How does your town’s property tax allocation compare to the state average?Submitted by Downtown-Prompt-6499 t3_yd17e7 in jerseycity
keepseeing444 t1_itq46i7 wrote
Are you still trying to justify outrageous $33K per student spending as still underfunded again? There are tons of families who send their kids to one of 28 JC private schools and elsewhere, there is 1% payroll tax other municipalities do not collect, we have higher percentage of empty nesters, seniors and singles than average municipalities that are subsidizing school budget at no benefit to them. HALF the kids can’t read, TWO THIRDS can’t do math at grade level. That is what $33K per student produces for taxpayers of Jersey City and you want to justify more funding?
SlamaCo t1_itqv1qn wrote
This is just the BOE panicking as they realize that they're all not going to get re-elected. It's laughable the chair isn't even running for reelection because he knows there's no way he wins.
bodhipooh t1_itqbjel wrote
You are 100% correct that our budget is outrageous, particularly in light of the sub par results. But, you are also confusing/conflating the matter of the BOE budget (which is what gives us the outrageous 33K per student spending) and the local school tax levy, which is a different matter. Our local school tax levy is way too low and SHOULD be higher. It is precisely because it was so artificially low for so long that the BOE got away with crazy budgets. As long as we weren't paying for it, no one cared about their out of control spending. Now that the state has put an end to the gravy train, we are suddenly realizing what a monster we created through apathy and lack of fiscal restraint. Our local school tax levy can be twice as high as it is today, just to reach the same level as the rest of the state, and our total school budget could still be the same. The more likely outcome is that the BOE would feel the pressure to make cuts and become efficient as more and more people get upset and demand better. In a way, a higher school tax levy could be precisely the solution to our ills. People waking up to the rampant fiscal abuse will demand change. Regardless, 33K per student is insane, but it is also true that the per pupil spending won't go up if our local school tax levy goes up, which is what needs to happen.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_itqyy5d wrote
Read the room. There was no gravy train. The state didn’t provide Jersey city money for free. The money the state contributed to the school budget came from the income taxes Jersey city residents paid.
bodhipooh t1_itr2i9b wrote
>There was no gravy train.
LOL... wut? No other district was getting its school budget paid for to the same level/degree. Compared to the rest of the state, we were getting a sweet deal, only covering one sixth of our local school budget. That is precisely why the state had to implement the cuts after the reval rate was revealed. Once it became clear we were only paying 17% of our school budget while boasting of a ridiculously low tax rate, all other municipalities started demanding that we cover a larger portion of our school budget. It was inevitable, really.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_itr4m5w wrote
How much did Jersey City residents pay in state taxes as the second largest city in the state and what are we getting for our state taxes? At this point living in Jersey city is no longer cheaper than living in New York.
objectimpermanence t1_itrd5il wrote
It’s not the total dollar amount that matters, it’s the dollars per capita.
Households in the suburban NJ generally have higher incomes than urban households, which means they pay higher taxes per capita and receive less in return in the form of school tax subsidies relative to their urban counterparts.
Which means that taxpayers in JC may collectively pay more in total tax dollars than, say, Paramus taxpayers, but that does not mean that the tax burden is “fair” on an individual level.
I’m not taking a side in this debate, just trying to explain the math.
bodhipooh t1_itr8prp wrote
>At this point living in Jersey city is no longer cheaper than living in New York.
So, that's really your issue? You came here thinking/hoping it was cheaper than NYC and it isn't?
​
>How much did Jersey City residents pay in state taxes as the second largest city in the state and what are we getting for our state taxes?
I guess you don't know, or realize, that Jersey City is also one of the poorest municipalities in the State of NJ. One in six residents is considered to live in poverty (15.7%) and we are among the 50 poorest towns in NJ. Whatever it is we have contributed to the state in income taxes, it pales in comparison to what we get back compared to most other towns.
ABrusca1105 t1_itr3b8f wrote
Sorry, but empty nesters and people without kids should absolutely pay school taxes. That's how taxes work. Otherwise just make it all private school if you want parents and only parents to pay.
FloatingWeight t1_itrajfp wrote
The point flew over your head, we spend more per student than anywhere else in NJ by a large margin
ABrusca1105 t1_itrb4tj wrote
Yeah but Jersey City is expensive. Higher salaries, higher real estate costs for schools, higher construction costs, higher lunch costs. Also, outcomes are more driven by family income rather than the school itself.
keepseeing444 t1_itrgbrb wrote
Who said they shouldn’t? My main point is as a large city in NJ we generate ton of tax revenue, addition revenue other municpalities do not collect plus sizable population not using public school services. OP’s graph hints as if we’re still underfunded based on pie chart of state averages of the breakdowns. Families move to burbs for better schools and burbs logically have higher relative percentages for school budget because of larger % of population using public school services. In summary, burbs are full of families with school age children. JC not so much on a relative basis. Pie chart to push underfunded narrative is part of a union spin game.
ABrusca1105 t1_itrnjr6 wrote
Ah, I see your point now. I just took issue with the point you made about people getting no benefit from school taxes.
The real solution is to decouple schools from property taxes and municipalities entirely and fund schools at the state level and either organized at state level or at county level. But, that would get rid of the precious "local control" some people scream about. A common curriculum is heresy for some. It would, however, make NJ one of the states with the lowest property taxes. You could even unify small and enclave towns to eliminate redundant FD, PD, etc leadership positions and overhead.
keepseeing444 t1_itrrwi5 wrote
I like your ideas! But sadly unions rule this state and politicians. They will never say yes to less memberships.
ABrusca1105 t1_its1gx9 wrote
I'm a perfect example who is very left leaning but not in the way most people are.
Another uncommon opinion in a similar vein is that I want to nationalize all the real estate PROPERTY of every class 1 railroad in the country (The big ones) and have the state build and maintain track and systems. BUT, have a free market of private operators running similar to the interstate highway and airline industry and simply charge usage fees/tolls for operators to bid for schedule slots. This would pay for maintenance, dispatching, and construction. Basically, nationalize the rails, privatize the operations. Though, I would personally keep Amtrak as a public option to compete to keep prices low and quality high.
Accomplished_Day2991 t1_itstpng wrote
What can the government run well? We’re in this mess bc they can’t be responsible. This is just dumb.
ABrusca1105 t1_itsu2f3 wrote
What? What makes the government special over a corporate monopoly? The rail industry has two players in the west, two in the east, and two down the middle. Why not treat rail like the highway system and let the free market operate the trains? That's what you want, no? Even if all you think is "government bad"
Accomplished_Day2991 t1_itsyof7 wrote
Let’s just use this school situation as an example. Private and catholic schools opened up pretty quickly. They got the kids back, their scores are good. They managed a budget, followed their curriculum, no issues. Then the public schools, it’s just coming out with how bad test scores are across the country. Closed for 2 years, I’m sure JC is even worse. And the best they can do is take more money. Yet a well run private school can do it for way less, and get better results? Now let’s ask ourselves why? 🤔 They can’t just decide to keep raising tuition or people won’t go. The jc public schools don’t care about you, don’t care about doing the right thing for your kids by going back and figure out why 33k per kid should be more then enough. They just take more bc they can’t be bothered w digging in and finding what the real problem is. And politics make people have no backbone because no one wants to upset anyone. So they will just agree, even if they disagree. And bam your off throwing another couple of thousand dollars at these people for what? Guarantee in two years the school results won’t be much better. It makes them sound like they are trying to do something….but it’s just being lazy.
ABrusca1105 t1_itszpzz wrote
Orrrr, it has more to do with family income... As the data shows. The evidence actually shows charter schools are way worse at providing good outcomes and regular private schools self-select for the wealthiest families, as do public magnet schools.
Income is the single greatest factor in school outcomes along with other factors out of the school's control.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments