29 21:35
Last Login :
2017/7/26 14:00
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 82
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2015/8/20 16:58
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
9/19 17:35
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1389
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/20 3:32
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/5/12 22:51
Last Login :
8/20 15:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1588
Offline
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.
.




Quote:

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).

Posted on: 2015/8/20 2:58
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
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 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.

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).

Posted on: 2015/8/19 17:22
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 760
Offline
Quote:

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.



I agree that transport is vital and everyone needs to work to fix and improve our infrastructure, but we need to do it without increasing taxes. If that means decreasing spending in other areas, including stiffing people with large public pensions, then I can live with that.

By the way, I'm one of the "grad school educated" crowd that chooses to make JC my home. The taxes and pricing advantages are really the key. If taxes go up and prices increase, then I'm going to move elsewhere.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 16:47
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#48
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/29 21:35
Last Login :
2017/7/26 14:00
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 82
Offline
Quote:

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.


I agree with you on your second point - the gas tax is ridiculously low, given the state of the roads.

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.

Point 3 has some validity, but for the most part the companies in question are planning on moving, whether to a location down the road or out-of-state (of at least what the companies and the politicians giving them the tax breaks will argue).

Posted on: 2015/8/19 16:31
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
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.


Posted on: 2015/8/19 16:12
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
Quote:

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.



While NJ cancelled the ARC tunnel, the MTA has been studiously building the East Side Access tunnel linking LIRR to Grand Central station. This will save commuters 20 to 40 minutes off of their trip. So assuming some people still want to move to the suburbs, LIRR is about to get much closer to the high paying jobs in midtown, while NJ suburbs are about to have the lifeline to jobs in New York severed.

Also the MTA is looking into expand MetroNorth service to Penn Station via the Amtrak tracks along the west side of the Hudson, which will also reduce travel time for MetroNorth Riders.

So to review: NJTransit commuters are increasing while MTA commuter rail commutes are decreasing.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:58
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 760
Offline
Quote:

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...


NJ isn't such an awesome place that you can reduce incentives and expect people to stay.

I'm ok with poor people living in separate neighborhoods that are consistent with what they can afford. If that becomes the ghetto then I suggest they work hard to either improve their neighborhood or leave (what most people call "selling out", apparently).

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:43
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.


Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:40
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
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...

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:31
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 760
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:27
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

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


Without a new tunnel, New Jersey is going to lose a huge portion of its tax base, primarily the high income professionals who work in New York City who generate money through sales tax and pay higher property taxes on more expensive homes. 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.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:17
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
Quote:

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.

...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.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:10
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 760
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:00
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 14:55
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#37
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/29 21:35
Last Login :
2017/7/26 14:00
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 82
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 14:41
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
Quote:

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.

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.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:55
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:50
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2019/12/17 22:00
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1893
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:46
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/28 22:22
Last Login :
2018/7/19 12:07
From Jersey City yo!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 606
Offline
Quote:

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.


Examples of that hypocrisy are myriad. Chappaqua liberals don't want affordable housing in their enclave, Malibu "progressives" don't want riff raff on their beaches. What's good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander in the "progressive" worldview.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:33
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4954
Offline
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

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:28
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
NJ Transit current relies on 21 trains per hour at peak times.

ARC would have provided access for 25 (or 27 depending on the source information) trains per hour for NJTransit.

Gateway will provide space for 25 trains -- 13 of which will be NJTransit trains.


Expected 2018 Capacity with ARC:
21 Trains (existing)
25 Trains (ARC)
-----
46 Trains (Total)


Expected 2035 Capacity with ARC and Gateway
21 Trains (existing)
25 Trains (ARC)
13 Trains (Gateway)
----
59 Trains (Total)


Actual Conditions Now
21 Trains (Existing)
----
21 Trains (Total)


Estimated Conditions 2018 (Assuming closure of one tunnel)
6 Trains (Existing)
----
6 Trains (Total)


2018 With Tunnel Closure and ARC
6 Trains (Existing)
25 Trains (ARC)
----
31 Trains




Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:22
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
Quote:

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.


ARC would have created space for 27 more NJTransit commuter trains per hour. Gateway, which was originally planned as Amtrak's High Speed rail network tunnel, will bring in 24 TOTAL trains per hour, of which Amtrak will have priority.

Also because ARC would have used separate platforms and separate tracks, catastrophic failures (Like this one http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/nyr ... F7A3E4776182&gwt=pay&_r=0 or this one http://gothamist.com/2011/08/09/nj_tr ... in_derails_between_pe.php ), the ARC tunnel would have provided a backup system for things get terrible at Penn.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:06
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
8/28 20:53
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3645
Offline
Quote:

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.
i tend to agree that nj nees to be better integrated into nyc transit system but nj transit would probably not allow that. in the end the lack of tunnel capacity hurts nj much more than ny

Posted on: 2015/8/18 18:09
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 17:53
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2895
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 16:38
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2633
Offline
Quote:

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.


As to your other point: http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wuwt-typos/

"The reason typos get through isn?t because we?re stupid or careless, it?s because what we?re doing is actually very smart, explains psychologist Tom Stafford, who studies typos of the University of Sheffield in the UK. ?When you?re writing, you?re trying to convey meaning. It?s a very high level task,? he said."


Posted on: 2015/8/18 15:46
 Top 




(1) 2 »




[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 - 2017