I can't believe my property taxes
conandrob240 said:
weirdbeard said:The difference in state income tax is pretty small- 1%? Not a solid explanation, why doesn’t nJ use a different school funding formula? More importantly, why do people defind it like it’s ok?
conandrob240 said:Among other reasons, a higher state income tax and completely different school funding formula in NY.
so explain why property taxes are nowhere near as high on Long Island in excellent towns (good services, schools) an hour or so from NYC?
My NY income tax is nearly double my NJ one (I work in NY so I pay NY state income tax, then calculate the NJ equivalent for the true-up), but maybe I'm the exception. I have not heard anyone defending the NJ funding formula. It's well-known to be broken. In fact the NJ Supreme Court ordered the state to revise it a few years ago, and the state is still out of compliance.
weirdbeard said:
conandrob240 said:My NY income tax is nearly double my NJ one (I work in NY so I pay NY state income tax, then calculate the NJ equivalent for the true-up), but maybe I'm the exception. I have not heard anyone defending the NJ funding formula. It's well-known to be broken. In fact the NJ Supreme Court ordered the state to revise it a few years ago, and the state is still out of compliance.
weirdbeard said:The difference in state income tax is pretty small- 1%? Not a solid explanation, why doesn’t nJ use a different school funding formula? More importantly, why do people defind it like it’s ok?
conandrob240 said:Among other reasons, a higher state income tax and completely different school funding formula in NY.
so explain why property taxes are nowhere near as high on Long Island in excellent towns (good services, schools) an hour or so from NYC?
Here's a good article that touches on the ways that NYS's income tax extracts a far larger amount of money out of middle-income people that NJ's does.
The effect is to pull a lot of money out of non-NY commuters.
weirdbeard said:
Amstel said:It's all about the ratables. Without Short Hills Mall and the more extensive commercial districts that Millburn has, it would be in the same boat as Maplewood. Are you suggesting that Maplewood should have fewer municiple services? What would you cut exactly? (BTW, the fire department is merging with South Orange's, so we are already addressing that point....)
That is correct, Sprout. I like to say I live “down the hill Millburn”. The point about better aligning services and ratables is still valid, however. Perhaps the issue is more related to State-level subsidies? If NJ insists on having all these separate municipalities, the “leveling” mechanism coming in topside is broken (If there is one). While clearly to my advantage, it makes no sense that my Maplewood neighbors (2 blocks away) who live in comparable homes on comparable streets have less municipal services and pay a significantly higher tax.
Yes, I’m suggesting Maplewood have fewer municipal services or operate them more efficiently. Cutting costs is the best alternative to lowering the tax rate, unless another municipal revenue source magically appears (doubtful without it being another tax of some sort or an increase in State aid). This is akin to balancing a proforma budget based on a lower tax revenue base (ie. If property tax rev declined by 10%, what can be done to reduce costs by the same amount?). Without seeing the details on expenditures it is difficult to say, but if municipalities were run more like corporations I guarantee you there is an abundance of waste that can be cut. I was unaware of the fire dept merger in the works - thanks - but have they committed to any long term cost savings resulting from this action? Being the skeptic of municipal government management that I clearly am, I doubt it. My contrast to corporate governance raises this exact point - zero commitment to details and zero accountability at the municipal level.
Amstel said:
Yes, I’m suggesting Maplewood have fewer municipal services or operate them more efficiently. Cutting costs is the best alternative to lowering the tax rate, unless another municipal revenue source magically appears (doubtful without it being another tax of some sort or an increase in State aid). This is akin to balancing a proforma budget based on a lower tax revenue base (ie. If property tax rev declined by 10%, what can be done to reduce costs by the same amount?). Without seeing the details on expenditures it is difficult to say, but if municipalities were run more like corporations I guarantee you there is an abundance of waste that can be cut. I was unaware of the fire dept merger in the works - thanks - but have they committed to any long term cost savings resulting from this action? Being the skeptic of municipal government management that I clearly am, I doubt it. My contrast to corporate governance raises this exact point - zero commitment to details and zero accountability at the municipal level.
Here you are, go for it. What would you cut? Where is the "waste"?
https://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/finance-department/pages/annual-budgets
The single largest portion of our local property tax bill is the school system. Cutting DPW won't give you much relief.
Cutting the school budget is not the answer, but changing how we collect for the schools should be looked into. As someone pointed out above, having an off year or two can be devastating since property taxes don't adjust like income taxes do. Income based taxes are fairer, if you can afford more, you pay more, if your income takes a hit you pay less. You don't end up paying into eternity based on how much house you could afford at one single point in your life. I don't know about you, but my circumstances have most certainly changed in the 15 years since I purchased my home. Income based taxes are also fair because if your income gets raised significantly, you'll end up paying more than your next door neighbor who is dealing with a layoff, not the same as under the current system.
wedjet said:
Amstel said:Here you are, go for it. What would you cut? Where is the "waste"?
Yes, I’m suggesting Maplewood have fewer municipal services or operate them more efficiently. Cutting costs is the best alternative to lowering the tax rate, unless another municipal revenue source magically appears (doubtful without it being another tax of some sort or an increase in State aid). This is akin to balancing a proforma budget based on a lower tax revenue base (ie. If property tax rev declined by 10%, what can be done to reduce costs by the same amount?). Without seeing the details on expenditures it is difficult to say, but if municipalities were run more like corporations I guarantee you there is an abundance of waste that can be cut. I was unaware of the fire dept merger in the works - thanks - but have they committed to any long term cost savings resulting from this action? Being the skeptic of municipal government management that I clearly am, I doubt it. My contrast to corporate governance raises this exact point - zero commitment to details and zero accountability at the municipal level.
https://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/finance-department/pages/annual-budgets
Citing facts will get you a lot more support than posting uninformed speculations. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, take the time to look at this year's budget - income and expenditures - and then tell us what you would do differently that would result in a significant cost savings.
joan_crystal said:
Citing facts will get you a lot more support than posting uninformed speculations. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, take the time to look at this year's budget - income and expenditures - and then tell us what you would do differently that would result in a significant cost savings.
In fairness to Amstel, when one has no real idea where the “fat” lies in a budget, it is difficult to look at it in isolation and figure out how efficient it is. I think it is much more useful to look at comparisons- benchmarks.
Every time I’ve seen benchmarked stats I’ve found that our school and municipal budgets are very efficient.
The issue isn’t spending, it’s the funding mechanism.
Joan - simply looking at line items in a budget and tossing out recommendations would not do it justice. What I’m referring to above is the necessity for a deep-dive analysis on each expenditure. This involves speaking with department heads, obtaining more detailed information on their key expense drivers and performing a productivity study (since most costs are for human capital). Are the wages attributed to Engineering reasonable? What’s the headcount for those wages? How does it compare on a per capita basis to other towns in Essex County? All questions that would need an answer to even begin to make any reasonable recommendations. (Although I’d like to know why that cost is increasing 20% year on year).
All that being said and at quick blush, if I’m reading this correctly a 10% decrease in property tax equates to about 2.8mn. The annual cost of the fire department (Sorry to keep picking on them) is about 5mn (which is 10% of the total annual budget!!!). Going to a volunteer department would definitely fund that cut. How does a 10% cut in your property tax sound?
The Maplewood Citizens Budget Advisory Committee on which I have served does exactly what you suggest, sit down and meet with the department heads, review the proposals and work sheets, and make an in depth analysis as to where savings and efficiencies could be realized. The conclusion reached year after year was that there was little to no fat in the budget. As stated above, the problem with the municipal budget lies in the mandated expenditures and the lack of commercial and industrial ratables to pay this cost. As also stated above, the municipal budget represents a relatively small portion of what is funded by our real property taxes in Maplewood. The lion's share goes to supporting our school district, which has been cutting services annually to stay within State mandated expenditures for which the State does not provide anywhere near sufficient aid to cover these expenses.
I suggested you read the municipal budget so you could get some idea of the duties provided by our firefighters. You might also want to read the recent consultant's report on the town website. This report explored the advantages and disadvantages of merging the Maplewood and South Orange Fire Departments, concluding that efficiencies would be realized but little in the way of cost savings.
A volunteer fire department would not work in Maplewood for several reasons. I will list just a few for you:
We do not have enough of a commercial base to support firefighters being available during the day should a fire break out.
Our Fire Department provides EMT services because the former volunteer first aid squad was unable to attract enough volunteers to provide this service. Given this experience, what is the likelihood of our being able to provide volunteers to provide the full range of fire services needed?
In addition to firefighting and EMT services, our fire department performs fire prevention inspections, fire prevention education, and helps our residents in a host of ways that volunteers would not be able to provide.
I agree with many of your points on the benefits of the fire dept, but I’m struggling to understand what efficiencies are gained through the merger with SO with cost savings NOT being among them. That sounds absurd to me. Volunteer departments do present many challenges, but what did the committee do to get comfortable that the current staffing levels are efficient? How many fires did they respond to last year? How does it compare to other towns with full time staff? Etc. Is it possible to get by with 75% or 50% of the current service level?
I’m curious what the professional backgrounds are of the members of the advisory committee - are they finance professionals familiar with planning, analysis and budgeting? With all due respect, an independent consulting service (ie. McKinsey) should be considered to perform an efficiency and productivity analysis to confirm the Committee’s conclusion that there is “little to no fat in the budget”.
LOST said:
There are some nice apartments for rent in Maplewood-South Orange. I was in SC recently. I doubt that I could live there. Different strokes for different folks.
Show me a nice apartment in Maplewood that rents for $17,000 per year. I don't think it exists.
Amstel said:
We don’t need to compare Maplewood to South Carolina or a town in any other state. I live in the Wyoming section of Millburn, very close to the border with Maplewood (I love Maplewood and commute from the train station in the village, which is why I’m on MOL). I live in a relatively modest house with 3 BR’s and 1.5 baths. One of the primary reasons I preferred Millburn over Maplewood/SO is due to the difference in ratables (mainly due to the Short Hills mall, I believe). Sure, I could have bought a bigger house in Maplewood but my taxes would be insane. If you picked up my house and moved it 2 blocks over into Maplewood, my taxes would go up by 40-50%! Maplewood needs to better calibrate their Municipal services to their ratables. Something is clearly way out of whack. For example, I honestly don’t think Maplewood needs a FT fire department - there are no malls or big office buildings as far as I know. This alone won’t have much of an impact, but my sense is that it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
In other words, you are saying that Maplewood should get rid of or drastically reduce municipal services because we don't have a mall like you all do?
No ... the state of NJ should change the dysfunctional approach state wide for funding services, especially education, because this kind of situation shouldn't exist just because one town has a mall and another doesn't. (It isn't like we have a place in Maplewood to add a mall and are choosing not to do so.)
sac said:
Amstel said:In other words, you are saying that Maplewood should get rid of or drastically reduce municipal services because we don't have a mall like you all do?
We don’t need to compare Maplewood to South Carolina or a town in any other state. I live in the Wyoming section of Millburn, very close to the border with Maplewood (I love Maplewood and commute from the train station in the village, which is why I’m on MOL). I live in a relatively modest house with 3 BR’s and 1.5 baths. One of the primary reasons I preferred Millburn over Maplewood/SO is due to the difference in ratables (mainly due to the Short Hills mall, I believe). Sure, I could have bought a bigger house in Maplewood but my taxes would be insane. If you picked up my house and moved it 2 blocks over into Maplewood, my taxes would go up by 40-50%! Maplewood needs to better calibrate their Municipal services to their ratables. Something is clearly way out of whack. For example, I honestly don’t think Maplewood needs a FT fire department - there are no malls or big office buildings as far as I know. This alone won’t have much of an impact, but my sense is that it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
No ... the state of NJ should change the dysfunctional approach state wide for funding services, especially education, because this kind of situation shouldn't exist just because one town has a mall and another doesn't. (It isn't like we have a place in Maplewood to add a mall and are choosing not to do so.)
spontaneous said:
The single largest portion of our local property tax bill is the school system. Cutting DPW won't give you much relief.
Cutting the school budget is not the answer, but changing how we collect for the schools should be looked into. As someone pointed out above, having an off year or two can be devastating since property taxes don't adjust like income taxes do. Income based taxes are fairer, if you can afford more, you pay more, if your income takes a hit you pay less. You don't end up paying into eternity based on how much house you could afford at one single point in your life. I don't know about you, but my circumstances have most certainly changed in the 15 years since I purchased my home. Income based taxes are also fair because if your income gets raised significantly, you'll end up paying more than your next door neighbor who is dealing with a layoff, not the same as under the current system.
I've never understood the use of the comparative and superlative forms of the word fair.
Fair is treating all persons the same.
New Jersey's flat rate property tax scheme treats all MaSO property owners the same.
State and federal income tax schemes do not treat all income taxpayers the same.
More/less and most/least fair, are not terms that I would use when addressing taxation.
-----------------------
With regard to those who believe that we should shift the county/municipal/district tax burden to others:
If we keep spending more than economic growth provides, the system will collapse.
Counties/municipalities/districts will have the option of bankruptcy, and all that follows. The State won't have that option.
TomR
Sac - if you’ve read previous posts by me on this subject I agree the current system is completely dysfunctional and unfair, however, it is not likely to change anytime soon. Therefore, if you want lower taxes you need to cut costs (not drastically or totally eliminate services, but operate more efficiently). By the way, Maplewood citizens would never accept a mall in town anyway - it would ruin the fabric of the sacred village you aim to preserve.....but perhaps that’s the price you pay through a higher tax rate.
Tom_R said:
spontaneous said:I've never understood the use of the comparative and superlative forms of the word fair.
The single largest portion of our local property tax bill is the school system. Cutting DPW won't give you much relief.
Cutting the school budget is not the answer, but changing how we collect for the schools should be looked into. As someone pointed out above, having an off year or two can be devastating since property taxes don't adjust like income taxes do. Income based taxes are fairer, if you can afford more, you pay more, if your income takes a hit you pay less. You don't end up paying into eternity based on how much house you could afford at one single point in your life. I don't know about you, but my circumstances have most certainly changed in the 15 years since I purchased my home. Income based taxes are also fair because if your income gets raised significantly, you'll end up paying more than your next door neighbor who is dealing with a layoff, not the same as under the current system.
Fair is treating all persons the same.
New Jersey's flat rate property tax scheme treats all MaSO property owners the same.
State and federal income tax schemes do not treat all income taxpayers the same.
More/less and most/least fair, are not terms that I would use when addressing taxation.
-----------------------
Ok, then would you accept the use of the terms more f*cked up and less f*cked up to describe the current method of funding municipalities and school systems and the proposed system?
Amstel said:
I agree with many of your points on the benefits of the fire dept, but I’m struggling to understand what efficiencies are gained through the merger with SO with cost savings NOT being among them. That sounds absurd to me. Volunteer departments do present many challenges, but what did the committee do to get comfortable that the current staffing levels are efficient? How many fires did they respond to last year? How does it compare to other towns with full time staff? Etc. Is it possible to get by with 75% or 50% of the current service level?
I’m curious what the professional backgrounds are of the members of the advisory committee - are they finance professionals familiar with planning, analysis and budgeting? With all due respect, an independent consulting service (ie. McKinsey) should be considered to perform an efficiency and productivity analysis to confirm the Committee’s conclusion that there is “little to no fat in the budget”.
Efficiencies would come from having a larger fire fighting force on duty at one time reducing the need for mutual aid assistance; faster response time to some neighborhoods which are closer to the other town's fire house; shared fire fighting equipment resulting in more trucks available; greater number of supervisors available to respond to an emergency situation, etc. Number of fire houses and head count would not change. There are a number of problems that would have to be addressed including different personnel systems and pay schedules (South Orange is a civil service town. Maplewood is at will.); incompatible radio systems; differences in policies and procedures; differences in services provided (SOFD does not provide EMT services. Maplewood does.); etc. Initial start up costs to address these issues could actually raise operating costs initially.
not one person in this thread has addressed the single largest factor driving increasing expenses for all three portions of our tax bill. Escalating health care costs. What we nee, at least to start, is a single statewide health care plan for all government and school employees and retired employees. Larger groups tend to have lower rates. Instead of state aid to each town or district, the state could pick up more of the insurance tab, simplifying the aid disbursement process. That would actually help.
jimmurphy said:
Joan,
Is a bill received when mutual aid is needed?
Not to my knowledge and in my opinion mutual aid is a good thing. What this does is improve response time from the fire station in the other merger town since report of the incident would be close to instantaneous. It also enables one merger partner to cover for the other if the fire station(s) in either town are out on a call.
OK. I didn’t think so.
You threw me off in stating that a larger force will result in greater efficiency due to needing less mutual aid. I guess you meant response time efficiency and not cost efficiency.
I must say that I am surprised that here are no cost efficiencies to be gained by shared fire services. I’d have thought that there would at least be savings in administration through the elimination of some duplicate senior positions over time by attrition at least.
I always feel like these discussion conflate what are actually two separate questions -- how much should taxes be, and how should the tax burden be distributed. The latter, I think, is more relevant on property tax questions. As @spontaneous noted, property taxes are basically about "how much house you could afford at one single point in your life."
Given the general political lean of the area, I think most here would agree that tax payments should be tied to ability to pay, and so the idea of deciding your tax burden for a decade or two based on the circumstances of a single year feels unfair.
But then the argument generally takes a turn, to "how much" rather than "how to distribute." And my take on this is that this is an example of how wealth defends and consolidates itself, because all of a sudden we're talking about pension funds and "wasteful" municipal services. But ask yourself, where do all these folks benefitting from all this waste live? Not in SOMA. They're living in Union or Perth Amboy or even further afield. Fine towns I'm sure, though I'll note none of us chose them. Yet somehow they're the beneficiaries of our unbelievably high taxes?
If I were dictator of NJ, I'd scrap the property tax and go all in on income-based taxes, and add a lot more brackets at a much higher rate on the high end. Most people would have the same or lower overall taxes, but a few people would have much, much higher overall taxes.
And I'd argue that this is precisely why such a proposal is never seriously considered, because the interests of those few are so deeply embedded into the system that it's almost inconceivable to directly challenge it. Much easier to argue about how much we should cut the DPW budget by, or if we can get away with reneging on pension obligations.
Amstel said:
Sac - if you’ve read previous posts by me on this subject I agree the current system is completely dysfunctional and unfair, however, it is not likely to change anytime soon. Therefore, if you want lower taxes you need to cut costs (not drastically or totally eliminate services, but operate more efficiently). By the way, Maplewood citizens would never accept a mall in town anyway - it would ruin the fabric of the sacred village you aim to preserve.....but perhaps that’s the price you pay through a higher tax rate.
The problem is that we are already cut to the bone and each year we seem to lose more services as a result. I truly do not believe that there is any significant amount of inefficiency in the system (enough to make a noticeable difference in taxes) nor are there unnecessary services. You still haven't said WHAT it is that you think we are doing inefficiently over here or what we are doing that we shouldn't be doing. And, lucky for you, Millburn has a mall so maybe you all don't have to cut whatever those inefficiencies are that you think we have over here in SOMSD. (Is that what you are saying? That it is OK to be inefficient because you get money from the mall? I doubt that most Millburnites think that it would be OK to cut services if you suddenly lost your MaSH tax income.)
Yes, it will take time to change things at the state level, but that is what we need to do and we should get to work at it because it is the only chance to make a real dent in the problem.
PVW said:
I always feel like these discussion conflate what are actually two separate questions -- how much should taxes be, and how should the tax burden be distributed. The latter, I think, is more relevant on property tax questions. As @spontaneous noted, property taxes are basically about "how much house you could afford at one single point in your life."
Given the general political lean of the area, I think most here would agree that tax payments should be tied to ability to pay, and so the idea of deciding your tax burden for a decade or two based on the circumstances of a single year feels unfair.
But then the argument generally takes a turn, to "how much" rather than "how to distribute." And my take on this is that this is an example of how wealth defends and consolidates itself, because all of a sudden we're talking about pension funds and "wasteful" municipal services. But ask yourself, where do all these folks benefitting from all this waste live? Not in SOMA. They're living in Union or Perth Amboy or even further afield. Fine towns I'm sure, though I'll note none of us chose them. Yet somehow they're the beneficiaries of our unbelievably high taxes?
If I were dictator of NJ, I'd scrap the property tax and go all in on income-based taxes, and add a lot more brackets at a much higher rate on the high end. Most people would have the same or lower overall taxes, but a few people would have much, much higher overall taxes.
And I'd argue that this is precisely why such a proposal is never seriously considered, because the interests of those few are so deeply embedded into the system that it's almost inconceivable to directly challenge it. Much easier to argue about how much we should cut the DPW budget by, or if we can get away with reneging on pension obligations.
Amen!
(And I would likely pay more under that system than I do now, so don't even start with me on that line of argument.)
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
More than Somerset County?