A legislator in New Jersey's 12th District, covering parts of Monmouth and Mercer Counties

Friday, April 28, 2006

Q&A Friday

Please initiate a special legislative session to act on much needed property tax reform through a constitutional convention. No need to wait! Do it now... before July. With too many defeated school budgets and unhappy property owners, “It’s the right thing to do!”


Thank you.

Mayor Bob Patten

Hightstown Borough




I'm so glad to have a "celebrity" question this week - and one that seems to be on the minds of most 12th District constituents. Thanks to Mayor Patten for agreeing to take part in Q&A Friday.


For anyone who isn't aware, there are two methods that the state Legislature has discussed in recent years to address property taxes: a constitutional convention and a special session of the Legislature.

Last year, I voted in favor of Assembly bill 5269, which would authorize a constitutional convention to reform New Jersey’s property tax system. I also supported a measure that would allow the constitutional convention to address spending in addition to revenue sources. Unfortunately, this legislation was not considered by the State Senate, but I will continue to push for it in this session of the Legislature this session.

I prefer the option of convening a special session as it would provide quicker results than a constitutional convention. I sponsored ACR-108, which would bring this session together.

As you may know from previous Q&A Fridays, one of the topics I would like to see the Legislature consider in a special session is the consolidation of administrative services for schools. This could also be considered in relation to municipal services.

Earlier this week when I met with the Brookdale Dems, one of the students asked me why there is such a strong emphasis in New Jersey on "home rule", the concept that each municipality and school district needs to have its own services provided in-house, so to speak. "Is it because we're one of the oldest states and people are just set in their ways?" she asked.

I can't really answer that question with authority, but it occurred to me that perhaps that sense of wanting to have all our needs taken care of locally is a remnant of our colonial past, when community members really did depend on each other almost exclusively.

Whatever the reason, "home rule" is bleeding you and me dry, and the time has come to consolidate our services. I'm not, by any means, proposing that New Jersey consolidate entire towns or take away total control from local school boards, but there is no reason why we can't share services like attorneys, payroll services, trash collection and street cleaning.

New Jersey is changing, and we've got to change with it.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a mistake to have a convention that addresses both spending and how taxes are collected (the property tax).

To not include the expenditures problem will force delegates to deal exclusively with the fairness issue. Who is to pay how much in taxes is really what this is all about. Those presently paying anywhere from ten to fifty (or more) percent of their total income just for Property Taxes need equity, not merely relief, put into the way we collect taxes used to pay for any government service, whether education, county or the municipality. Any tax that is not based on ability to pay is inherently inequitable, regardless of how big or small.

Therefore, the only way to force a convention to deal more directly with a real solution to this root problem (equity) is to leave out the spending side. Otherwise, when dealing with spending it is inevitable they will come up with solutions which rely upon anticipated or, at best, ephemeral cost savings, thus gradually allowing any relief to dissapate. It is safer and better to not have a convention deal with spending at all. The spending issue will still be there after a fair way to collect taxes is achieved which does not rely upon unlikely to materialize savings reductions.

Additionally, once the costs of running the schools, town and county fall more heavily upon those with more influence and power to affect political change things THEN action to find real cost savings will ensue. But as long as those with the greatest ability to pay are paying relatively miniscule proportions of their income for these services while those who can least afford it are burdened with carrying an inordinate share, nothing will happen on the spending side.

Just think what it would be like and how fast action would be taken if those making $150,000+ were suddenly saddled with paying four and five times their current PT. Does anyone believe they will just swallow hard and do nothing?

Clearly, the best solution would be to eliminate the property tax completely. Paying for state services relies upon funding based upon ability to pay. So why not local and county and education? The state understands there are basic amounts of income needed to even have a hope to survive. That is why a couple has no tax on their first $25,000 of income.

One objection people make when elimination of the PT (or even huge cuts in it) is proposed is the (specious) claim that taxes will have to be raised. This canard is almost not worth addressing except it works. Taxes may be redistributed. They will not necessarily go up. As a whole, at least. So it really more of a matter of whose ox is toing to be gored. Will those with greater ability to pay continue to get a free ride on the back of those leasat able to afford it or will we finally get some tax justice?

Obviously the solution is with an income tax. Whether dedicated or general needs to be determined.

One huge benefit to funding all these services with the income tax would be it would force spending controls. Can you imagine the income tax being raised on an annual basis? That would never happen. Thus, Trenton would have no choice but to deal with the spending side of the issue. Decades of double inflation salary increases, overly generous benefits, poor fiscal management, etc. would cease.

It is a win-win idea. Those who can least afford to pay a tax when least able (retired, out of work, on disability, downsized) would have the protection of a tax that is not collected regardless of one's ability to pay. And spending would really have to be dealt with because Trenton politicians could no longer rely upon the property tax to bail them out of dealing with spending issues.

11:55 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home