Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
60 user(s) are online (38 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 60

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 ... 16 17 18 (19) 20 21 22 ... 24 »


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/9 15:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 319
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:
I wonder why they didn't post the 10 properties with the biggest tax cuts. Hmmmmm.


That's next. Right now the properties with the biggest tax cuts are actually all Downtown too.

Posted on: 2/7 23:24
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/8/6 19:41
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 510
Offline
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

Adonis wrote:
I've been living in a tax abated 2 bedroom 2 bath condo in downtown for 10 years. I've been paying $10.5k per year in property taxes for those 10 years. Turns out I was paying in many instances more than twice the amount that many of my fellow neighbors who are in non-tax abated properties that are currently valued at $1m or more were paying.
It's a complete fallacy to blanketly say that tax abated properties were paying less taxes than non-tax abated properties by comparison.


A fair point, pre reval. But doesn't this mean you're still paying close to $10k post reval at a similar valuation of your neighbors while your neighbors will pay close to $30k post reval? If I have that correct, that's still messed up, just in reverse.

And to someone's earlier point, there is no sympathy for DTJC residents paying the proper tax on million dollar homes while underpaying for many years.

Remember, 1.6% is still one of the lowest rates in the entire state! All the while still making the state subsidize 2/3 of the JC school system. That's a pretty solid deal in my view.


Yes you are correct about the pre-reval vs. post-real flip in the who-is-benefiting category. My re-val is a little more than half-way over. So the way I look at it I'm was getting screwed in comparison to many of my neighbors during the first half and I'm doing the screwing in the second half. Of course when my abatement is over then I'm in the same boat as my neighbors.

In the end though I just wanted to point out that tax abated properties do pay a lot in property taxes. At least I am. It's certainly not nothing.

Posted on: 2/7 21:34
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/4 12:37
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 504
Offline
The last property is a gem with parking. Seems high but I am not too surprised..

Posted on: 2/7 21:23
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/8/6 18:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 951
Offline
Quote:
I wonder why they didn't post the 10 properties with the biggest tax cuts. Hmmmmm.

Posted on: 2/7 18:55
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/8/6 18:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 951
Offline
Quote:

mfadam wrote:
who in their right mind sees value in paying 40k in taxes to JC?

Who in their right minds thinks it's fair for other homeowners to pay an extra $30,000 so that someone else can pay a low property tax rate?

Who in their right minds thinks that a $2.5 million home is really only worth $200k?


Quote:
I think most would rather pay more per SF and build equity than pay a bit less and throw money into the JC tax sinkhole.

I think most people would prefer not to pay any property taxes at all. That does not justify making someone else pay your property taxes for you.

Posted on: 2/7 18:53
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5215
Offline
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!


Nice of you Brewster to take amusement in what you perceive as someone's mistake. I'm not surprised as you seem to post on evey topic whether you have an informed opinion or not. Its also quite possible that Yvonne invested her profit in the soaring stock market and doubled her $$


Lol, you'll have to do better than that. I posted verifiable facts, you posted speculation that a conservative senior citizen would dump her windfall of a lifetime into the Wall Street casino. It sounds like you think she's even stupider than I do! "Informed opinion" indeed.

Posted on: 2/7 17:45
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/30 18:23
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 689
Offline
who in their right mind sees value in paying 40k in taxes to JC? I think most would rather pay more per SF and build equity than pay a bit less and throw money into the JC tax sinkhole.

Iffy services at best and iffy schools. We shall see if she gets her $3mm

Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!




It's for sale -- go get it!


Posted on: 2/7 17:32
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/5/4 0:58
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 201
Offline

Posted on: 2/7 16:34
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4493
Offline
It is amazing how the focus is me. Here is the facts. My first budget hearing the city budget was $90 million (it took 300 years to get to that figure), very few tax abatements were listed. This was sometime in the 1970s. Last budget hearing $570 plus million. The school went up and the county budgets went up plus water is now a source of revenue. Fulop increased the budget nearly $100 million in his first term as mayor. It is not what I and other pay in taxes, it is the amount of spending and debt this city has given the taxpayers, while proclaiming the need for affordable housing. There can never be affordable housing if there is not affordable taxes.

Posted on: 2/7 16:25
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/9/17 23:58
From Between Thought and Expression
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 819
Offline

Posted on: 2/7 14:54
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/16 23:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 778
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!


Nice of you Brewster to take amusement in what you perceive as someone's mistake. I'm not surprised as you seem to post on evey topic whether you have an informed opinion or not. Its also quite possible that Yvonne invested her profit in the soaring stock market and doubled her $$

Posted on: 2/7 13:59
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 17:12
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 263
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!


The sight of all those beautiful surface parking lots being torn up was too much for her to bear, as were all the horrible glbt people moving from the city into the neighborhood. Thankfully she can't be on the VVPA board anymore and their influence is diminished after their botched lawsuit so we're finally seeing some infill projects get approved.

Posted on: 2/7 13:30
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/8/16 23:19
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 166
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
There is some interesting data in the list of assessments:

The larger Crystal Point units (1,590 sf) are assessed at $1,368 per sf. Those units are all assessed the same - regardless of floor.

The larger 77 Hudson units (but not the even larger PH units) are assessed above $1,100 per sf. Those are in the 1,550 sf range. The large PHs - 2,000+ sf are assessed north of $1,500 per sf at $3,100,000+ (!!)

A few of the large 77 Hudson units were assessed at several hundred thousand dollars below prices they had recently sold for (sales that had taken place in 2016 or 2017). One was assessed $478,000 less than what it sold for in early 2016.

In general, the listed assessment seems to be higher (per sf) the larger your unit is - which is counter to what typically happens in the market.

Owners at Crystal Point and 77 Hudson are both on long-term abatements and only pay a few thousand dollars a year for land taxes, so none of this really matters for them any time soon - but if you were looking to make a case against the assessment process, I'd wonder how these conclusions were reached.

INDEED a Good Catch for making a case against the city's Reval Vendor : Appraisal Systems Inc. work-product & the entire premise of market rate appraisal via snapshot in time methods.

The most glaring outrageous thing that I noticed is their reduction of value for a DT Rowhouse that sold for 1.8Million in 2016 to 1.5Million, citing significant Sq. ft. reduction from the connecting homes with identical footprint that are seated under a common cornice !!

Posted on: 2/7 13:20
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5215
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
You don't need to create "large municipalities". You point to the small efforts these communities have made on shared services and have decided that's enough - why stop there? Combining Kearny, Harrison and East Newark doesn't create a "large municipality", nor would rolling up Guttenberg, Weehawken and WNew York. Density makes these areas prime candidates to become rolled up - and they'd realize a greater voice in Trenton as a result.


Any sane place in the country geographically tiny Hudson County would be a single city of 650k. So many layers of well paid patronage administrators and such that could be eliminated, in addition to the savings on actual services mentioned.

Posted on: 2/7 13:16
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/18 21:18
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1560
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!


OMG - that is hilarioius.

Posted on: 2/7 13:02
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/18 21:18
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1560
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

Erm... My point is that people in the NYC metro area lose their **** if they aren't plowed out immediately. For example, a few years ago, NYC got hit with 11-16" of snow, and it took over a day to dig out pretty much every part of the city. As a result, outer boro residents demanded Bloomberg's decapitated head on a pike. I'm reasonably certain that residents of Idaho don't demand that level of service.


What does Idaho have to do with it? People in every city where it snows lose their **** when the roads don't get cleared. Chicago. Boston. Philadelphia. Oh wait, People in Idaho lose their shit when it snows, too?? Your reasonable certainty does not equate to being right.

Quote:
Actually, NJ is the extreme. Kansas is average. For total tax burdens:

NJ total tax rate = 10.14%
Kansas = 8.72%
Average for all 50 states = 8.57%


Source?

Quote:
We have a broken state-run rail system, public schools that range from elite in a few cases, good in some cases and poor to third-world in many more and roads that my Afghani Uber driver was complaining about being "worse than home" the other day.

Well, if you say an Uber driver said it, it must be true....

Quote:
NJ Transit isn't "broken." Last I checked, most of its problems are a result of using Amtrak lines.


Lines that run out of Hoboken (which as nothing to do with Amtrak) suffer frequent delays as well. Both Republican and Democratic leadership agree on the failings of NJT; they just disagree on the causes (underinvesting).

Quote:
NJ's schools are #10 in the US (per US News & World Report). Kansas, by the way, is #45.


Actually, Kansas is outperforming based on the way they fund their schools. NJ should be number 1 based on tax load. And that does zero to refute my point. There are a good number of good to great public schools in NJ. There are a lot of awful ones, too. The average NJ kid's experience (and certainly not the average urban NJ kid) isn't McNair. Given the resources, for NJ to not be top 3 (top 5 at a minimum) seems like a failure.

Quote:
You need look no further than Princeton - even critics of their recent consolidation are only complaining that it could have been implemented better but acknowledge that it worked.

Quote:
Yeah... no. The advocates are the one crowing about it, since it let them fire 23 employees. The critics point out that services are slightly reduced; they haven't harmonized a lot of town laws; that they had consolidated many services before merging; and that none of the surrounding communities have any interest in following suit.

That's not surprising, since the two cities could have fired 11 employees each and gotten the same result.


You don't just eliminate jobs. You eliminate the layers of law firms and auditing firms that get contracts (often as rewards for their involvement in the many elections that happen as a result of the byzantine layers of government as well as odd election calendars). You can reduce the need for some equipment (and the foregone maintenance that comes with it.) Not all of these are realized immediately.

Accepting the qualitative assessment of a few folks who point to a (in your word) "slight" reduction in services is no different than quoting an uber driver (by the by, most drivers I ride with from the airport have the same complaint. I just that it was insanely funny coming from the guy from Afghanistan.) Also - the bigger criticism of the Princeton rollup was that it didn't go far enough.

Quote:
East Newark already works with the Harrison school district; they share other resources with Harrison and Kearny. Gutenberg -- which is geographically tiny but has more than 10,000 residents -- also shares resources, does not have its own fire department, sends students to North Bergen. Weehakwen also has 10,000 residents, and again shares resources with North Bergen. Its schools are small -- and well-regarded. Usually, that's a good thing.

These tiny municipalities are already doing things that reduce their costs, and improve efficiencies. Large municipalities, as the Rutgers study points out, are not more efficient than larger ones. People also seem to like local control.

As a result, there are visible downsides and few upsides to consolidation -- unless you're going to use it as an excuse to cut staff, which also means you're going to reduce services.

The promise of big gains through consolidation is an illusion.


You don't need to create "large municipalities". You point to the small efforts these communities have made on shared services and have decided that's enough - why stop there? Combining Kearny, Harrison and East Newark doesn't create a "large municipality", nor would rolling up Guttenberg, Weehawken and WNew York. Density makes these areas prime candidates to become rolled up - and they'd realize a greater voice in Trenton as a result.


Posted on: 2/7 12:53
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5215
Offline
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!

Posted on: 2/7 12:47
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/14 23:56
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 876
Offline
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!




It's for sale -- go get it!



Ahh Terry, if only the Jersey Journal paid such a good Lad a 6%
commission every time one of your articles is read.....

Posted on: 2/7 12:40
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/9 15:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 319
Offline
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!




It's for sale -- go get it!


Posted on: 2/7 12:22
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/14 23:56
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 876
Offline
Quote:

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
My former home made this list in the Jersey Journal article. By the way, taxes are high because Fulop spending increased nearly $100 million. We did not feel the impact because many tax abatements expired granted in the 1990s. Taxes should have gone down, but it hid this spending. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_2box_hudson


Lemme guess, 272 Barrow?



272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!



Posted on: 2/7 12:20
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4493
Offline
No, but keep guessing. However, it is time the mayor and his pals stop playing games. Affordable housing, how about affordable taxes? At my first budget hearing the city budget was $90 million, now $570 if not higher. There is no affordable housing because there is no affordable taxes.

Posted on: 2/7 12:18
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/3/19 11:20
From Scenic McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 667
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
My former home made this list in the Jersey Journal article. By the way, taxes are high because Fulop spending increased nearly $100 million. We did not feel the impact because many tax abatements expired granted in the 1990s. Taxes should have gone down, but it hid this spending. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_2box_hudson


Lemme guess, 272 Barrow?

Posted on: 2/7 12:11
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4493
Offline
My former home made this list in the Jersey Journal article. By the way, taxes are high because Fulop spending increased nearly $100 million. We did not feel the impact because many tax abatements expired granted in the 1990s. Taxes should have gone down, but it hid this spending. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_2box_hudson

Posted on: 2/7 12:06
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/8/6 18:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 951
Offline
Quote:

Y'know, I like Fulop overall. However, I have no qualms whatsoever in saying that his resistance to the reval is a bad policy for NJ, which he has pursued for short-term political gain.

We need to get on a regular schedule, every 5 years or so, rather than push it off for decades, and fight it when it's already well overdue.

Posted on: 2/7 12:01
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/8/6 18:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 951
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

NJ has high taxes mostly because its constituents want lots of services. Trash pickup twice a week; snow ploughed instantly; pensions paid, roads maintained, the list goes on. People in Kansas don't get all this stuff, y'know.


"want" and "receive" are very different words. Snow plowing in less densely populated areas is anything but instant.

Erm... My point is that people in the NYC metro area lose their **** if they aren't plowed out immediately. For example, a few years ago, NYC got hit with 11-16" of snow, and it took over a day to dig out pretty much every part of the city. As a result, outer boro residents demanded Bloomberg's decapitated head on a pike. I'm reasonably certain that residents of Idaho don't demand that level of service.


Quote:
Pensions? Those not receiving them would probably much rather have the road maintenance you point to that isn't happening.

NJ roads are fine. We're even getting some big infrastructure work done near JC, such as raising the Bayonne Bridge, replacing the Wittpenn Bridge, and thanks to Christie ripping off the federal government, work on the Pulaski Skyway. A few streets with a bunch of potholes (yes, I drive over them on occasion) does not mean the entire state road system sucks.

And those receiving pensions? We offered them a tradeoff: Lower wages during their working years, in exchange for decent benefits and pensions later on.


Quote:
Kansas is an extreme example (as is Oklahoma).

Actually, NJ is the extreme. Kansas is average. For total tax burdens:

NJ total tax rate = 10.14%
Kansas = 8.72%
Average for all 50 states = 8.57%


Quote:
We have a broken state-run rail system, public schools that range from elite in a few cases, good in some cases and poor to third-world in many more and roads that my Afghani Uber driver was complaining about being "worse than home" the other day.

Well, if you say an Uber driver said it, it must be true....

NJ Transit isn't "broken." Last I checked, most of its problems are a result of using Amtrak lines. PATH isn't "broken" either. Keep in mind that few cities in the US (or the world) have any sort of 24/7 regional transit.

NJ's schools are #10 in the US (per US News & World Report). Kansas, by the way, is #45.


Quote:
That Governing article you point to doesn't really apply - big cities like St. Louis and Louisville spread over large geographic areas annexing neighbors doesn't lead to efficiencies.....

Sorry, but that specific point is not sufficient to ignore the entire article.

St Louis County is larger than Bergen County -- but the population is the same, and so are the issues. You still optimally want the same number of teachers, police, fire, parks and so on. A smaller geographic area doesn't make government services cheaper or more efficient, except for transportation costs (which are not that significant).


Quote:
You need look no further than Princeton - even critics of their recent consolidation are only complaining that it could have been implemented better but acknowledge that it worked.

Yeah... no. The advocates are the one crowing about it, since it let them fire 23 employees. The critics point out that services are slightly reduced; they haven't harmonized a lot of town laws; that they had consolidated many services before merging; and that none of the surrounding communities have any interest in following suit.

That's not surprising, since the two cities could have fired 11 employees each and gotten the same result.


Quote:
Just look within the county - tell me with a straight face why East Newark, Guttenberg and Weehawken exist?

East Newark already works with the Harrison school district; they share other resources with Harrison and Kearny. Gutenberg -- which is geographically tiny but has more than 10,000 residents -- also shares resources, does not have its own fire department, sends students to North Bergen. Weehakwen also has 10,000 residents, and again shares resources with North Bergen. Its schools are small -- and well-regarded. Usually, that's a good thing.

These tiny municipalities are already doing things that reduce their costs, and improve efficiencies. Large municipalities, as the Rutgers study points out, are not more efficient than larger ones. People also seem to like local control.

As a result, there are visible downsides and few upsides to consolidation -- unless you're going to use it as an excuse to cut staff, which also means you're going to reduce services.

The promise of big gains through consolidation is an illusion.

Posted on: 2/7 11:53
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5215
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Could you mine from the data how much more money is going to be coming from the abated properties due to the land rise? I can see a lot of abated condos going up $1k to $1.5k in tax.


I've noticed this, too. Although its a much smaller $ amount, the land increases for abated condos seems to range between 3x and 10x! I've been wondering if it was a way to ease the pain for the non-abated by overassessing land of the abated.


I don't think it's a strategy, just reality. Here's that article I posted in October saying land value is driving prices.

https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/paying- ... d-from-construction-costs

Posted on: 2/7 11:51
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/6/10 12:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 261
Offline
Quote:

Dan what was your mentor/leader Jerry Healy's strategy on this?

Posted on: 2/7 11:36
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1184
Offline

Posted on: 2/7 10:25
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/3/19 11:20
From Scenic McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 667
Offline
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder what the likelihood is that some JC politicians are browsing this forum.
Have any newspaper articles appeared that anyone can point out that explore the disruption in the lives
of the aged? These people only seek to live out their lives in the buildings and neighborhoods to which they've become accustomed. They've been good citizens, obeyed the laws, raised their families to do the same, and are now faced with the hardships of ridiculously high tax rates which make no sense whatever. The politicians of New Jersey should be ashamed for abandoning these seniors in the waning years of their lives.
And for those of you who offer economic reasoning and proffer same solutions to the panic in the lives of these citizens, remember: "what goes around comes around".


I can't take credit for this idea, but I will pose the question to Rich. Rich, if you feel so bad for all the seniors who now sit on 1+million dollar homes, I'll make a deal with you. You round up all the people you claim are going to be forced out of their homes. Bring them to me, and I will buy their homes/land for what they originally paid for it. I will let them live out their remaining years in their home, and they can continue to pay the same taxes to me, I'll make up the difference, and everyone wins. Of course, I get to keep the land/property once the current resident passes away.

Deal?

Posted on: 2/7 10:18
Print Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder what the likelihood is that some JC politicians are browsing this forum.
Have any newspaper articles appeared that anyone can point out that explore the disruption in the lives
of the aged? These people only seek to live out their lives in the buildings and neighborhoods to which they've become accustomed. They've been good citizens, obeyed the laws, raised their families to do the same, and are now faced with the hardships of ridiculously high tax rates which make no sense whatever. The politicians of New Jersey should be ashamed for abandoning these seniors in the waning years of their lives.
And for those of you who offer economic reasoning and proffer same solutions to the panic in the lives of these citizens, remember: "what goes around comes around".


Rich, you keep confusing tax amount with tax RATE. These elders and everyone else are going to pay one of the lowest tax RATES (1.6%) in the entire state. However the value of heir homes are over a million bucks so again, you can't expect sympathy. Because again, those people have disproportionately underpaying relative to the value of their homes for years, even decades. Look into reverse mortgages etc. there are solutions that can stave off moving.

Posted on: 2/7 10:05
Print Top




« 1 ... 16 17 18 (19) 20 21 22 ... 24 »




[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