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

Members: 0
Guests: 67

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 3 (4) 5 »


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5009
Offline
Development will happen, but if you look at downtown it developed without a plan, the developers called the shots. There is a traffic nightmare that didn't exist before development, we are also running out of open space, which adds to the flooding problem, limited recreation space and schools. Downtown JC is a classic case of poor development and it did not stabilize the tax rate.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 23:40
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/12/30 16:56
Last Login :
6/7 18:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 649
Offline
So we can wait another 30 years to develop instead, and lose business income and the rise of surrounding property vales as well.

Spiteful BS.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 22:15
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5009
Offline
It is not the job of taxpayers to subsidize developers. Taxpayers who own property without an abatement will be penalize at resale. This is equivalent to a student doing the homework then giving the answers to another student because everyone is worried that the poor student will not graduate. Besides, whatever happen to the "free market?"

Posted on: 2014/6/24 21:48
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#41
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: 2907
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Guess what? There are still "junk stores" downtown. Newark Avenue is not as nice as Bergenline Ave in North Hudson or even Broadway in Bayonne. New condos can be built but they don't deserve 20 and 30 years abatement.


If the developers won't build the condos without a 20 or 30 year abatement, then they are necessary and deserved.

At least, if JC decides they want them to encourage the revitalization of this area.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 21:18
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5009
Offline
Guess what? There are still "junk stores" downtown. Newark Avenue is not as nice as Bergenline Ave in North Hudson or even Broadway in Bayonne. New condos can be built but they don't deserve 20 and 30 years abatement.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 21:05
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/12/30 16:56
Last Login :
6/7 18:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 649
Offline
Because the city center is a sea of 99 cent stores and has potential to be a real economic driver. Who cares about individual condo owners getting a windfall?

You move new abatements from the waterfront inland, to bring development and business inland. First, Journal Square, then McGinley, then the West Side, all the way through Greenville. On the north side, from Palisade, in toward Kennedy.

Development should be seeded throughout the city.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 19:01
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5009
Offline
Why should it be move to Journal Square? There are older condos that are paying $10,000 in taxes for a two bedroom. They don't need competition for luxury housing that has an abatement and have a $2,000 or $3,000 tax bill for similar size. You are diminishing the value of existing condos so an outsider can make a profit.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 18:43
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/1 1:03
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1204
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Abatements and pilots do not work. .


That's kind of a broad sweeping statement. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. In some cases there might be no development whatsoever without them. However, I can't understand for a minute as to why ANY more abatements would be necessary in the downtown and waterfront area. That area was doing just fine ten years ago, or even longer than that, yet Healy kept granting abatements over there as if he was passing out Halloween candy. I mean, the waterfront will always have that natural advantage of attracting development - it's a waterfront, people will want to be there. Abatements of any kind shouldn't be necessary. If a developer can't have a successful project over there without any kind of abatement or subsidy, they should find another line of work.

Journal Square, Heights and Greenville on the other hand, are better candidates for granting abatements because it is understandably much harder to attract any large scale developments in those areas.

I've asked it before and and I'll ask it again - where was this Senator when Healy passed out abatements left and right and why didn't he slam him?

Posted on: 2014/6/24 18:38
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/12/30 16:56
Last Login :
6/7 18:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 649
Offline
That ignores the follow on taxable income from the new businesses that opened to service the new offices, hotels and residences. The town changed dramatically, and for the better.

The abatements need to be fine tuned some, but they have heped transform the town in a lot of ways. Now they need to be moved further inland, as in the case of the new JSQ developments.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 17:43
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5009
Offline
Abatements and pilots do not work. Before the 1988 reval, the city's assessment was $800 million after reval, the ratable base change. I am not sure it was $6.3 billion or $6.7 billion but it was somewhere between $6 to $7 billion. Today the ratable base is below $6 billion, the exact figure is $5.9 billion, an increase from $5.8 billion because some abatements expired and those properties are now on the tax rolls. Abatements keep the rate high because they are not included in the assessment for the county to strike the rate. The tax collector handed out the tax levy to the council at the caucus. In 2000, the rate was $45.48, $74.35 is the pending rate for 2014. All of that development was outside the ratable base so taxes increased. It is somehow ironic the ratable base without development was higher 26 years ago. JC residents have been sold a bill of goods supporting abatements but in reality it helped raised their taxes.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 17:39
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4448
Offline
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Exactly- because abatements and PILOTs work.

Maybe if Phillipsburg lured developers, it wouldn't be such a craphole that Jersey City residents have to subsidize.


How can JC taxpayers subsidize Phillipsburg schools when you don't pay $500,000,000/year of your own school costs? And Phillipsburg gets less than 1/10th of that??

Can I assume you're a JC high school grad?

Posted on: 2014/6/24 17:36
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 19:25
Last Login :
2016/9/8 19:37
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 357
Offline
Exactly- because abatements and PILOTs work.

Maybe if Phillipsburg lured developers, it wouldn't be such a craphole that Jersey City residents have to subsidize.

Posted on: 2014/6/24 17:18
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4448
Offline
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I have little doubt that Sen. Michael Doherty has been lobbied by big business to make an attempt to intervene - The Senator should expect extra campaign funds in the near future.


Somehow I don't think there are a lot of Delaware River waterfront luxury buildings going up with abatements and PILOTS for him to feel are helping Pburg avoid paying their fair share of school taxes though. Wasn't that his point re:Jersey City?

And when Goldman Sachs opens a tower there, shoot a flare to let us know!

Posted on: 2014/6/21 22:34
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
3/15 23:54
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4122
Offline
I have little doubt that Sen. Michael Doherty has been lobbied by big business to make an attempt to intervene - The Senator should expect extra campaign funds in the near future.

Posted on: 2014/6/21 21:57
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4448
Offline
Pebble, the tax paid by the well to do is different. If I'm buying pants at Brooks Brothers I'll be paying a lot more in tax than someone buying pants at KMart.

That said, I loooooove finding bargains at Red, White, and Blue in Paterson-got a great Brooks Brothers polo shirt for a few dollars, and a Ralph Lauren blazer (sold at Lord and Taylor) for $5.95.

Posted on: 2014/6/21 16:13
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1768
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Okay, there's lots of different taxes, sure. But show me how everything comes out equal in the end. That's something you've said a few times, but I haven't seen anything that supports it.

My point was that the only way to ensure that everyone pays the same proportion in tax is to have one tax with one tax rates. When you have multiple taxes, with multiple tax rates, with multiple deductions and exception, the water gets muddied (and this is because of special interests not fairness).

Again, what metrics show that the tax system is designed to be fair? Empirically, it couldn't be further from the case.

It is a proven fact that a flat tax overly taxes the poor. There is no way to evenly distribute the tax burden as a percentage with a flat tax. If you truly believe this is the case then I wouldn?t trust you to calculate the total of 1 + 1 with a calculator and an Excel spreadsheet.

The only thing flat taxes do is make sure everyone pays the same tax dollars which is patently unfair when you realize the wealthy will then pay 1% of their income and the poor will pay 90%.

If you want total numbers? try using the googles. It?s not hard. Here?s a quick link with sources that doesn't even include sales taxes (which is your flat tax value):
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

Resized Image

Resized Image

Resized Image

Resized Image


Sorry, none of these figures show that:

Quote:
The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.


or that:

Quote:
Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.


Your words, not mine. And so far, you haven't backed up your claims.

Posted on: 2014/6/21 16:03
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#28
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: 1903
Offline
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Okay, there's lots of different taxes, sure. But show me how everything comes out equal in the end. That's something you've said a few times, but I haven't seen anything that supports it.

My point was that the only way to ensure that everyone pays the same proportion in tax is to have one tax with one tax rates. When you have multiple taxes, with multiple tax rates, with multiple deductions and exception, the water gets muddied (and this is because of special interests not fairness).

Again, what metrics show that the tax system is designed to be fair? Empirically, it couldn't be further from the case.

It is a proven fact that a flat tax overly taxes the poor. There is no way to evenly distribute the tax burden as a percentage with a flat tax. If you truly believe this is the case then I wouldn?t trust you to calculate the total of 1 + 1 with a calculator and an Excel spreadsheet.

The only thing flat taxes do is make sure everyone pays the same tax dollars which is patently unfair when you realize the wealthy will then pay 1% of their income and the poor will pay 90%.

If you want total numbers? try using the googles. It?s not hard. Here?s a quick link with sources that doesn't even include sales taxes (which is your flat tax value):
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

Resized Image

Resized Image

Resized Image

Resized Image

Posted on: 2014/6/21 4:07
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1768
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.

Quote:


I find that a silly comment, given that almost half of taxpayers don't pay a single penny in Federal taxes. Half!


Quote:


You can find it silly, but your response completely ignores what I wrote. So, I?ll try it again:

Total taxes of everything paid comes out about equal.

Total taxes means your sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, etc? Look at your phone bill. Look at your cable bill. Look at your receipt from the diner. Check the receipt for purchasing food at the grocery store (in other states). These are taxes too.


Okay, there's lots of different taxes, sure. But show me how everything comes out equal in the end. That's something you've said a few times, but I haven't seen anything that supports it.

Quote:

If someone makes $100 (Joe) and another person makes $1,000 (Bob), let us assume that they both need to wear pants. They purchase said pants for $20 and are taxed 10%. The Joe has now spent 2% of his income on taxes. Bob will have spent 0.2% of his income on taxes. Considering that this is an incredibly unfair way of settling things, Bob is asked to pay Federal income taxes to the tune of 5%. In the end, Bob still really pays a lot less than Joe in percentage but pays a lot more than Joe in terms of dollar value.


I don't think anyone is arguing this.


Quote:

Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Quote:

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.


Which metrics?

Quote:

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.


Agreed.

Quote:

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.

Quote:


Simply untrue. And the only way to do this is to have a "flat tax" on income with no deductions. We don't have this - we have several income tax rates and countless deductions (because the system is more about placating lobbyist groups than being fair).

Quote:


As I?ve stated before, I?ve lived in a flat tax country before. Anyone that thinks it is a fair system is either blinded by the concept, they outright know it?s unfair to the poor and don?t care or they are stupid. I?ll leave the choice up to you since I proved the point above.


My point was that the only way to ensure that everyone pays the same proportion in tax is to have one tax with one tax rates. When you have multiple taxes, with multiple tax rates, with multiple deductions and exception, the water gets muddied (and this is because of special interests not fairness).

Again, what metrics show that the tax system is designed to be fair? Empirically, it couldn't be further from the case.

Posted on: 2014/6/20 22:28
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#26
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: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.



Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.


I find that a silly comment, given that almost half of taxpayers don't pay a single penny in Federal taxes. Half!

You can find it silly, but your response completely ignores what I wrote. So, I?ll try it again:

Total taxes of everything paid comes out about equal.

Total taxes means your sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, etc? Look at your phone bill. Look at your cable bill. Look at your receipt from the diner. Check the receipt for purchasing food at the grocery store (in other states). These are taxes too.

If someone makes $100 (Joe) and another person makes $1,000 (Bob), let us assume that they both need to wear pants. They purchase said pants for $20 and are taxed 10%. The Joe has now spent 2% of his income on taxes. Bob will have spent 0.2% of his income on taxes. Considering that this is an incredibly unfair way of settling things, Bob is asked to pay Federal income taxes to the tune of 5%. In the end, Bob still really pays a lot less than Joe in percentage but pays a lot more than Joe in terms of dollar value.

I?ll also point out? You do recognize that included in your ?half of taxpayers don?t pay a single penny in federal taxes? are military members, right?

Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.



Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.


Which metrics?

Quote:

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.


Agreed.

Quote:

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.


Simply untrue. And the only way to do this is to have a "flat tax" on income with no deductions. We don't have this - we have several income tax rates and countless deductions (because the system is more about placating lobbyist groups than being fair).

As I?ve stated before, I?ve lived in a flat tax country before. Anyone that thinks it is a fair system is either blinded by the concept, they outright know it?s unfair to the poor and don?t care or they are stupid. I?ll leave the choice up to you since I proved the point above.

Posted on: 2014/6/20 21:19
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1768
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.



Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.


Which metrics?

Quote:

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.


Agreed.

Quote:

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.


Simply untrue. And the only way to do this is to have a "flat tax" on income with no deductions. We don't have this - we have several income tax rates and countless deductions (because the system is more about placating lobbyist groups than being fair).

Posted on: 2014/6/20 19:07
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 19:25
Last Login :
2016/9/8 19:37
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 357
Offline
Oh please.

If Phillipsburg has better results, why is it an Abbott district?

I'm an "earner" so I have something to say about taxes, and I know they went to a bogus investigation, fake election, and overpaid cops.

Yet Christie and this idiot want to blame schools- all those things combined are far more expensive.

Posted on: 2014/6/20 19:02
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4448
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.



Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.


I find that a silly comment, given that almost half of taxpayers don't pay a single penny in Federal taxes. Half!

Posted on: 2014/6/20 16:44
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#22
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: 1903
Offline
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.



Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Based on every metric available, the tax system is designed around the simple concept that every person end up paying out the same percentage.

Purchasing pants is the same for Joe Sixpack and Jane Moneybags. The tax on those pants acquires a vastly larger percentage of Sixpack's income than Moneybags'. As such, Moneybags' income above certain barometer marks is taxed at a higher rate.

At the end of the year, nearly everyone pays about the same percentage of their income in the various forms of taxes as everyone else. Exceptions do exist on both ends of the spectrum, but they are outliers.

Posted on: 2014/6/20 16:06
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1768
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.



Based on what exactly? Anyone who analyzes the tax system can see that it's not designed to be equitable.

Posted on: 2014/6/19 23:01
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4448
Offline
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Why is it the schools' problem?

Is there anything Republicans in NJ won't blame on teachers? Teachers in NJ are like the local Benghazi. Mention another problem, somehow it comes back to that.

Meanwhile, you have 565 municipalities, some not even a square mile big, with a few thousand people and their own police departments and municipal officials.

And this blowhard is the biggest supporter of the Port Authority. The Port Authority is spending millions in Union City- a city with no port, no bridge, no PA facility at all...and I guess it's a mere coincidence that Jersey City and Hoboken get nothing but shutdowns. Surely it has nothing to do with their mayor!

Republicans nationally just blame cities for everything just because cities have liberals, gays, immigrants, minorities, Muslims, and all the other scapegoats that distract from their agenda just being "say no to Obama", tax breaks for the rich, shoving religion down everyone's throats, guns for all, and other winners.


'RU'kidding, lol? Maybe spending billions and billions of dollars on JC education, funded by those same Republican taxpayers you seem to hate, means they can't have an opinion on how that money is spent? Asking for accountability isn't the same as blaming someone or something. It's the way things work in the world, unless you're the type that wants a blank checkbook and zero responsibility for the outcome.

1/3 of JC students don't graduate. 500 million dollars a year from suburban taxpayers to support such poor performance. Are you proud of that?


I'm incredibly proud of it. My only regret is that rich don't pay more taxes.

A Republican talking about "blank checkbook and zero responsibility" is a great one. Forgetting the national and international blunders and war crimes my taxes have subsidized, let's talk about here in NJ this past year: I subsidized 1M+ whitewash donation to a Republican law firm to perform an investigation where have the parties gave no comment; I subsidized a 24M election so that the governor didn't have to run on the same day as the most popular politician in the state...

Oh, and I subsidized the six figure pensions and salaries of all the Republican cops, state troopers, and other overpaid boobs all over rural NJ who sit around and worry whether a 16 year old in their town is drinking a twisted tea so they could register their first arrest of the year.

Blaming the teachers is a joke. We have spent at least 25 million dollars as taxpayers just to subsidize one man's political career who claims he's for small government, but let's rail about people making 40k a year?

And let's come back to Abbott, shall we? I'm sure dear old Michael Doherty would turn down the Abbott money funding his constitutents in Phillipsburg- an Abbott district?

Why must I in Jersey City pay for the failures of teachers in Phillipsburg? Where's mine?

All my urban tax dollars funding these rural boobs!!

Blank checkbooks! Benghazi! Rabble rabble!


RU, you gotta focus. You're all over the map. First, the NJ State investigation hasn't had anything but tiny, minor differences with what will be a vastly more expensive in $ and time investigation led by Whizzy and Whiny. So please question that partisan, much more expensive waste of money.

Next, I agree on the election. Christie should have saved money by just appointing Senator Chiesa to serve out the complete term, as he would do so under the state constitution. Would you have preferred that?

Finally, we have over 100,000 active teachers-and probably many more earning pensions. I'm sure the money spent far outweighs the benefits of our first responders. (Check the number of cops vs teachers in the average town, then multiply by a generation or two of those retired) (And I agree, it's obscene the way some are recompensed when they're patrolling Far Hills instead of Camden).

And if you're going to blame the Republicans for the war effort, remember that almost half of taxpayers don't pay a dime in Federal Income tax-so just who exactly do you think was funding the war effort anyway? The earners.

And Philipsburgh gets less than a tenth of what JC gets, and they do with much less per student-and have a better result!




Posted on: 2014/6/19 22:57
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 19:25
Last Login :
2016/9/8 19:37
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 357
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Why is it the schools' problem?

Is there anything Republicans in NJ won't blame on teachers? Teachers in NJ are like the local Benghazi. Mention another problem, somehow it comes back to that.

Meanwhile, you have 565 municipalities, some not even a square mile big, with a few thousand people and their own police departments and municipal officials.

And this blowhard is the biggest supporter of the Port Authority. The Port Authority is spending millions in Union City- a city with no port, no bridge, no PA facility at all...and I guess it's a mere coincidence that Jersey City and Hoboken get nothing but shutdowns. Surely it has nothing to do with their mayor!

Republicans nationally just blame cities for everything just because cities have liberals, gays, immigrants, minorities, Muslims, and all the other scapegoats that distract from their agenda just being "say no to Obama", tax breaks for the rich, shoving religion down everyone's throats, guns for all, and other winners.


'RU'kidding, lol? Maybe spending billions and billions of dollars on JC education, funded by those same Republican taxpayers you seem to hate, means they can't have an opinion on how that money is spent? Asking for accountability isn't the same as blaming someone or something. It's the way things work in the world, unless you're the type that wants a blank checkbook and zero responsibility for the outcome.

1/3 of JC students don't graduate. 500 million dollars a year from suburban taxpayers to support such poor performance. Are you proud of that?


I'm incredibly proud of it. My only regret is that rich don't pay more taxes.

A Republican talking about "blank checkbook and zero responsibility" is a great one. Forgetting the national and international blunders and war crimes my taxes have subsidized, let's talk about here in NJ this past year: I subsidized 1M+ whitewash donation to a Republican law firm to perform an investigation where have the parties gave no comment; I subsidized a 24M election so that the governor didn't have to run on the same day as the most popular politician in the state...

Oh, and I subsidized the six figure pensions and salaries of all the Republican cops, state troopers, and other overpaid boobs all over rural NJ who sit around and worry whether a 16 year old in their town is drinking a twisted tea so they could register their first arrest of the year.

Blaming the teachers is a joke. We have spent at least 25 million dollars as taxpayers just to subsidize one man's political career who claims he's for small government, but let's rail about people making 40k a year?

And let's come back to Abbott, shall we? I'm sure dear old Michael Doherty would turn down the Abbott money funding his constitutents in Phillipsburg- an Abbott district?

Why must I in Jersey City pay for the failures of teachers in Phillipsburg? Where's mine?

All my urban tax dollars funding these rural boobs!!

Blank checkbooks! Benghazi! Rabble rabble!

Posted on: 2014/6/19 17:36
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3013
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.

If you want to see what "consumption" or flat tax looks like, I've lived in it and it is about as criminally insane as possible. Between the black market, burglaries, laziness with work... Only the truly stupid ever suggest a flat tax.


I'm glad we kinda agree on that point - and it's equally stupid to tie the wealth tax (PILOTS) to use/consumption (school places). It's probably right for public ed to be funded mostly by the state or fed for urban areas as it currently is. The JC BOE needs to have the argument with the state for more funding instead of sniffing around for cash wherever it thinks it can get it. And it's the state that sets overall NJ abatement policy - so it should be between the city and state if the state thinks it should get a bigger share of that PILOT revenue.

Posted on: 2014/6/19 17:10
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#17
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: 1903
Offline
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Frankly I find the whole debate somewhat stupid. Property tax is a tax on wealth, not a tax on income, on use or on consumption. Trying to tie a wealth tax to a specific use like schools misses the point of the taxation. Wealth-based taxes typically mean the wealthier end up paying more than their "fair" share compared to a consumption or "use" tax.

This is false. The tax system is designed to create a fair and equitable measure.

If you want to see what "consumption" or flat tax looks like, I've lived in it and it is about as criminally insane as possible. Between the black market, burglaries, laziness with work... Only the truly stupid ever suggest a flat tax.

Posted on: 2014/6/19 16:39
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#16
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: 1903
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Why is it the schools' problem?

Is there anything Republicans in NJ won't blame on teachers? Teachers in NJ are like the local Benghazi. Mention another problem, somehow it comes back to that.

Meanwhile, you have 565 municipalities, some not even a square mile big, with a few thousand people and their own police departments and municipal officials.

And this blowhard is the biggest supporter of the Port Authority. The Port Authority is spending millions in Union City- a city with no port, no bridge, no PA facility at all...and I guess it's a mere coincidence that Jersey City and Hoboken get nothing but shutdowns. Surely it has nothing to do with their mayor!

Republicans nationally just blame cities for everything just because cities have liberals, gays, immigrants, minorities, Muslims, and all the other scapegoats that distract from their agenda just being "say no to Obama", tax breaks for the rich, shoving religion down everyone's throats, guns for all, and other winners.


'RU'kidding, lol? Maybe spending billions and billions of dollars on JC education, funded by those same Republican taxpayers you seem to hate, means they can't have an opinion on how that money is spent? Asking for accountability isn't the same as blaming someone or something. It's the way things work in the world, unless you're the type that wants a blank checkbook and zero responsibility for the outcome.

1/3 of JC students don't graduate. 500 million dollars a year from suburban taxpayers to support such poor performance. Are you proud of that?


Oh please. This is more "I've got mine, screw you for trying to get yours."

You pay taxes to make sure the poor people don't come to your lilly white suburb. So, guess what, you have to subsidize the poorer schools.

The phrase "you get what you pay for" is so very apt and yet people forget it all the time. What do higher taxed areas have that lower taxed areas don't? More crime, better students, less "unwanted" element. Sure, you subsidize other areas so that those other areas remain away from the happy wealthy people.

Posted on: 2014/6/19 16:37
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4448
Offline
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Why is it the schools' problem?

Is there anything Republicans in NJ won't blame on teachers? Teachers in NJ are like the local Benghazi. Mention another problem, somehow it comes back to that.

Meanwhile, you have 565 municipalities, some not even a square mile big, with a few thousand people and their own police departments and municipal officials.

And this blowhard is the biggest supporter of the Port Authority. The Port Authority is spending millions in Union City- a city with no port, no bridge, no PA facility at all...and I guess it's a mere coincidence that Jersey City and Hoboken get nothing but shutdowns. Surely it has nothing to do with their mayor!

Republicans nationally just blame cities for everything just because cities have liberals, gays, immigrants, minorities, Muslims, and all the other scapegoats that distract from their agenda just being "say no to Obama", tax breaks for the rich, shoving religion down everyone's throats, guns for all, and other winners.


'RU'kidding, lol? Maybe spending billions and billions of dollars on JC education, funded by those same Republican taxpayers you seem to hate, means they can't have an opinion on how that money is spent? Asking for accountability isn't the same as blaming someone or something. It's the way things work in the world, unless you're the type that wants a blank checkbook and zero responsibility for the outcome.

1/3 of JC students don't graduate. 500 million dollars a year from suburban taxpayers to support such poor performance. Are you proud of that?

Posted on: 2014/6/18 16:59
 Top 




« 1 2 3 (4) 5 »




[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