Corzine - Insincere or Insensitive and Oblivious

It should be obvious by now to anyone who heard Governor Corzine’s outline of his plan to fix the Property Tax crisis in New Jersey that there is no real hope for those most oppressed by this vicious tax. His speech was long on rhetoric and short on substantive reform.

His lack of sincerity—or political will—is confirmed by how he has no objection to the stacked committees with a four to two Democrat advantage, promising an outcome as productive as were the 2006 budget negotiations. Worse is key committee members who have a stake in the status quo. Does anyone really believe taxpayer interests will be served rather than vested interests?

The governor’s statement that most betrays his ostensible sincerity is that he’d like to limit future growth of the Property Tax to 4%. First off, that would be an increase over the current limit placed on the lion’s share of the property tax bill, education spending. Worse is the fact that it is a tacit admission that there will be no permanent reductions in the Property Tax, just a slower rate of growth. Thanks, Governor.

Nevertheless, regardless of whether the governor and the special committees are serious, they along with all politicians fail to demonstrate they understand the true nature of the problem with the Property Tax. It is simple. It is inherently unfair. It is skewed towards forcing those at the bottom to carry an unequal—higher—share of the total tax burden. Basic math confirms that built-in result will continue even if the tax is lowered. Are we interested in a just system of taxation or not?

We may need to find interim ways of giving relief to those presently being driven out of home and state due to the Property Tax. But the only real and lasting solution is to eliminate it completely. Anything short of that will only be a bandaid.

To answer those critics who point out we cannot—read as, lack the will to—reallocate a tax burden as large as that, there are two replies. First, it could be phased out over a five or ten year period, mitigating the impact of a single, massive shift of the tax burden.

Second, to say we cannot do it is to actually say we will not do it. And to say that is to imply that we do not care about those most adversely affected by the Property Tax. That means we are not interested in a fair system of taxation, and that we have little or no concern for those at the bottom when it requires boldness and sacrifice by those at the top. A sad commentary on the principles our state lives by: Love thy neighbor as long as long as I am not put out.

Until politicians, public interest groups and the taxpayer are willing to acknowledge the Property Tax is a tax which must be eliminated, low, no, and middle income taxpayers are doomed to more of what they suffer under today. It is that simple.