Over 65? How to Freeze Your Property Taxes!

As a new homeowner, I don't get the whole property tax increase thang. We, in Essex County, already pay a boatload of taxes. No wonder people are moving away in droves! Is this really what the state and county want? For everyone to move to North Carolina, Florida, Vermont, or wherever taxes are lower? And yet, the people of Essex County continue to elect Democrats to office. Talk about the definition of insanity.

{{{{shakes head}}}}}

I for one, LOVE my high taxes.

Nothing shows folks how cool I am when I tell them, "I pay over 14 grand a year for the privilege of living in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey...."

I laugh at them with their little 3,4,and 5 grand tax bills.

(And don't get me started on the "fees"...)

But according to Obama we're all rich here....... So we can pay....

Prof, wait til you someday sell your little Tax Burden - the new(ish) Realty Transfer Fee rates are absolutely outrageous! A few years back, they snuck that change in along with other increases to things like recording fees, as well as requiring you to register your new car for something like 4 years up front ... net increases to cost of living, all around, but largely hidden from the general populace. Sort of like when Maxwell House shrinks the size of the coffee can but charges the same amount (what used to be a 1-lb. can is now I think around 11oz.) -- sneaky charges that they hope no one will notice.

I wrote a nice diatribe about it for the Watercooler but of course it got pitched, since it was "not Montclair-based". I thought it was, since increased taxes and fees affect everyone, but what do I know.

Ugh, don't get me started with the fools from the watercooler.

Not Montclair enough?

Please.

But those aren't taxes, they're fees...

I would hate to add this all up... The true number of what it costs to live 'round here is better left alone...

Love your post profwilliams. It gave me a good laugh! Because our youngest son will be graduating from MHS in a year, I figured it was time to to think about moving (taxes etc).
We've been looking (for over a year) in Ft. Greene, Brooklyn (we love it there). It seems insane, but Montclair is a bargain (even with the taxes) compared to the places we've been seeing! So, we're now fixing up the house (new roof etc.) and plan on staying longer. We also have two big dogs and a small one, and a very large fenced in yard so that's hard to beat too! The taxes are awful but I've rationalized them (foolish, I know) because because both of our boys went through the Montclair School system and have had good experiences. The oldest one is at a very fine med. school (3rd year) in NYC, and our almost senior has also had a good education at the high school.

DeborahPub,

I hear ya, with the rationalizing-- a lot of it going on here. Mrs. prof teaches in town, so we act like our taxes come back to us in her salary.

Likewise, as the little prof begins his school career, I won't feel bad if he also ends up in at a fine med. school (please!!!!), or really, whatever it is he's interested in....

And looking at the colleges our MHS attend, I feel like my taxes help support the greater good.

Kinda like a donation to a non-profit...

MM, you're living in the dark ages.

It's been a heck of a long time since the Repubs in this country were anything resembling fiscally responsible.

I know that it sounds like I'm doing PR for Montclair schools, and my "real job" is
in PR for my own publicity firm (mostly for book and mag. publishers, two PBS cookings shows, but also a well known -- CT -- nursery/ gardening center, and a big sports agent. I am a huge Yanks fan. We have weekend season tickets. What a joy to be at the Stadium last night!) but the fact is that the Montclair school system has THE best teachers. Even if your kid isn't a "star" (one was, one is a B student -- quite good for sure. He's a great kid and an athlete too) they go out of their way to help (and work with the parents). They are worth every cent -- and more -- of their salary.

MsM,

Remember, it was Whitman who skipped funding the state pension one year to "cut" taxes.

On the national level, Republicans are the ones who have added trillions to the national debt.

MMM,

The national debt has certainly gone up. But with 2 wars, the Medicare entitlement, Homeland Security Dept.... you get the point.

As is always the case, what Bush ran on changed by circumstance (some of his doing, some not).

For me the point is which party believes in smaller gov? The answer for me is the Repubs., however, I certainly understand that at any given moment, things change.

(However, Mr. Obama is quite clear in how much he's gonna spend--- LOTS!!!)

Likewise, leaders change. Clinton was my man. But he benefitted from great economic times and the Peace Dividend.....

With control of the White House and Congress over the last few years the GOP had the opportunity to truly claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. What did they do? They spent lots and lots of money we didn't have, and not just on the war. The only GOP claim that is more of a joke is that they are the party of morals and values. Our economy will recover in time, but the damage done to our country's reputation as a moral leader will take decades to repair.

With few notable exceptions, Democrats and Republicans in state government are equally culpable when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility. The Republicans were just as profligate in their spending when in power; it was under their watch that state employees were unilaterally granted a 9% pension benefit increase by the legislature. As one poster noted above, it was Whitman who started the ball rolling with the "pension holidays" that have left us with such a huge unfunded pension liability now. And when it came to borrowing, Whitman did so with abandon, and the Repubican-controlled legislature submissivly acquiesed.

There have been shamefuly few advocates of fiscal sanity in our legislature over the years, with state Sen. Leonard Lance being one of the few notable exceptions. The governer proposes the budget, but the legislature approves it. As you rail against our facial-folliclally endowed governor you should aim an equal measure of your scorn towards your legislators, because they have brought our state the brink of ruin in their quest to pander to their constituencies (i.e., you).

To his credit, Governor Corzine has succeeded in achieving one thing that his predecessors never even attempted: the millions of dollars of legislators' "Christmas Tree" earmarks of years past are conspicuously absent from this year's budget.

"Democrats and Republicans in state government are equally culpable when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility."

Pork, I think you can take the word "state" out of your sentence and it would be just as accurate.

Prof,

While the Republicans say that they are for small government and they believe in fiscal responsibility, can you show me where they have acted that way?

It has been the Republicans - Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 - who have added trillions to the national debt.

In 1980 the national debt stood at 26% of GDP. It's now about 45% of GDP.

As a happy Independent, I love how both sides use whatever info they need to make their point.

Always (and conveniently) leaving out any and all circumstances of why things happened.

While not a Bush supporter (I chose to vote for 2 losing Dems instead...), I certainly can take a fair assessment of the circumstances he found himself in after 9/11-- not whether or not he made the right decision-- but how the circumstances veered him off course.

Much like Clinton's last (embarrassing) years-- talk about a Moral Leader!!!-- I just hope the next Pres. doesn't allow events (and bad decisions....) to veer them off course-- But they always do.

(Although, with some of Obama's ideas, I don't think I'd mind a veer.... But since he has NO experience doing anything, who knows...)

But as I've stated, I support my President and believe that they want the best for the Country. So even if Obama wins, I'll wish him well and give him the benefit of the doubt.

The president has nothing to do with property taxes. The real problem is the state system here, the number of counties and redundencies and the fact that public schools are funded with local taxes. It won't matter who is elected unless it's someone like Bullworth who actually comes out and speaks the truth at his or her own political risk. At least Corzine has acknowledged the problem lies in the way our counties and municipalities are structured.

(MMM, and all that Reagan debt scared off the Soviets... I think it was worth it. You?)

Likewise, I guess you'd rather go back to the Carter (Obama) years, huh?

With what? 79% taxes?

And jerseygurl, "acknowledging" the problem has not been an issue- the Bearded Wonder is not the first Gov. to know what the problem is....

It's DOING something about it. And his sorry toll plan- remember that one- was NOT it. (And I love how that plan died and he's got nothing else. Loser!)

(I hope the door doesn't hit him too hard in the ass on his way out... But then again, he probably owns the door.)

Prof - I meant the fact that he thought it might be a good start to limit state funding to municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents in order to force them to find ways to share expenses with other communities. So far no one has had any good ideas so I'd vote for anyone - regardless of political affiliation - who would come out in favor of cutting the state payrolls by half.

I have just about given up on my repeated cries of "Stop Spending My Money" since not one person in any governmental office of any type will listen to me.

Dems are Tax 'n Spend;
Repubs are Borrow 'n Spend!

Most are doing a very sorry job, no matter who their mascot is. I am embarrassed by the whole thing these days.

This year I just might vote for "None of the Above".

Prof,

The enduring legacy of the Reagan administration is that we can have without having to give up. If it had been a good idea to spend hundreds of billions more on the military, then it would have been good idea to raise taxes to pay for it. Conversely, if it had been a good idea to cut taxes, then it would have been a good idea to cut spending (if not on the military, than somewhere).

Jerseygurl - you write:
I meant the fact that he thought it might be a good start to limit state funding to municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents in order to force them to find ways to share expenses with other communities.

Why is that a good idea?

Some small towns already do a lot of sharing, some do very little. Why penalize all of them? And why for only the towns with less than 10,000?

Before you repeat the Governor's line that they are "less efficient", look at the numbers, and you'll see that's just not true. All of the data is available on line at

www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers

I have also put the 22 municipalities in Essex County on a chart to illustrate my point:

Essex Graph

and here's the source data:

www.recallcorzinenow.com/EssexComp2.xls

This is all a red-herring to fool people into thinking:

"At least Corzine has acknowledged the problem"

and

"it might be a good start".

Small towns are not the cause of the problem, so attacking them solves nothing. The Governor's entire proposal to cut all of the aid to towns with less than 5000 people (about 200 towns), and half the aid to those with less than 10,000 (an additional 100 or so) would have saved about $23 million, which is too small to have any impact at all on a state budget of $34 billion (By way of local comparison, the Town of Bloomfield received $23.7 million in municipal aid). This is because the small towns already get very little aid - if you look at the data for Essex County above, you'll see that the 16 towns with more than 10,000 people get about 5 times the per capita municipal aid.

So why did Jon Corzine attack the small towns? The answer is simple enough - politics - it's hard for the small towns to fight back (why do you think the get so little aid in the first place). And besides, as I said the other day - virtually all of the worst-run, graft-ridden cities in the state are run by his cronies, so he can't cut there.

Carl -

Comparing a town like Glen Ridge to a town like Newark is a bit specious. Most NJ towns are not populated by rich white folk. Your position re: Corzine is more than clear, I do however believe that the only way NJ will ever get it's property taxes under control is to cut back on redundancies in the areas of municipal, county and state government.

The true problem is the pension and benefits received by state workers and how they are determined.

You can't provide a lunch lady with a better retirement than your average private sector white collar worker because she transfers into a better paying position within the last three years of her service.

The system has become so corrupt that it would take more than reform to fix it. You would pretty much have to tear it down and start over.

I mean, the governor was literally sleeping with the head of a major government workers union.

The people of NJ clearly voted to not fund the staffing of in-state stem cell research facilities through a new bond, yet Corzine goes ahead and builds the facilities anyway.

The new bonding for the school construction is ludicrous.

And of course, all we do is say, "It's the Dems fault, or it's the Republican's fault!" Then we say Obama lacks experience, when the way our grossly inefficient government works, a lack of experience should be viewed as a positive. McCain, on the other hand, has finished in the bottom of the class in just about every category. He has tons of experience too. Check out how many bills that he wrote passed. Check out how he got into the naval academy, or how many times he crashed a plane in Vietnam.

Experience...feh!

(Love you Carl!!!!)

MMM, And the Peace Dividend realized during the Clinton years?

Moreover, you do understand how that military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union, right?

So was it worth it-- yes. Because within 5 years of Reagan leaving office, our financial house was in order (or are all those Clinton folks lying about the great economic times of the 90's?)

Prof, put down the Kool-aid. It took 18 years to dig out of the Reaganomics - or voodoo economics - or the trickle down theory of economics. Getting people to spend more than they earn and by giving them a tax break on the interest they pay for borrowing is just a sure fire way to create a mess. Everyone thinks annual double digit increases in real estate is great until the party ends. And we just did it all over again. Idiots.

JG,
You said:

I meant the fact that he thought it might be a good start to limit state funding to municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents in order to force them to find ways to share expenses with other communities.

I asked you why that's a good idea. The Governor says it's a good idea because small towns are "less efficient" - my point was that that's a lie.

The cause of our skyrocketing tax problem is not redundacy, it's patronage and graft, and generally speaking, in New Jersey, the bigger the town or county, the bigger the problem.

jersey,

18 years?

Let's see, Reagan left in 1988. 18 years later was 2006?

Are you sure about this number?

(Or were those great Clinton economic years not so?)

Remember, by 1991 (the end of Bush I's term) we were headed for one of the greatest economic expansions in history.

So if Reagonomics brought the Cold War to an end and set the stage for the Peace Dividend that lead to the great economics of the 1990's-- long live Reagonomics!!!

Prof, Reagan's term started in 1981. Yes, we started to see a budget surplus, job growth and an economic expansion in the mid-late 90'sbut not because of the economic policies of Reagan. Remember the campaign line "it's the economy, stupid"? Here we are again. Let's let the guys on top take it all, convince the guys on the bottom to spend beyond their means and then blame someone else when it comes crashing down.

Carl - I would agree patronage and graft are a huge problem. So is the number of municipalities, school districts, counties etc. There are probably a number of ways to start addressing redundencies but they do need to start being addressed - part of the problem with patronage and graft is the hodgpodge system of state aid etc.

JG,

I know it seems counter-intuitive that small towns are more efficient than big towns or big counties, but in NJ, for the most part, they are.

It isn't as crazy as it sounds if you are familiar with how munis work in NJ. For example, one thing that many folks don't realize is that small towns enjoy most of the same economies of scale that the big towns do, because of State Contracts and group buying agreements, and small towns are more likely to actually take advantage of the savings involved, so the reality is that small towns often wind up paying less for things than the big towns do.

Also, if you are smaller, you can do things big towns can't. For example, GR can contract for fire services because they are small enough that another town can cover them at little extra expense. A big town can't do that, and even if they could, it's not politically viable.

That said, I don't advocate arbitrarily favoring the small towns, any more than I favor arbitrarily favoring the big towns. Make it a level playing field, and that will force towns - big and small - to be efficient, or their local taxpayers will pay more. It will also allow local voters to decide if a particular level of municipal service suits them and is worth the cost, because they will have to pay for it.

A big part of the problem now is that because of the unfair municipal and school funding system we have, people in some towns can spend all kinds of money and ignore all kinds of graft so long as it benefits them in some way, however inefficiently, because other people are getting stuck with the bill. That is a system that almost never works.

One more thing about redundancy. There's no reason why you should know this, but I have been, for many years, a vocal advocate for the elimination or drastic reduction of County Government (keep the parks - ditch the rest). In New Jersey, they serve no useful purpose, and exist only as patronage mills for the political parties. That is a redundancy that you could save big bucks by eliminating, and services would probably improve to boot.

Prof,

The heart of Reaganomics is that tax cuts will drive the economy that will grow a rate faster than the national debt. In 1980 the national debt was 26% of GDP; it?s now over 45%. We have not been this in debt since the years following World War II. Deficit spending (Reaganomics) is not a sustainable straggly for we can only borrow so much.

The Bush Administration will close out its tenure having added three trillions dollars to the national debt for a total of nearly ten trillion.

Ronald Reagan was not a fiscal conservative; Reaganomics is not fiscal discipline.