Save Our Homes and Our Future
Assemblyman Thompson,
Thanks for your response. I will forward your response to my email. But I beg to differ that I have misrepresented you. As for a one-sided presentation, I only presented my case against those who reject the need to eliminate the property tax.
Yes, you may have agreed the property tax is unfair but then in our conversation and in your reply below you go on to defend its retention. For me it is a moral issue, not pragmatic. It is inherently unfair. If one believes this then how can they agree to continue it?
I disagree with your equating the property tax with Sales and Use taxes as a reason to reject my argument about the pernicious nature and the need to get rid of the property tax. Maybe they also should be eliminated. Being inconsistent does not make my argument about the inequity of the property tax wrong. And among the three taxes you mention, it has a unique application in how much is collected.
The main difference of the property from most other taxes is that it is collected no correlation to income. One can only pay so much Sales Tax based upon how much money they spend. New Jersey does not come knocking on people's door to collect more Sales Tax if one has not spent enough money. In fact, the Sales Tax recognizes there are basic necessities people need to live. It is considered unfair and wrong to tax them on things such as food, clothing, and medicine. This same idea is reflected in the Income Tax when it exempts the first $25,000 in income from taxation. There are some necessities subject to the Sales Tax. But there are many things one need not buy and thus not pay Sales Tax. So, one has control over how much Sales Tax they pay; not so with the property tax.
You reject elimination of the property tax because increases in other taxes would be "so massive, middle income people would be driven out of the State". I reject this as another red herring. In fact, research shows huge numbers of people are already exiting N.J. due to being unable to bear any longer the oppresive property tax. Furthermore, people are not just going to pull up stakes to leave; they would have to have jobs to go to. The overall national economy might be good, but leaving the metropolitan area would mean moving to lower wage jobs IF one can find one. But as to the need for a "massive" tax increase in other areas? There is no reason phasing in a change that eventuates in no Property Tax cannot be done. This was essentially Bret Shundler's plan.
There are advantages to be had from elimination. What about the increased affordability of homes to young people when the property tax no longer affects getting a home loan? The peace of mind and security that these same folk will have now knowing they will not lose their homes to a tax auction or be forced to move or retire out of state will have benefits far beyond what we can imagine. Some people would likely move here knowing they will have the security of a roof over their heads til the end of their life.
You also ignore the economic benefits to the state of increasing spendable income of middle and lower income. It is not as if they are going to stick the extra money in a mattress. More likely is they will buy the new car, appliances, make the home repairs or improvements, purchase health insurance, etc. These are things which they could not afford before. Spending such as this at this local level can only serve to boost the economy.
Another objection you have is "For your position to be correct, local spending (schools and government) would have to never increase or some other tax would have to be raised. You should also note if local authorities do not have to impose or collect any taxes but instead merely decide how much they want to spend, there would be zero incentive for them to hold down their spending". This is not necessarily true. Neither did I say local authorities would or should be left unchecked. Maybe you want to give local authorities the right to impose local income taxes as some cities (New York, e.g.) do. Then they would have to justify constantly raising their income tax or get spending under control so they do not have to. I have never argued against reigning in spending. I am just saying we must not confuse it with the moral fairness of the property tax.
You make the point "You ask where is the justice when your neighbor pays the same property tax as you while making 4-5 times your income? I will not attempt to justify this situation but you also must recognize that while he is paying the same property tax as you, he is probably already paying more than 4-5 times as much income tax as you since he is in a higher income bracket." Yes, but that makes my point about our tax system being progressive and based upon the ability to pay. And he is not paying more than about 9% state income tax even if he is making over $500,000. I am paying ten percent and there are many people paying much greater percentages. And they are not left with $455,000 after paying their tax."
And, of course, the following is a non-sequitur: "If he bought his identical house a year or two ago and you purchased yours 30 years ago, he might also argue that it is unfair you only paid $60,000 for your house and he had to pay $360,000. He might also argue it is consequently unfair that he now has these very large mortgage payments and you have little or none." The state has nothing to do with this, neither does the mortgage payment one makes have bearing on the equity of the property tax. As I pointed out above, if anything, eliminating the property tax will enable many young and lower income people to now afford to purchase a home.
You point out that "There will be winners and losers in any proposal put forward to either reduce or eliminate property taxes". True. Just as during revaluations the typical outcome is 1/3 of the home owners taxes go up, 1/3 go down, and 1/3 stay the same. The difference is that in the latter case there is no built in equity. Someone who bought in an undesirable location 30 years ago because it was in a more affordable area might now be socked with extraoridinarily high taxes just because it is now a desireable section of town. If all government services are funded by an income tax then fairness to all remains the order of the day. This is never the case with the property tax. Never.
Again you state, "I will restate my agreement that property taxes are not equitable and fair. But this statement applies equally to sales tax and any other tax or fee that is not income based be it motor vehicle fees, gasoline tax, marriage license, court fees, etc., etc". And again I point out that none of these taxes come close to consuming 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or more of anyone's total income.
I am sorry if you are offended if I refer to you as a defeatist. It is not because you won't do things my way. It is because it is the same response I receive from people in your position on influence all the time. It is summed up with, "Yes, the property tax is unfair. But we cannot eliminate it." To me that is giving up on the idea before it is even considered. Now there are some like Jon Sure of N.J. Policy Perspectives who find it a useful tax. They fail to see it as unfair, unjust, inequitible and immoral. They are not defeatists. They are wrong in not seeing it for what it is, but they are not opposed to eliminating it just because they have decided it cannot be done even though they believe it to be wrong. There is a big difference. And I am tired of hearing people agree it is wrong but then decide to not even try to eliminate just because it cannot be done. Well, if everyone would decide to do it, it could be done. Those who decide not to have accepted defeat without even trying. Don't be insulted, just consider.
Assemblyman Thompson, I thank you for taking the time to engage on this issue. If the points I raise are never discussed they have no possiblity of effecting change. Just remember, we should do unto the least of us as we would have them do unto us. At this time, New Jersey's leaders are not committed to this principle.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Assemblyman Thompson responds
Save Our Homes and Our Future
To: John Hendirckson
From: Assemblyman Samuel D. Thompson, Ph.D.
I have reviewed the e-mail you sent out regarding our conversation this morning. I find that you have distorted or misstated a number of my positions and presented a very one-sided presentation of the discussion.
If you have any sense of fairness, I would request that you forward my response that follows to the recipients of your missive.
You state you had two main points, both of which you indicate I disagreed with. Your first point was, “conflating state and local spending problems which have driven up property taxes with dealing with the fairness aspect of how education, municipalities and counties are funded is the wrong approach”….because “property taxes are inherently unfair because they do not take into account ones’ ability to pay.” You add I was not able to justify that they are a fair and just tax.
You should recall in my opening comment to you I stated in response to the message you had left with my staff that I do not consider the property tax to be an equitable and fair tax.
I began drafting my response as a point by point refutation of various comments and assertions contained in your e-mail but instead have decided to give my summary of our discussion and leave it to you and the readers to draw their own conclusions.
I began our conversation by responding to a question you had left with my staff. I do not consider the property tax to be equitable and fair. I did not state but would add; neither are the State Sales and Use Tax which is the States’ second largest generator of revenue projected at $6.7 billion in FY06. I did disagree you can not separate state and local spending concerns from the fairness aspect of how local entitles are funded. Spending determines how much revenue must be obtained which has a direct bearing on revenue source options.
It is your opinion reducing property taxes (which I support) to reduce the inequity is not satisfactory – they must be totally eliminated because of their unfairness. It is interesting to note you do not call for the elimination of sales tax which has the same inequity. You argued this could be accomplished by an increase in the income tax which could be simultaneously modified so low income people (less than $25,000) would pay no income tax.
I responded that the increases required to totally eliminate property taxes would have to be so massive, middle income people would be driven out of the State. To buttress my argument, projected Gross Income Tax receipts for FY06 have been projected to be $10.6 billion. The latest figures I have available indicate total property tax collections statewide in FY05 were in excess of $19 billion. Consequently, totally eliminating property taxes through increasing income taxes would require tripling all current income tax rates even without considering eliminating income tax for lower income individuals.
As for your assertion that Trenton would never increase income taxes annually even if it was the only way to meet the demands for local spending, I wouldn’t recommend you place any wagers on that (we disagreed on this point). For your position to be correct, local spending (schools and government) would have to never increase or some other tax would have to be raised. You should also note if local authorities do not have to impose or collect any taxes but instead merely decide how much they want to spend, there would be zero incentive for them to hold down their spending.
If after reading the foregoing, you should say, well maybe we shouldn’t fund totally eliminating property taxes just from income taxes but instead spread it over several revenue sources. Total projected State revenue from its’ three major sources – Income Taxes ($10.6b); Sales and Use ($6.7B) and Corporate ($2.8B), totals $20.1B. Thus, it would require doubling the rate for all three taxes to supplant the property tax totally.
You ask where is the justice when your neighbor pays the same property tax as you while making 4-5 times your income? I will not attempt to justify this situation but you also must recognize that while he is paying the same property tax as you, he is probably already paying more than 4-5 times as much income tax as you since he is in a higher income bracket. If he bought his identical house a year or two ago and you purchased yours 30 years ago, he might also argue that it is unfair you only paid $60,000 for your house and he had to pay $360,000. He might also argue it is consequently unfair that he now has these very large mortgage payments and you have little or none.
You described discussing the fact that eliminating the property taxes would mean raising taxes in other areas as raising a red herring. This discussion may be a red herring to you but I can assure you it is not a red herring to the populace as a whole. There will be winners and losers in any proposal put forward to either reduce or eliminate property taxes. Ultimately the plan will have to be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum. It will pass or fail depending on whether or not a majority of voters believe they will be better off if the proposal is adopted. This decision will be determined by their assessment of both how much they will save on property taxes and how much additional they will pay in new tax increases. The two figures are inseparable.
I will restate my agreement that property taxes are not equitable and fair. But this statement applies equally to sales tax and any other tax or fee that is not income based be it motor vehicle fees, gasoline tax, marriage license, court fees, etc., etc.
I agree we must take action to significantly diminish the impact of property taxes and for the past several years have voted numerous times for a measure to move forward on this issue only to have the Democrat Majority table the motion.
Finally, in the closing portion of your correspondence, you speak of the need to get rid of legislators who “begin with a defeatist attitude”.
John, if you feel I do not represent your interests, I have not problem if you choose to work for my defeat. However, if you are labeling me as having a “defeatist attitude” because I disagree with you on the approach to an issue and therefore will not work towards that end, then I resent that very much.
Sincerely,
Samuel D. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assemblyman
13th Legislative District
To: John Hendirckson
From: Assemblyman Samuel D. Thompson, Ph.D.
I have reviewed the e-mail you sent out regarding our conversation this morning. I find that you have distorted or misstated a number of my positions and presented a very one-sided presentation of the discussion.
If you have any sense of fairness, I would request that you forward my response that follows to the recipients of your missive.
You state you had two main points, both of which you indicate I disagreed with. Your first point was, “conflating state and local spending problems which have driven up property taxes with dealing with the fairness aspect of how education, municipalities and counties are funded is the wrong approach”….because “property taxes are inherently unfair because they do not take into account ones’ ability to pay.” You add I was not able to justify that they are a fair and just tax.
You should recall in my opening comment to you I stated in response to the message you had left with my staff that I do not consider the property tax to be an equitable and fair tax.
I began drafting my response as a point by point refutation of various comments and assertions contained in your e-mail but instead have decided to give my summary of our discussion and leave it to you and the readers to draw their own conclusions.
I began our conversation by responding to a question you had left with my staff. I do not consider the property tax to be equitable and fair. I did not state but would add; neither are the State Sales and Use Tax which is the States’ second largest generator of revenue projected at $6.7 billion in FY06. I did disagree you can not separate state and local spending concerns from the fairness aspect of how local entitles are funded. Spending determines how much revenue must be obtained which has a direct bearing on revenue source options.
It is your opinion reducing property taxes (which I support) to reduce the inequity is not satisfactory – they must be totally eliminated because of their unfairness. It is interesting to note you do not call for the elimination of sales tax which has the same inequity. You argued this could be accomplished by an increase in the income tax which could be simultaneously modified so low income people (less than $25,000) would pay no income tax.
I responded that the increases required to totally eliminate property taxes would have to be so massive, middle income people would be driven out of the State. To buttress my argument, projected Gross Income Tax receipts for FY06 have been projected to be $10.6 billion. The latest figures I have available indicate total property tax collections statewide in FY05 were in excess of $19 billion. Consequently, totally eliminating property taxes through increasing income taxes would require tripling all current income tax rates even without considering eliminating income tax for lower income individuals.
As for your assertion that Trenton would never increase income taxes annually even if it was the only way to meet the demands for local spending, I wouldn’t recommend you place any wagers on that (we disagreed on this point). For your position to be correct, local spending (schools and government) would have to never increase or some other tax would have to be raised. You should also note if local authorities do not have to impose or collect any taxes but instead merely decide how much they want to spend, there would be zero incentive for them to hold down their spending.
If after reading the foregoing, you should say, well maybe we shouldn’t fund totally eliminating property taxes just from income taxes but instead spread it over several revenue sources. Total projected State revenue from its’ three major sources – Income Taxes ($10.6b); Sales and Use ($6.7B) and Corporate ($2.8B), totals $20.1B. Thus, it would require doubling the rate for all three taxes to supplant the property tax totally.
You ask where is the justice when your neighbor pays the same property tax as you while making 4-5 times your income? I will not attempt to justify this situation but you also must recognize that while he is paying the same property tax as you, he is probably already paying more than 4-5 times as much income tax as you since he is in a higher income bracket. If he bought his identical house a year or two ago and you purchased yours 30 years ago, he might also argue that it is unfair you only paid $60,000 for your house and he had to pay $360,000. He might also argue it is consequently unfair that he now has these very large mortgage payments and you have little or none.
You described discussing the fact that eliminating the property taxes would mean raising taxes in other areas as raising a red herring. This discussion may be a red herring to you but I can assure you it is not a red herring to the populace as a whole. There will be winners and losers in any proposal put forward to either reduce or eliminate property taxes. Ultimately the plan will have to be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum. It will pass or fail depending on whether or not a majority of voters believe they will be better off if the proposal is adopted. This decision will be determined by their assessment of both how much they will save on property taxes and how much additional they will pay in new tax increases. The two figures are inseparable.
I will restate my agreement that property taxes are not equitable and fair. But this statement applies equally to sales tax and any other tax or fee that is not income based be it motor vehicle fees, gasoline tax, marriage license, court fees, etc., etc.
I agree we must take action to significantly diminish the impact of property taxes and for the past several years have voted numerous times for a measure to move forward on this issue only to have the Democrat Majority table the motion.
Finally, in the closing portion of your correspondence, you speak of the need to get rid of legislators who “begin with a defeatist attitude”.
John, if you feel I do not represent your interests, I have not problem if you choose to work for my defeat. However, if you are labeling me as having a “defeatist attitude” because I disagree with you on the approach to an issue and therefore will not work towards that end, then I resent that very much.
Sincerely,
Samuel D. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assemblyman
13th Legislative District
Comments on a conversation with a state legislator
Save Our Homes and Our Future
I just got off the phone with a long time state assemblyman. He is a nice man. He appears to put a lot of time into working for his constituents. He is a generous man, supplementing the meager paycheck our legislators receive with his own money so he can work full time on state legislative matters. This also means he has given up much personal time as a sacrifice to serve this state. In fact, he is just about to leave on a trip to China to see what kind of trade connections he can help find for New Jersey which will benefit our state’s economy. I have voted for him every election his has run.
Even with all these good points about the man, I hung up the phone with great disappointment. That is because of all the legislators in Trenton he is one I thought would give a sympathetic ear to my points about how to address the property tax problem in N.J. Instead, my ideas were dismissed out of hand. I did not even a “you’ve got a point there” let alone a "I'll think about it."
I made two main points, both of which he disagreed with. The first was that conflating state and local spending problems which have driven up property taxes with dealing with the fairness aspect of how education, municipalities and counties are funded is the wrong approach. These are two different things. Property taxes are not unfair because they are too high. They are inherently unfair because they do not take into account one’s ability to pay. As with every other I have challenged, the assemblyman was not able to justify that they are a fair and just tax.
The second point I made was that the property tax needs to be eliminated. There are two reasons. First being it is fundamentally inequitable. I pointed out how no matter how low this pernicious tax might become, since it has nothing to do with one’s ability to pay, it can never be made fair and just as a tax.
Second, its elimination will force Trenton legislators and the governor to come to grips with runaway spending. That is because they will no longer be able to rely upon annual increases in the property tax to absorb spending increases in non-education areas. Trenton “increases” revenue for those other areas through flat funding of education, diversion of nearly 50% of education funds to Abbott districts, unfunded mandates, etc. This assemblyman disagreed that would be the case. He thinks he and his colleagues will continue to find ways to increase taxes. But if the property tax is replaced with a dedicated income tax, that could never happen. They would never be able to increase an income tax on an annual basis.
I asked where is the tax justice when my neighbor who pays about the same property tax as I while making four to five times my income. He could not answer. Talk about tax breaks for the well off.
Pointing out how a my projected Social Security and retirement income will be more than 50% consumed by property taxes evoked pity but not a change of his mind or even the promise to reconsider. You can see why I was depressed by our conversation.
When the assemblyman started to raise the red herring that eliminating the property tax would mean raising taxes in other areas, I agreed. But I also pointed out that the idea is to bring fairness and equity to how we tax our citizens. If we fund government services fairly, based upon ability to pay, of course some people’s taxes will be going up. But those who need it most will also see theirs go down if not even eliminated (even the state income tax does not begin until above $25,000 for a joint filing).
New Jersey needs new blood at all levels of government. We need men and women who are not afraid to challenge the status quo. We need people of courage and conviction, not men and women who begin with a defeatist attitude. We need those who will not reject the suggestion of eliminating the property tax just because “it cannot be done.” Why not? It is only the idea that it cannot be done that prevents it from being done. Change your mind and it will be done. Where is the compassion and justice this nation was founded upon? Commitment to principles and ideals fortified the founding fathers of this nation. Today’s politicians have eviscerated those foundations; their commitment is to pragmatism and self-preservation.
If taxpayers, groups crying out for property tax reform, and syndicated columnists continue to think like the politicians, presupposing impossiblity by stopping short of demanding an end to the property tax, we will never see an end to the tragedy of people being driven out of their homes of a lifetime, leaving friends, children and grandchildren behind as they are forced to leave this state.
How very depressing.
I just got off the phone with a long time state assemblyman. He is a nice man. He appears to put a lot of time into working for his constituents. He is a generous man, supplementing the meager paycheck our legislators receive with his own money so he can work full time on state legislative matters. This also means he has given up much personal time as a sacrifice to serve this state. In fact, he is just about to leave on a trip to China to see what kind of trade connections he can help find for New Jersey which will benefit our state’s economy. I have voted for him every election his has run.
Even with all these good points about the man, I hung up the phone with great disappointment. That is because of all the legislators in Trenton he is one I thought would give a sympathetic ear to my points about how to address the property tax problem in N.J. Instead, my ideas were dismissed out of hand. I did not even a “you’ve got a point there” let alone a "I'll think about it."
I made two main points, both of which he disagreed with. The first was that conflating state and local spending problems which have driven up property taxes with dealing with the fairness aspect of how education, municipalities and counties are funded is the wrong approach. These are two different things. Property taxes are not unfair because they are too high. They are inherently unfair because they do not take into account one’s ability to pay. As with every other I have challenged, the assemblyman was not able to justify that they are a fair and just tax.
The second point I made was that the property tax needs to be eliminated. There are two reasons. First being it is fundamentally inequitable. I pointed out how no matter how low this pernicious tax might become, since it has nothing to do with one’s ability to pay, it can never be made fair and just as a tax.
Second, its elimination will force Trenton legislators and the governor to come to grips with runaway spending. That is because they will no longer be able to rely upon annual increases in the property tax to absorb spending increases in non-education areas. Trenton “increases” revenue for those other areas through flat funding of education, diversion of nearly 50% of education funds to Abbott districts, unfunded mandates, etc. This assemblyman disagreed that would be the case. He thinks he and his colleagues will continue to find ways to increase taxes. But if the property tax is replaced with a dedicated income tax, that could never happen. They would never be able to increase an income tax on an annual basis.
I asked where is the tax justice when my neighbor who pays about the same property tax as I while making four to five times my income. He could not answer. Talk about tax breaks for the well off.
Pointing out how a my projected Social Security and retirement income will be more than 50% consumed by property taxes evoked pity but not a change of his mind or even the promise to reconsider. You can see why I was depressed by our conversation.
When the assemblyman started to raise the red herring that eliminating the property tax would mean raising taxes in other areas, I agreed. But I also pointed out that the idea is to bring fairness and equity to how we tax our citizens. If we fund government services fairly, based upon ability to pay, of course some people’s taxes will be going up. But those who need it most will also see theirs go down if not even eliminated (even the state income tax does not begin until above $25,000 for a joint filing).
New Jersey needs new blood at all levels of government. We need men and women who are not afraid to challenge the status quo. We need people of courage and conviction, not men and women who begin with a defeatist attitude. We need those who will not reject the suggestion of eliminating the property tax just because “it cannot be done.” Why not? It is only the idea that it cannot be done that prevents it from being done. Change your mind and it will be done. Where is the compassion and justice this nation was founded upon? Commitment to principles and ideals fortified the founding fathers of this nation. Today’s politicians have eviscerated those foundations; their commitment is to pragmatism and self-preservation.
If taxpayers, groups crying out for property tax reform, and syndicated columnists continue to think like the politicians, presupposing impossiblity by stopping short of demanding an end to the property tax, we will never see an end to the tragedy of people being driven out of their homes of a lifetime, leaving friends, children and grandchildren behind as they are forced to leave this state.
How very depressing.
Monday, May 08, 2006
2-tiered solution brings tears to our eyes.
Save Our Homes and Our Future
A recent report by the Newark Star Ledger once again reveals the inability of those proposing solutions to the property tax problem to think outside the box. See: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1146721898263090.xml&coll=1 The box they are in is the Property Tax. As far as they are concerned this box is the entire universe of tax possibilities, outside of which there is nothing. Put another way, the property tax is set in stone.
What is most discouraging is that the proposed solution to this anachronism of a tax was originally proposed in 1879. Yes, that is EIGHTTEEN seventy-nine, not 1979. So these people not only cannot think outside the box but they can only think in the past. What was is and will always be.
One of the reasons the property tax is so oppressive is that it has no relevance in this day and age. It is from a time when there was a direct correlation between how much property one owned and their ability to earn income. We were 90% agrarian at that time. If I owned 1,000 acres and you owned 10,000, you were taxed more because of your ability to earn more. More importantly, what you owned was directly tied to earning an income and your ability to pay taxes.
Today, the home we own has nothing to do with our ability to pay taxes. You can live in an area or on a street with homes of similar value. Yet the people living in them might have incomes (retirement, unemployment, disability, nothing at all, or only savings) ranging from $10,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet they are taxed at virtually the same amount. Their ability to pay is not remotely related to the value of the home they own.
What is ever more astounding is that even though NJ recognizes that a couple ought not to be taxed on the first $25,000 of income these people think the property tax ought to be assessed and collected from the same people. Think about it. That same couple who are rightly not charged a single penny of tax on their $25,000 of income could be saddled with paying $3,000 (12%), $4,000 (16%) $6,000 (24%) or even more of that $25,000 in property taxes because no account is taken of their ability to pay.
I think the problem with these people who, tragically, are in positions of power and influence when it comes to solving this problem are out of touch. That is, they make plenty of money and so do not have to worry about losing their homes to a tax auction or having to leave family and friends of a lifetime because they cannot afford to live or retire in New Jersey. They just do not relate to the average person.
I am trying to be charitable in making the above charge. The only other reason is disparaging in its implications. It would be that they know they are getting a tax break at the expense of the little guy and they do not care. In fact, they know that they will have to pay their fair share if the property tax is eliminated. Since they have the power, they will not allow that to happen.
This 2-tiered solution proposed by the Regional Plan Association and supported by many state lawmakers is a cynical attempt to further entrench the property. It is a non-solution which if implemented will only continue the oppression of the little guys, driving they out of their homes and N.J. It must not be allowed on the table.
Is anybody listening?
A recent report by the Newark Star Ledger once again reveals the inability of those proposing solutions to the property tax problem to think outside the box. See: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1146721898263090.xml&coll=1 The box they are in is the Property Tax. As far as they are concerned this box is the entire universe of tax possibilities, outside of which there is nothing. Put another way, the property tax is set in stone.
What is most discouraging is that the proposed solution to this anachronism of a tax was originally proposed in 1879. Yes, that is EIGHTTEEN seventy-nine, not 1979. So these people not only cannot think outside the box but they can only think in the past. What was is and will always be.
One of the reasons the property tax is so oppressive is that it has no relevance in this day and age. It is from a time when there was a direct correlation between how much property one owned and their ability to earn income. We were 90% agrarian at that time. If I owned 1,000 acres and you owned 10,000, you were taxed more because of your ability to earn more. More importantly, what you owned was directly tied to earning an income and your ability to pay taxes.
Today, the home we own has nothing to do with our ability to pay taxes. You can live in an area or on a street with homes of similar value. Yet the people living in them might have incomes (retirement, unemployment, disability, nothing at all, or only savings) ranging from $10,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet they are taxed at virtually the same amount. Their ability to pay is not remotely related to the value of the home they own.
What is ever more astounding is that even though NJ recognizes that a couple ought not to be taxed on the first $25,000 of income these people think the property tax ought to be assessed and collected from the same people. Think about it. That same couple who are rightly not charged a single penny of tax on their $25,000 of income could be saddled with paying $3,000 (12%), $4,000 (16%) $6,000 (24%) or even more of that $25,000 in property taxes because no account is taken of their ability to pay.
I think the problem with these people who, tragically, are in positions of power and influence when it comes to solving this problem are out of touch. That is, they make plenty of money and so do not have to worry about losing their homes to a tax auction or having to leave family and friends of a lifetime because they cannot afford to live or retire in New Jersey. They just do not relate to the average person.
I am trying to be charitable in making the above charge. The only other reason is disparaging in its implications. It would be that they know they are getting a tax break at the expense of the little guy and they do not care. In fact, they know that they will have to pay their fair share if the property tax is eliminated. Since they have the power, they will not allow that to happen.
This 2-tiered solution proposed by the Regional Plan Association and supported by many state lawmakers is a cynical attempt to further entrench the property. It is a non-solution which if implemented will only continue the oppression of the little guys, driving they out of their homes and N.J. It must not be allowed on the table.
Is anybody listening?
Monday, May 01, 2006
Pollsters construct poll with wrong assumptions
Save Our Homes and Our Future
The latest Monmouth University/Gannett NJ poll help perpetuate the myth about the property tax. The myth is that it is assumed to permanent. Why?
Should the question not have been asked whether anyone wants to retain it at all?
Instead, the questions assume this egregious and unjust tax is here to stay. So it is no wonder when I speak to people who agree it is an oppressive and inequitable tax, they think the only hope is to reduce its level of taxation. It never occurs to them that it must or even can be eliminated.
When asked if it should be, they mostly agree. When asked if it can be eliminated, they assume it cannot be.
Why not? It is only not possible when people determine ahead of time that it cannot be done. They have this idea in their head and act accordingly. Is it rationally based? Of course not. The property tax is not an unchangeable law of the Universe, forever fixed in time and space. But people are making decisions as if it were.
So, it is merely an idea that prevents getting rid of the property tax. And when large, influential organizations fail to even float the idea, it never gets traction. This is a shame. Get the idea in your head that the property tax can be eliminated and it can happen. As simply as changing your mind.
The latest Monmouth University/Gannett NJ poll help perpetuate the myth about the property tax. The myth is that it is assumed to permanent. Why?
Should the question not have been asked whether anyone wants to retain it at all?
Instead, the questions assume this egregious and unjust tax is here to stay. So it is no wonder when I speak to people who agree it is an oppressive and inequitable tax, they think the only hope is to reduce its level of taxation. It never occurs to them that it must or even can be eliminated.
When asked if it should be, they mostly agree. When asked if it can be eliminated, they assume it cannot be.
Why not? It is only not possible when people determine ahead of time that it cannot be done. They have this idea in their head and act accordingly. Is it rationally based? Of course not. The property tax is not an unchangeable law of the Universe, forever fixed in time and space. But people are making decisions as if it were.
So, it is merely an idea that prevents getting rid of the property tax. And when large, influential organizations fail to even float the idea, it never gets traction. This is a shame. Get the idea in your head that the property tax can be eliminated and it can happen. As simply as changing your mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)