23-Cent Gas Tax Hike/Ballot Question #2
N.J. Lawmakers Pass Christie-Backed 23-Cent Gas Tax Hike, Set To Take Effect Friday
http://patch.com/new-jersey/lacey/breaking-lawmakers-pass-christie-backed-23-cent-gas-tax-hike
Katjubu
Darrin 
jrn LOL, it's like putting a condom on when the baby is 8 months along...
That petition has been around for over 6 months and has well less than 6,000 signatures.
ianimal Once again Trump wannabee Christie sticks it to the working man. This tax will fall disproportionally on people who drive the most. The disappearing middle class gets another hit to the wallet.
MK LOL ianimal.
Darrin - Unfortunately, petitions rarely amount to anything.
This sucks for all the Uber drivers that are trying to make a few extra bucks. I love the way the tax increase can go into effect on this Friday, but the sales tax decrease will take two years. That's code for, it's never happening. Sigh....
I wonder if NJT will raise their fares as well in light of the increase.....
Calico696 I thought Christie was a republican. I'll still vote GOP for the national level but I'm going to have to think twice before electing another Republican governor of New Jersey.
My work's giving me an opportunity to move to Tampa permanently any time between September 2017 and January 2020...I may just take it up.
1988LJ 
Petitions do nothing...
You want change, follow our lead from some runoff elections we had yesterday.
Incumbent candidates = Gone. Term limits for everyone!
Mark Mc. 1988LJ, i'm in the same boat with moving to FL for my work although my time-table is what i want it to be. if i want to move in a couple of months i can, if i want to wait a year, i can. they have put it on me basically.
this tax hike is just going to drive more people out of the state. people on the fence are going to be pushed over to finally pulling the trigger and leaving. i see no hope for NJ which pains me as this is where i've grown up and my roots are.
Joe Friday 
Bonv But he's lowering our highest-in-the-country property taxes so we can be highest in the country.
And lowering the sales tax by a penny so we have less usage tax than we used to. Since we can only afford the McDonald's dollar menu and The Dollar Store than means we will save 1-cent per item!!! If you buy 23 burgers at drive though, you can offset the increase in gas to get there.
Texas laughs at us.
strangerdanger 
JeffersonRepub That decrease in the sales tax from 7% to 6% translates to a 14% drop in sales tax revenue. Based on the current projected revenue from sales tax, that equates to a $1.5 BILLION decrease in annual revenue.
If the gas tax increase remains dedicated to the TTF, how does Mr. Christie intend to make up that revenue shortfall? Oh wait, he's planning on going to Washington if Trump wins, but in any case he won't be around in 2018.
Be prepared for more downgrades in NJ's credit rating.
JerryG With my current gas usage, my annual increase in gas tax will be right around $150. Assuming the sales tax reduction ever goes through, I would need to spend at least $15,000 a year on taxable items to offset that loss. As long as bourbon remains subject to NJ State sales tax, that's pretty much a no-brainer, lol.
And from what I read somewhere the 23 cents is not set in stone. It's based on the average price at the time. Thought I saw it was reviewed at certain periods throughout the year and raised or lowered proportionally. I think they said if gas jumps to $4.00 the tax hits around 50 cents. Cannot remember where I read it so I may be incorrect.
M & K 
MB Damn, MB... 60 gallons of gas per week? Might be time to look into an electric car or at least a hybrid...
An absolute joke!!!! Let's not solve one problem and create a whole bunch more!!! This is a joke right?? This useless sack of crap screws New Jersey again!!!! Mabel for his next deal he can offer no more state income tax for a box of chocolates!!!!
Mr. Tone http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/in_midnight_vote_lawmakers_ok_surprise_sales_tax_c.html
so they have a vote at midnight to get this in before the holiday weekend - YAY soprano state politics. The main problem is the general trust. There are no dedicated funds in NJ. That's how the state has been taking money from the "Transportation Trust" (in the form of bonds), and have been shuffling hither and yon, while the maintenance gets put off year after year. Now, while NJ roads are in a crisis, this time taxpayers are in a crisis too. Many of us are finding barely enough capital to keep families in food, let alone fix problems decades old, that we were told time, and time again, were going to be fixed this time around....
skippy From what I have heard the 23cent increase will be dedicated to the TTF not meaning the politicians in Trenton wolnt steal it at a later date. With projects like the gothels bridge and bayone bridge being done to bring the big transport ships into port Newark without a TTF to make the roads and bridges up to par the roads would be unable to sustane the higher traffic. I can see why everyone is upset but the fund being broke puts thousands out of work. Not just a few there part of the middle class aswell. They have to eat pay mortgage's raise familys. The laborer the operator the truckdriver the manufacturing plants that build materials the company's supplying clothing boots the government Safty men and quality control. The deli they buy there sandwiches at and the big grocery stores they shop at. Its all a big loop . Don't be mad at the tax be, mad at the government for letting it get to this. As much as you disagree we need it and you know it
Where exactly does the current 14.5 cent tax per gallon go? Is it all dedicated to the transportation trust fund? I doubt it but can't find any data on it. Will the new. 37.5 cent tax be dedicated to the fund? The new tax revenues will not cover the decrease in the sales tax from 7 to 6% in 2018. With a new Governor that reduction will not likely take place. More smoke and mirrors from the NJ Legislature. Another year and a half and I'm out of here.
kb2755 Who knows probably some nj senator's wife's boob job but it needs to be dedicated to the fund or in 5 years well be in the same boat.
It will cost the average driver less than $100 annually give or take. Average work commute in the Northeast is about 9k miles (2013-2014 data). 9000/25 mpg x .23= $82. For <$2 a week, I'm fine with it. Especially when coupled with elimination of the estate tax, lessening the tax burden on retirees, and the reduction in sales tax. NJ was one of only two states with an estate tax. Time to stop penalizing small business owners and farm families who worked hard to build their businesses.
And here's something else no one is talking about besides the actual math: won't it make people think about getting a car/truck that has better gas mileage when it's time to get a new (or used) vehicle? That alone could make it a wash, and benefit everyone (less pollution). Gas is cheap. Historically so and looks to remain so for the foreseeable future. If $2 a week helps fix our roads, isn't it worth it? Even at double is that really going to bust someone's budget?
If they could couple that with a reduction in waste, they'd really be getting somewhere.
MeisterNJ That's a great theory, but what about those of us that need our trucks from time to time (hauling or bad weather), but cannot afford a second vehicle?
Great deal; the politicians mismanaged the fund then reached into *our* pockets to fix it instead of the harder option of trimming fat elsewhere in the political machine.
Sounds like a familiar tactic.
The_Bishop The data from MeisterNJ is correct based on the NJ average miles driven per year. I think my increase would be around $300.00 per year based upon miles driven. Not a big deal if the sales tax rate would remain at 6.0%; which will be questionable in my opinion.
The problem NJ has is under funded pension plans which in the coming years will require increased taxes just to cover the money due retirees. This is an unavoidable problem that will result in even higher taxes.
Larry M Darst Paying a road tax isn't the issue.
Paying a "road tax" that is used for things other than transportation infrastructure is.
Obfuscation rules the day.
justintime I would save money but this doesn't make any sense. The sales tax is ok, it is property taxes and estate taxes that need to be addressed...
iJay MeisterNJ, I don't think it is as much about the actual dollar amount annually as it is the fact it is another way to tax the residents in an already heavily-taxed state. Yes, there already is a gas tax I understand so it's not necessarily a "new" tax but where does the line get drawn? At what point is enough enough? The politicians simply don't care because even with all the calls, petitions, and outrage in the end, they will most likely be reelected because the voters of this state are morons - and they know this. We have no one to blame but ourselves who continuously vote in the wrong people. And that goes for both sides of the aisle!
I think Chris should take the fat out of the roads budget. He should develop The Road Fairness Formula with Equal Funding For Every Road.
NJ Road Costs By The Numbers suck compared to any other state in the Union. We pay much more per mile than anyone else. A lot more. His Department Head says the reason is we are old, well traveled, and complex. Fire him.
There's an Inequity in NJ Roads Chris, so before you raise our taxes, how about making a better deal on what we pay to build and maintain roads. You can ask your new BFF who wants to help America to help. And then lower our taxes or raise them, but at least be a man and say "NJ pays for it's roads using a Fairness Formula based on what other states pay."
Otherwise you are a fraud jacking our taxes to cover a fat, bloated, overweight budget while slashing any possible educational salvation for poor kids. Either you're fair all around or not fair at all.
I should mention that 71k figure is both me and my husband. He drives a truck and it's not optional. I've looked into a hybrid for myself, but the higher cost of the vehicle washes out the savings in gas. Maybe with this increase I should look into it again, but I've only had my current car for 3 years.
This sucks!!!!
MB, buy a Tesla. It should cost you in the neighborhood of $70k so you'll make back all the money you lost on the gas tax (-;
Meister are you sure the estate tax piece made it to the bill. I thought I saw where it was left out along with some other tidbits.
CraftBeerBob I don't disagree Joe Friday, but they are reducing other taxes, so it's not even a net increase and possibly a net decrease depending on how things shake out. And it just brings NJ up to par with our neighbors. If it helps keep wealthy people and retirees(who tend to have more money than the average person) in NJ, which is not a given, tax revenue may actually go up while decreasing the overall tax burden per capita.
If each of you drives 35+ thousand a year and don't choose a car that gets good millage that seems like a bad decision if you chose a truck that let's say 16mpg correct me if I'm wrong but 35000 miles devided by 16 mpg thats 2187.5 gallons per year. Do the math with my Camry witch isn't a Small car gets 28mpg its 1250 that's a 937 gallon difference per year. At 2$ a gallon that's a savings of 1,874$ so don't be mad at a 23 cent increase mad at your choice of vehicle.
Of course but if you are a business owner and driving a your truck is gas not a write off? And if you drive a truck for a company does the company not pay for the fuel?
"write-off" doesn't mean it's free... it may be a non-taxable expenditure, so you save ~25% on your personal taxes if you get reimbursed. So the increase is only effectively about 18 cents per gallon.
"does the company not pay for the fuel"
What if you own the company that's paying the bills? The money is coming from somewhere, and you either have to raise prices on your customers or eat the difference for lower profit.
ChristIsRisen Iman: I have never been able to find the cost of electric to keep those Tesla's going. Just wonder how much you save (gas versus electric, not the cost of car :>)
My hybrid gets 50 mpg and Meister, I paid the price of a car, about 22K. Not the most elegant or peppy of vehicles so the $2.50 a galleon is killing me after this sacrifice. I actually smiled more at $3.50, go figure.....
Another case of JIT;s shuffling the deck chairs. Lower the sales tax and get some press to cover the disaster forcing him to up the gas tax in the middle of the night. Wonder which one he'll highlight on the way to VP.
My feeling is sure, I'll pay more tax especially if we use the extra to pay down the debt ---- there's a thought.... But if our roads cost more than any other state, increased taxes is not the answer.
Again Chris, where's the plan for lowering the price per mile for highways. And how can you cover a revenue downturn by lowering the sales tax. Where's the plan.
Exactly, Mark.
And Yep, I think you're getting caught up in the gas mileage thing and missing the point. Which is that they shouldn't need to increase revenue - they need to figure out why the cost of repairing our roads is so much higher than in other states. They need to fix the problem rather than slapping another band-aid on it.
http://nj1015.com/the-one-person-you-must-call-now-to-stop-a-huge-nj-gas-tax/
From the article:
"How about instead of raising taxes on middle and working class New Jerseyans, we simply dedicate 1 percent of the sales tax and the surplus revenue form the Turnpike authority toward the costs of roads?"
emaxxman Meister read this please. Some of the other taxes you mention were pulled.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2016/06/29/gov-christie-bails-on-new-jersey-estate-tax-repeal/#5cae67e1516d
estate tax stays as is, not being eliminated anymore; Sweeney is in a hard pace on this bill, he has a hard time supporting it in it's present form as he cannot support the reduction in the sales tax as he is well known for wanting a constitutional amendment to force the state to fully fund the pension fund.
i fully expect more cigar filled backroom haranguing for most of today and this evening with another 'emergency' vote late tonight. (by both house, the assembly and the senate)
keep calling your legislators, let them know how you feel about this,
BrotherDog Yep-
Some people don't want to drive some geeky little Toyota. We have standards, for God's sakes. Plus, although this is not my case, some people need trucks and SUVs to carry around kids or supplies.
Its not that the estate tax is so gosh darn awful; it's that is so gosh darned awful compared to most every other state in the Union. We need a Fairness Death Equation..... It's also a jigsaw to figure out the number....
Speaking of death: does NJ require you to have a lawyer to get through probate or are there sources, like web sites, to be able to do self-serve?
Gar Meister, shiver me timbers but with a full tank taking me over 600 miles for a couple of sawbucks, I am a Pirate, Gar! Master of the highway seas. Now if I could only fit more than one bag o booty in the hold.
Yeah neather do I but I'm smart enough to save my money and drive a geeky little car then drive a monster and blow money out my tail pipe . And put my kids in my 5 star safety geeky car as well . You want a flashy ride looks like you might pay more for it sorry
Your individual additional gas expenses is the least of your worries no matter what type of car you drive. Remember the last time gas prices spiked? It wasn't just your gas bill that increased. Prices rose on almost everything. The other problem is that people will have less disposable income so that means less buying power; stores/services that are operating with thin profits right now could be forced to shut down.
And yes, not everyone who has high gas bills has it by choice. As a 100 mile a day commuter, I'm not happy about this. I'll be buying my gas over the border in PA if it's cheaper...just like when it was close to $4/gallon.
"Remember the last time gas prices spiked? It wasn't just your gas bill that increased. Prices rose on almost everything.'
nail. head.
I don't care what the tax is. I'm not just paying the tax. What's the total price? If this tax puts it higher than a PA station on my route, I'm using the PA station. F' Trenton.
That's what most commuters will do as they travel in/out of NJ, emaxx. What a bad move.
3wbdwnj The low prices in Jersey are what keeps PA's prices lower close to the border. You can expect PA prices to rise as well in reaction to this.
emaxx is right, these total tax revenue projections are being done on sales as they are currently exist right now. but if the price is at parity with ny, pa, and Delaware, then many out of state commuters will stop buying gas in NJ and buy it somewhere else, that will skew the projected tax revenues downward,
If 2 gas stations buy gas from the same distribution plant at the same price pa charges more tax than nj who's gas will be cheeper? Must be pa right?
Yep - there are a lot of other expenses in running a business besides the raw cost of goods.
Also, the word is cheaper, not cheeper.
I would wager that the price of the actual fuel may be one of the *least* costly items to running a business, especially if you want to compare PA to NJ for business taxes/fees/license/regulations/insurance, etc.
I recall there being some kind of subsidy on gas in NJ to allow the bay way refinery to be a thing - I may be mistaken but I know that was one reason that gas was lower in NJ - that was back in the 90s though
auntiel When gas was first spiking back around 2005/2006 and NJ had the lower tax, the Wawa gas station by the office in PA had gas way cheaper than anything between Hackettstown and there. I filled up weekly there. I would even swap cars just to fill up there.
I just paid $2.45 at Citgo on rt 57 for premium. Costco was about 25 cents cheaper according to my gas app. Both are top tier gas.
auntiel, this tax doesn't apply to diesel, only gasoline... but that doesn't mean that diesel prices won't rise as a result.
got this in an email from Jennifer Beck:
Good News: No Gas Tax Increase Before 4th of July Weekend!
Legislative Update from Senator Jennifer Beck (R-11)
senbeck@njleg.org 732-933-1591
Senate Fails to Pass Gas Tax Increase Today!
I have good news! We successfully prevented a 23 cent/gallon gas tax increase from taking effect before the upcoming 4th of July weekend. More than 9,000 people signed our online petition in opposition to the proposed tax hike. Because of your efforts, there simply wasn’t enough support in the New Jersey Senate to even hold a vote today. Your phone calls and emails helped to stop the billion dollar tax hike from taking effect tomorrow, but we still need your help. Democrats will try again to pass this tax increase before Labor Day. Keep on calling and writing your legislators.
You can find their contact information here:
http://www.senatenj.com/send/tl.php?p=28r/17w/rs/35x/sx/rs// http%3A%2F%2Fwww.njleg.state.nj.us%2Fmembers%2Flegsearch.asp
We need you to keep up the pressure until a transportation plan that doesn’t include a gas tax increase is adopted by the Legislature. Until that happens, the fight isn’t over.
Here’s what you can do:
Keep sharing the link to our “No Gas Tax Increase” petition at http://www.senatenj.com/nogastax.
As more people sign the petition, it becomes harder for legislators to vote for a tax increase. Find your legislator, then call and email them to say that you oppose a gas tax increase in any form.
Forward this to friends.
With your continued support, we can defeat the gas tax increase for good. Thanks!
Senator Jennifer Beck
.
The Democratic Legislature didn't vote for it because they want more funds from us. Hold onto your wallet because their greedy hands will be looking to take more. The current plan didn't have enough money to fund the deficit in the States Pension Plan.
One question needs to be answered in Trenton: Why does NJ spend 3 times more than other states for road construction?
Frank The pension deficit will never be funded, and health care and education will be cut drastically, if Christie gets his way and cuts sales tax revenue by $1.5 BILLION yearly.
A 14% drop in sales tax revenue (a one percentage point drop from 7% to 6%) will almost certainly guarantee another drop in NJ's credit rating. Christie's sole reason for proposing that was to make himself look like the "See, I cut taxes in NJ" VP candidate.
I have a question...Where / what has been done with the additional monies from raising the registration fees on all the cars, trucks and motorcycles ??
Where is the accounting for that revenue ?
Steven Frank,
NJ actually spends 8 times the national average on road building / repair. Some states spend less than 10 times the national average, so there is a very large disparity. I have my theories why, but I'll keep negative comments to myself. ;-)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/12/why-it-costs-you-2-million-a-mile-to-build-a-nj-road/17125069/
Robert
Robert Durana It's the end of the world JerryG. You sound like NJEA executives. Let's speak more rationally and honest, where will the money come from???
They should have taken the 1% from sales tax and put it towards the transportation fund. No net new taxes and revenue becomes a function of economic prosperity.
Until there's a audit on why we spend so much for roads, no new taxes.
The cuts are all about Christie trying to garner good PR for his VP bid. He's lame duck NJ, has been for two years.
Bridgegate.
23 cents isn't really 23 cents. I understand the bill actually calls for a percentage to be paid on each gallon. I think it may be 12.5%. That means right now we are talking 23 cents per gallon, but if gas goes up again the tax per gallon will too.
Gas at $2.99/gal would be taxed at 36 cents. Check the bill. I believe they tried to sneak this fact by us by concentrating on the current cost and potential tax.
If I am wrong, please correct me. There is probably a lot of other "sneaky" things attached to this bill too.
JBJSKJ Transparency is the answer. Corruption occurs best when the details are hidden.
Basically, the public needs access to dashboards showing where money is being spent...
good ol' iJay...can't help but take the opportunity to comment on those bloodsucking teachers.
My point is this...no matter where the cuts are made, a $1.5 billion annual decrease in sales tax revenue will undoubtedly result in more downgrades to NJ's credit rating, on top of the eight that have already happened under Christie's stewardship.
The state of NJ is being help hostage to his political aspirations.
Here's some info on the plans.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/see_how_njs_competing_sales_estate_gas_tax_plans_s.html
What bothers me is the attitude of most of the lawmakers in this state. For years people have been asking for tax relief and their answer is always a tax increase. The senate democrats refused to vote for the bill because they didn't want to give up the money that the 1% tax break would give to the taxpayers. The TTF is not constitutionally dedicated. This is why they could use the money for anything they wanted in the budget. That's why it's broke. To have this money dedicated they will need to put it to the voters as a ballot question. Also, if you think all of the money will go to fix the roads and bridges, I have a bridge for sale. Call me at 1-800-gullible.
Indy2 I am with you on rejecting the sales tax decrease JerryG. I am at odds with you in how to reduce and control property taxes. The truth is the truth, and the truth be on my side...
JBJSKJ is right the tax per gallon can increase to 52 cts per gallon depending on the wholesale price in the market. Also, the current TTF is funded through the general fund. No doubt the new tax will fund it the same way. What a bunch of fools they take us for and they for the most part are right. They all need to go.
"One question needs to be answered in Trenton: Why does NJ spend 3 times more than other states for road construction?"
Unions and prevailing wage. The operators on the paving boxes are making $80 an hour between wages and benefits. The guys driving the dump trucks and the guys holding the rakes are making $70 an hour, by law. I doubt there are many other states where the unions are so powerful as to create such a market.
So I just read that the senate wants to pass a newly proposed gas tax hike 25 cents per gallon over the next 3 years with no cut to sales tax. Aren't you guys glad you signed that petition to stop the original perposed bill?
It wouldn't be broke if the current gas tax was fully dedicated to fixing the roads. I believe only 60% of what is collected goes to road repair. Bend over and grab some lube.
The waste and mismanagement is mind boggling... and they want us to fund it??? geeezzz... lets repave a section of 8o again even if it is not really a priority .. and I guess the bridges that are falling down can wait.. as long as the big paving folks are kept busy and the overtime and yearly bonus, trips, pension and raises are funded... IMP.. BS in the first degree.. a nickel at most and ALL of the money MUST go to a prioritized listing of repairs ..starting with the bridges that are purportedly in terrible condition
Smed Looks like these idiots will pass the tax and we are going to get it stuck to us again.. in the meantime no accountability and BS purchases and projects that could have been completed with existing funding or a much smaller increase... as long as the good ole boys are happy wink wink..
I don't see any property tax movement except for Christie's disastrous school plan which is a shell game and not a tax restructuring. The shell game is take all the extra money given to the poor districts, leave them with basically nothing, and reward the rich districts where the votes are. For us, even if your property taxes go down you will still pay the highest in the land and some of the highest total taxes in the land.
360 localities (townships and municipalities see reductions from $5 to $4,500 and 145 get no relief. Of the 15 screens of towns, guess what --- Warren starts on page 9 with about one township per page thereafter. Oh yeah, it's in descending monetary value.
Basically the wealthier suburbs get the relief, you get shorted, and the poorer Eastern districts get the shaft.
As I have said, without a tax restructuring to move NJ away from relying on property for funding most of it's budget, no matter what deductions you get, you will still pay the highest property tax in the land.
Basically NJ is no place to retire; everywhere else will save you money on property. Since in retirement your sales tax probably goes down, your income tax probably goes down ---- it just makes dollars and sense to get out of Dodge ---- Dodge NJ that is.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/07/nj_property_tax_reductions_christie_school_fairnes.html
Meanwhile, I'm not sure Iman is right that NJ roads cost so much because of Unions. 32 states, including MA, are prevailing wage states kind of putting that urban myth to bed. Unions might not help in total cost but don't think they put us at a disadvantage against the 32 other states in the same boat.
The good news is since the report blasting NJ's road costs has come out, there's lots of talk, assessment, and analysis about what's wrong, both with the report and with NJ. But it's time to stop deflecting and explaining away and instead come up with some parity-based targets. While the study may have over-inflated NJ costs in the comparison, I am sure, IMO, that when computed at an apples-to-apples level, we will still suck pond water from the muddy bottom. http://watchdog.org/199387/new-jersey-expensive-roads/
First fire the DOT head who said NJ is old and complex, that's why we pay more. Idiot. MA is old and complex too. He should find the answer not deflect the question. It's was his job to know the answer before the report came out. There's no way what he said explains our cost outages here. It just defends his poor results. Second, make the study apples-to-apples taking out our debt burden for example that other states, not stupid like us, don't have, adjusting for number of extra lanes we have, short runs, utilities (not all states pay for that), and all the other stuff to get a more even comparison. Once at parity, I guarantee we still suck, but at least we can have us a target to shoot for.
It's called Best of Class thinking and NJ should do it for every aspect managed by our state government.
Then set the target, manage to the target and fire anyone who misses the target.
Navy our tax-dollar-paid "representatives" work against us.
If we "elect" them, let's impeach them every time they screw us up, without waiting for their endless term to end (read - when they retire and "leave us in peace").
Pyc "Meanwhile, I'm not sure Iman is right that NJ roads cost so much because of Unions. 32 states, including MA, are prevailing wage states kind of putting that urban myth to bed. Unions might not help in total cost but don't think they put us at a disadvantage against the 32 other states in the same boat."
How many of those 32 states are paying a prevailing wage of $70 an hour and up for straight time? Then bear in mind every time you drive past night work that everyone you see is making over $100 an hour...
Maybe all of them. Maybe they make more. How many are making that in Nj or is that what the state pays to the company and not what the men take home. Or not.
"How many of those 32 states are paying a prevailing wage of $70 an hour and up for straight time? Then bear in mind every time you drive past night work that everyone you see is making over $100 an hour..."
False and false. I have worked a State road job (280 into Newark) and prevailing wage is $30 tops for laborer.
Whip 
Point is that 32-states have Union parity with NJ. Wage parity might be a different story but chances are that amongst the 32-states, one will find comparable wages OR one can easily adjust the comparison to cover.
Overall NJ pays 12 times the national average. MA, our best comparison state being the closest in cost ( NJ pays 3 times per mile over MA. ), has a higher average wage than NJ, but just $50 a week. These are HUGE differences. Highway maintenance MA average salary --- $47,570, NJ -- $53,270. Paving equipment operators -- MA average salary $55,850, NJ -- $56,440 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ma.htm
Point is it's a relatively easy task to look at the study and adjust to be sure it's apples-to-apples for prevailing wages or whatever to get to a parity assessment. Since there will be "theory" and estimates in that, we can argue those assessment modifications but should be able to come to an agreement or range.
Then set the target, manage to the target, and award success or fire on bad results.
I would think state employees looking to advance would jump at this opportunity to succeed. The differences are so egregious, how could you not build a stellar track record of improvement?
NJ can, and should, do this with almost any of the services we provide. Where's Christie? Oh yeah, he's busy hacking the heck out of the school budget where we are top in the nation and don't spend that much more per student than other top preforming education states. He's gutting poor school districts while throwing a nice bone to the rich and gf-ing the rest of us like Warren County. There's a rich target for success ----- NOT.
Prevailing wage is 100% theft by union sanctioned by government. Collusion between those two entities eliminates real competition and does nothing except drive the costs up of the services falling under that umbrella.
That's a fact. Spin it however you'd like and toss around whatever justifications that please you, but *forcing* wages at a certain level (higher than what would be competitively dictated) is without question a punctuation mark on the disfunction of governments abusing their powers of taxation (aka redistribution) to steal from the populous to give to a chosen few.
Sickening.
"Prevailing wage is 100% theft by union sanctioned by government." In 1867, my forefathers worked for slave wages making your steel in this heat slaving next to the forges, no AC, and you DARE to say when they unionized that they were thieves? We fought, we died to create the Union and you dare to call us thieves?
However, I didn't spin it and I didn't justify it. That's on you. You apparently judged me for taking sides when that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we were having. That's the beauty of doing parity comparisons, you just have to make the comparison bet at parity, you don't have to judge it as good or bad as you seem so fond of doing as of late. That part comes with the final assessment of whether you are best of class. And if Unionization is what causes it, then you can take action.
But even there, you are just plain wrong. And since you opened up the thought, Right to Work does what it says: more people working.
- Unions get weaker, wages get lowered
- More businesses enter the market, business economy rises, people employed
- Workers make less than prevailing wage, the only safeguard is minimum wage law
- When there are economic gains, those gains turn into owner profits, not worker's
- There is little support for additional worker safety nets, the power is with the owners
- When there is an economic downturn, RTW workers feel it first, and longer.
Sure, Unions can get out of hand, broker too-excellent deals for their workers. But simply saying it only drives up cost is naïve. The additional wages earned by Union workers can be good for the economy too, a rising tide lifting all boats. Union Workers can enjoy a middle class life rather than a minimum wage life. It's a bit more complex than you simplistic analysis and the overall economic effect is not just a matter of prevailing wage or right to work --- that's only a portion of the economic equation.
Wow, greedy much? I'm talking about modern day *gifting* of higher, non-competitive wages through union strong-arming (or just plain old bleeding hearts who don't care to understand where the money comes from) of government officials who then forcefully take the finds from the public. I'm NOT talking about businesses using slave labor to make a profit.
Think about my position and reply once you've calmed down and really thought about what you're saying. Greed isn't just for the wealthy you know.
Just a heads up. There is a prediction that gas prices will soon rise temporarily in NJ due to an oil line rupture. It hit sooner than expected in NC. My son had to go on a gasoline station hunt yesterday. Even large chains like SHEETZ were out of gas. Might be due to a Sandy-like panic. Might be due to no gas deliveries.
maja2 A pipeline isn't broken? They showed pictures of crews working on a pipeline on the news.
Read about it in passing a couple days ago, never followed up but believed it to be true
Speculative price increases....just like the stock markets...now another area for the shell games to raise the prices on us.
They've been talking about this for almost a week. From what I heard, the pipeline rupture occurred in Alabama and will impact the southeast more than us. South Carolina and Georgia are expected to be most impacted. Also, "unbranded" retailers like Sheetz (or Quick Chek) will feel the pinch before Shell and Exxon stations do.
"They showed pictures of crews working on a pipeline on the news."
Then it MUST be true. LOL
Christie just signed the 23 cent increase in the gas tax effective January 1st. Happy New Year.
Ollie 
John C Couple bucks a week for the average driver. Eliminates the ridiculous estate tax. Reduces taxes on retirement income. Fine with it.
Our roads suck, the transportation fund was bankrupt, we have the lowest gas tax in the land, national average is about $.30, and you have to go to South Carolina or Tennessee to get below $.23. So the tax hike is needed, is competitive, and let's fix some roads for less money than we pay today (a bigger problem in my account book.)
Meanwhile the NJ tax structure is broken, uncompetitive amongst the states and unable to pay down our debt much less provide us the services we need. Retirees can lower their property tax by a giant amount just by moving across a river ---- pick a river..... Don't matter which one. Want more --- hop a couple states away and you're in the money ---- lot's of it.
As a retiree I can go to almost any state in the land and escape estate tax; only in NJ can I continue to pay in retirement the highest property taxes amongst all 50 of the states and DC.
Add on top that we pay way to much for services we get, compared to other states, and we have HUGE problems right here in toxic waste dump city with debt and an aging infrastructure........
And so the compromise grab bag that was the great gas tax hike shows the stupidity of our legislators and governor alike in patching a leaky boat without fixing the underlying problem that's sinking us. Estate taxes went by the wayside (may take a couple years in a graduated fashion), the earned income tax level moved to the Federal level, retiree income tax thresholds moved from $20K to $200K --- graduated in over five years, a veteran tax exemption was enacted. Maybe these were good individual things. But we have a huge debt and this latest package of tax reductions will cost us $1.8B in tax revenue. So the gas hike compromise was really a tax cut without an equivalent cut in budget. That will come, probably at the cost of paying down the debt.
The real proof of what bozo's our legislators and their leader --- the fat stupid man that works for Trump now but gets paid by NJ, are the blithering idiot thing that they did to the sales tax: "While Christie wanted a 1 percentage point reduction in the sales tax, from 7 percent to 6 percent, the rollback in the final plan is a small, 0.375 percent. It will decrease from 7 percent to 6.875 percent on Jan. 1, and then from 6.875 percent to 6.625 percent on Jan. 1, 2018." NJ.com
I don't know about you, but I will be using 7% and 6.5% for my estimates and the. 875, .625 alone is proof to me what idiots these lawmakers really are. Idiots for suggesting it and idiots for accepting it.
Average sales tax is 8.5%. Our 7% tax was not egregious amongst the states. Texas, without an income tax, charges 8.15% for example. Our property tax is the highest in the country. New York laughs at us. CT proves we are property tax stupid. PA takes our tax refugees looking for a better life in the promised land while continuing to work in NJ.
Our debt is the second highest in the country (debt/gsp) so we are lowering our tax rate. Our property tax is the highest in the country so we lowered our sales tax rate and relieved retires from income tax (when most are retired from income to begin with.....). Our costs for services are the highest in the land so we are lowering our tax rate instead of drilling down to determine why we pay more to get the same thing done and fixing that. We just bankrupted the transportation fund so we lowered our tax rate so we can bankrupt the state. While fixing the transportation fund, this compromise will mean $1.8B less in tax revenue to fix those problems of debt and services while doing little to stem our retiree exodus due to property taxes.
Idiots on both sides of the aisle and especially at the head of the state.
But I am not bitter :>)
I think the gas tax goes up as soon as they sign the bill, but the sales tax doesn't go down until Jan 1 to 6.875 percent. Then in 2018 it goes down all the way to 6.625 percent. That is if they don't change it again before then.
Will we notice the sales tax reduction? Only at the state tax revenue level.
Cutting public sector retiree health benefits is the answer SD. There is no protection to stop this except for the Democrats in Trenton. Retirees 65 and older are minimal with just paying Medigap, but retirees under 65 cost about $25k per year for the average retiree with a family; this is something the taxpayers can no longer afford.
So you see SD, only with harsh changes will there be change. Will this happen? I say yes eventually...
"Couple bucks a week for the average driver. Eliminates the ridiculous estate tax. Reduces taxes on retirement income. Fine with it."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/states-siphon-gas-tax-for-other-uses-1405558382
(if you can't read the article paste that into a Google search and read the article from the google link)
From this NYT article:
"New Jersey is projected to collect $541 million in state gas-tax revenue this year, of which $516 million has been set aside to pay for about $1 billion in debt interest. "
Guess you're OK with paying more today to deal with the malfeasance of past generations, because that's the reality. The funds today are NOT going toward what you think they are, some of the money is being diverted for other purposes (if the above link is to be believed quite a bit more). And guess what? The more debt we have the more this shell game will continue. No big surprise there.
Common theme once again... we're paying more today for the debt-based idiocy of the past. And of course all of us today just want to do the same to our children. Aren't we just so nice...
Whether or not the gas tax goes to roads is on this years ballot so its up to you.
Funny how they can get certain things on the ballot at this late in the ballgame and most other times they say they don't have enough time. I guess it won't be on the absentee ballots as those have been printed already. That being said everyone should vote YES.
I'm glad so many folks have a big estate inheritance coming their way. I don't have any of that so yeah, the gas tax sucks. I'm also about 25 years away from retirement so yeah, f the retirement income tax break too.
Old Gent Notice the word "projects" Old Gent. The word project can mean anything they feel fit to do with the money. I don't trust them. What guarantee do we have that money will be spent specifically on road repairs, crumbling bridges, etc. None!! The way it's worded most people will think "oh goody they will fix the roads" and vote yes. Wrong!! It's a crock and we are getting the shaft as usual. Nothing will change. The gangsters in Trenton will just say "sorry you voted for it" and we still won't have anything to show for it, Trenton's gangsters have mismanaged our money for decades, giving them more to squander is foolish imo. I'm voting no.
It says the entire tax, by constitutional amendment, goes to the transportation trust fund. Now the yucks don't have to think about that decision anymore; we can phone that decision in.
Usually I would be against constitutional earmarking for spending in lieu of making the individuals paid to be responsible for budget decisions.....responsible. It leaves them off the hook for managing the job we pay them for.
But these incompetent yucks deserve it so I am voting yes.
auntiel, It goes to bus and trains also, just the the drivers are paying for The shippers will pass it down in there billing so everything goes up, and we all pay.
School bus transportation expense will go up, so our property taxes. And price for all other municipal, county, state expenses that involve gas usage (SNOW REMOVAL, police, fire department, EMT, etc) will go up, so our property taxes. All deliveries and farming will be more expensive. The ones who use landscape service, will pay more next year. And they definitely will pay more this winter for snow removal.
Lena Are there exact numbers for the reductions in pension income and for the veterans?
OnTheEdge Lena, PA will have about 10 cents per gallon higher prices. I hear everyone about passing on the costs; just that PA has been doing it for some time...
iJay - I am not really concerned about the gas price in PA as long as it's lower than in NJ (and long haul truckers and commuters will fill their tanks in NJ). I just know that gas hike here in NJ will trigger the price off all services paid thru our property taxes to go up. There is no other choice to balance budget but increase our property taxes accordingly to gas hike next year. I am sure that in February-March we will face the situation when there are no money for snow removal left because budget was created using old gas price. And of course if you commute to work by bus you will pay more for tickets. More people will move from our area closer to the city and sell their houses. Of course it will be good for not using roads but bad for our local economy.
If gas is at about $2 now it is just under 10% increase and probably 10% as we approach Winter. We are talking about 10% increase in fuel which is not all the raw costs by any means. The drivers and maintenance on snow removal machinery is much higher.
Yes, services will go up but it is no catastrophic. You should be more concerned with the costs of cadillac and even non-cadillac health plans rising year after year; and of course the overcompensation of public workers whose pension system is a time bomb.
As mentioned before, cutting public workers retiree medical will save a lot of money, this gas tax is chump change. The average public retiree with a family under 65 costs 25k per year...
If the money was spent wisely I would not have an issue. We own small business on Rt#46...we often get to witness highway workers "working" outside our shop due to an ongoing drainage issue that has yet to be resolved. What we see is 2 or 3 people physically working and 2, 3 or 4 supervising. What I Know if that If we ran our business that way we would have been out of business years ago. Over manning requirements imposed by unions of supervisors, overseeing supervisors certainly add cost and is reflective in NJ's having close to the highest cost per mile in the nation.
Galla Is is such an alien concept to expect public services to run with private efficiencies? I know it is, but will the mindset EVER change...
What a waste of money.. there is NO WAY this kind of hike should be justified.. A small increase of 10 cents or less MAYBE. Make me sick to think I am gong to have to pay this to support non productive workers, crony appointees. repaving of roads that don't need it and funding dippy projects that should not even be in the budget.. PLEASE call Trenton Monday and raise holy you know with these politician.. Enough!
Dallas +1 to this:
"What a waste of money.. there is NO WAY this kind of hike should be justified.. A small increase of 10 cents or less MAYBE. Make me sick to think I am gong to have to pay this to support non productive workers, crony appointees. repaving of roads that don't need it and funding dippy projects that should not even be in the budget.. PLEASE call Trenton Monday and raise holy you know with these politician.. Enough!"
well said Enough, couldn't agree more,
Another $4.5 million hit to NJ taxpayers thanks to the corruption in the Christie regime... $3M in legal fees and a $1.5M payoff to a former prosecutor turned schoolteacher.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/hunterdon-county/index.ssf/2016/10/ex-hunterdon_co_prosecutor_get.html#incart_river_home
There's two sides of this; the tax side and the spending side.
On the tax side, and I think with all taxes combined, percentage-wise we have the third highest taxes in the land. However, there's about a dozen states within 20% of us, we not alone. Also have to bear in mind that taxes are progressive and NJ has the 5th highest income per capita as well so our tax percentage will be higher since we have richer citizens. Our tax burden is 12.2% and our income per capita is $56,731.
Compare that with the place we should all be moving to: Wyoming. Tax burden of 7.1% and income per capita of $57,179. Mining, energy and tourism so chances are they have been hit by the oil price drop but....... Since we were talking about it on the other thread, South Carolina is 8.4% and $34,820 so great place if you have an above average paying job.
So on the tax side, we make a lot, we pay a lot, we are at the top, we are not totally alone but obviously could be doing better. Kind of a cool assessment: http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-1977-2012 If you extract to spreadsheet you can sort. Good tool for starting retirement move but I warn you, you have to look that the tax factors that affect you. For example, getting a smaller house, dropping to one car might relieve some burdensome SC taxes that show up in the averages. Even in NJ, if you get a tiny house on a postcard plot in a poor neighborhood, you might avoid property tax which is close to 50% of your tax burden (just saying). And taxes are just part of it. Wyoming might be great, but the winters, oil wells, open pit mining and fracking might make you reconsider. Teton County tourist areas might be nice though.....
On the spending side ---- NJ often sucks and with gusto. To me the answer is the f-word. Three of them: find, fix or fire. That is, find the parity metric for comparison from other states or both private/public sectors. Then set a target for fixing NJ spending costs. Promote, retain or fire based on success in meeting the metric.
The first part is the tough one - setting the target: lots of facts, debates, screaming and spin to arrive at an agreeable competitive parity comparison (or compromise --- don't matter). Gonna be a number of estimates and models to fight about. Need input by the public and the press. Set a time frame to finish study and march to the schedule. Fire if agreement can't be had at the scheduled date. It's their job.
Once the target is set, the rest is implementation. Can't reach the costs with instate contractors, just trying hiring the contractors from states that hit the target. I am sure they can figure it out. And then measure to the target metric taking appropriate actions based on results. Some examples.....
Road costs triple even the most states, ten times many. My goodness, how hard can it be to succeed here? We could set a weak target and still save a bunch. I want this job, can't fail.
Pension --- actually here NJ is modest compared to other states in what we offer to pay but is that the metric? About 30% of major companies offer pension, many of the one's not offering use plans like 401K. So the question would be does state pension parity only include other states or the entire pension-capable offering universe. I say the latter. But find the answer, set the target, and measure the result.
The second pension issue is payments to existing retirees. To reduce that load, the easiest way is to offer buy-out plans. Get em off the books for less than the total payment. Like a reverse mortgage, can be good for some. Many states looking at this, not sure if any have offered. But it's the only way to take the short term hit but lower the long turn hit and recurring cash flow loss.
OK, health coverage --- On total expense: NJ pays much more than any other state. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/nj_has_one_of_the_most_expensive_state_health_benefits_plans_in_nation_new_study_says.html Again, I am not sure that a state comparison is the right one to use here and that a global look of private and public is probably more appropriate.
sorry, more coming :>(
Education: this one is interesting in that, and you might have to do this with other metrics, you really need to look at results of the money. We pay more, not the most, but a lot, but our results are stellar. So before we set the target to average, we have to ask do we want to lower the results to average. That's the business of negotiation in the "find-it" phase. My take is we might prune but not slash.
So that's a few and it only takes a second to gather enough key information to know the priority of fixing (like roads which is a no brainer of being out of whack) or whether to study longer due to complexities (like education). We can prioritize also on amount of budget: pensions, healthcare, education, etc. etc. Other areas on the budget are welfare and protection -- just use the same process to start establishing target metrics.
However it will take a lot to agree to the final number. Again, set a schedule. You can always change the target when new information presents itself.
Then get the owners to set a plan to reach target, agree, and implement and measure taking actions based on results. That's the business way to do this.
Now in saying all this, we should recognize the priority of time. If we earmark all gas tax to transportation, these people are about to get more money to spend then they have ever seen. Based on our current results, I do not think NJ citizens will even notice any benefits. If there isn't a crash program to get this spending to be more efficient, this whole thing has been a total waste of time and money.
OK, now on to solving world hunger :>)
http://nj1015.com/why-the-fairness-of-the-gas-tax-is-anything-but-jeff-does-the-math/
101.5 radio has a good take on this gas price hike........
Unfortunately the sales tax won't be 6%. In 2017 the tax will be 6.875% and then it 2018 it drops to 6.625%. Either way not much.
Chipster yesterday i bought gas in town and paid 1.85 - tonight it was 1.95.................they are not even waiting for the ink to dry - we are in trouble!! i call this gouging!!
Rush over to the new CVS they have lube on sale. God knows we are going to need it...
The recent gas price per gallon hike is the usual ups and downs based on the crude oil market. WTI (West Texas) is up to $49.15 at the end of the day for Nov 2016 delivery. When the price was going down a few weeks ago, that was the reason the prices per gallon went down a slight bit.
Either way, they (the NJ Legislature and Govenor) are taking advantage of our current price trends of the past two years of gas hovering around $2 per gallon- and sticking it to us- thinking we wont complain at paying "only" $2.25 again.
If the price was back to where it was a couple years ago, over $3 per gallon, there is no way they would be doing this right now, the outcry would be a whole lot more.
The Rhyme Animal 
Newsie "And so the compromise grab bag that was the great gas tax hike shows the stupidity of our legislators and governor alike in patching a leaky boat without fixing the underlying problem that's sinking us." We had to save the transportation fund, and sure, we could use other existing tax revenues, but face it, they are all spent or should be used to pay down the NJ debt. So everyone in Trenton pitched in to make this a grab bag of tax cuts to shift the blame from the transportation fund hike and screw up. Essentially this was a compromise favoring both liberal and conservative ideals based on the line item tax cut.
Maybe these were good individual things for different liberal and conservative advocates and constituency. "But we have a huge debt and this latest package of tax reductions will cost us $1.8B in tax revenue." That's the bottom line.
We had to remove the estate tax to remain competitive with other states for retaining retirees but it will do almost nothing to stem the exodus which affects all of our home values and our quality of life so its a stupid half solution (and I will be one paying it, God willing and the creek don't rise) Why? Because this doesn't affect the tax structure which relies mostly on property tax which affects the retired much more than the working. We get almost 50% of our revenue from property. That's around 33% higher than average states all meaning you can't help but make money at retirement by leaving the state. You have a 4% chance of paying estate tax, 100% chance of paying property tax. As a retiree, your income (and income tax) drops but your state tax remains high because of property tax. We have the highest state property tax rates in the land. So we will be leaving as soon as we retire independent of the estate tax rollback.
That's on the tax side where NJ's tax structure is broken and not competitive with other states. The retirees will continue to flee the state in record numbers.
On the spending side, see my overly long tome above but bottom line is we suck. We need to make our spending more efficient and effective and it's not that hard. Especially in cases like roads which is so egregiously bad that anyone can do better.
While our total tax rate is too high, we are second, not first and have plenty of company just below us. IMO, this is a problem but given our debt, even if we spent less, I would not tax less, I would pay down the debt. Given that, we have a HUGE problem in tax structure resulting in losing our retirees and their assets. And a HUGER problem in spending money effectively. Those two areas --- structure and spending effectiveness is where we should be holding our legislators feet to the fire and removing them if no action is taken ------- soon.
Got this from Jen Beck this morning, please sign the petition and send this tweetand like it it on fqacebook ( i belive it's trending righth now, keep up the activity on it) please share this with your friends and family, contact your legislators :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They’re Trying to Fast Track a Gas Tax Increase on Wednesday!
Like This on Facebook Tweet This
We need your help to stop it.
On Friday, the Governor, Senate President and Assembly Speaker announced a deal to enact a recycled version of the old plan to raise the gas tax by 23 cents/gallon.
The Senate President just scheduled a Senate session on Wednesday — only two days from now — to fast track a vote on their $2 billion gas tax increase.
The people of New Jersey have made it clear that they reject this massive tax increase.
That’s why I fought against it last time, and will fight against it again.
Please know that your support was critical in helping us to stop the gas tax from advancing in June.
More than 12,000 people signed our online petition, and thousands more showed up at rallies, called and sent emails.
Now they’re trying to rush a vote and limit public debate on their newest gas tax proposal.
They don’t want a repeat of the public outrage they received the last time around. Let’s make sure they don’t get away with it!
Here’s 3 things you can do to help:
Sign the petition and share this link on Facebook and Twitter:
http://www.senatenj.com/nogastax
Contact your legislator. Forward this email to family, friends and co-workers.
Unless you act, the gas tax will happen. Help me to stop it!
let your legislators know. write them, send emails and call their offices. Here's how to find your reps:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/selectmun.asp
i urge you strongly to support other candidates every election cycle till we change the face of the NJ assembly and the NJ senate.
Bozo the clown? See, little difference between "Creepy Clowns" and politicians.
When I was a kid Bozo featured in more than one of my nightmares. And now, with that puffy red hair Bozo had, he does remind me of someone running for office...
You all realize that Wednesday is "today" and not "two days from now", right? They're probably already in session.
Senator Ray Lesniak is leading the charge against Chris Christie's gas tax. Please go to his FB page and his website..he explains it there..sign the petition..
Which Assemblyman/Senator from Warren County is voting for this tax increase?
pampurr yeah i forwarded what i got, today is the day, all the more reason to act right now, Ian; did you contact your reps? sign the petition? please froward this to your contacts asap, thx
I faxed and called my District 24 legislators (my legislators for Liberty Twsp where I live) before 9am today. While I do not think it will help- I cannot sit on the sidelines without some form of protest.
If they vote YES to the tax or abstain to vote, I will in no way reelect them next time their terms are up.
I won't forget!
You can't win this, the tax deal is done. You're tilting windmills given the transportation fund is bankrupt, NJ pays less gas tax than everyone, and the vote have passed with support on both sides of the aisle.
If you cancel the gas tax hike, how do you plan to solve the transportation fund while providing other services and servicing the debt?
IMO better to vote yes on the ballet to constitutionally earmark the tax to transportation. That will put their feet to the fire on the other items by removing the transportation fund from covering other spending. JIT shows they are doing that...a lot...although I have seen other facts that says it's less, but no matter what, some transportation fund money is being siphoned (like that?) to pay for other things. So if we earmark, that means either raise taxes, remove services (don't think they will do that), get more efficient or some of each.
Meanwhile, if the earmark vote passes, and I am betting it will, the transportation department will have more money than ever so we better scrutinize their performance since today, it sucks, and I see no improvement plan in place. To me, that's where you need the petitions. Get these guys to have a cost improvement plan OR continue to pay the highest price in the land ----- now with a lot more money to play with.
pampurr - Steve Oroho from sparta is a big supporter of this, contact his office and tell him no way jose' on this gas tax
I will gladly pay the additional $0.23 per gallon for better roads and bridges as long as the funds are mandated to go to that purpose and no other. I have contacted my representatives and told them this and no, I didn't sign the petition just like the 8 million other New Jerseyans who didn't... versus 12,000 who did.
if you were listening to 101.5 this morning you would have learned that if this gas hike goes into effect there is a good chance there will be an additional gas hike (already written into the bill) that will take affect in the future......everyone should sign the petition!!
strangerdanger, I will NEVER vote yes on the ballet... or the opera, or those godawful musical theater productions.
I believe a lot of the tax increase will be used to on the Hudson Light Rail Project and a light rail project in South Jersey. Also, they are expecting a 15 dollar increase in the price of crude due to the reductions made by OPEC recently. Others already reported a 10 ct. increase per gallon yesterday at the pumps.
I dunno. In my yout, i saw barishnocough. It was great. There was a young lady involved but......
Every politician in NJ that supports this "disastrous" gas tax increase to use Trump's words.. needs to go..period... We need new leadership here.
....While your at it..Impeach Christie for Bridgegate and all his other low down antics he threw at the tax payers.
Looks like the vote is now pushed back until Friday- 2 more days to make them think about their own re-elections.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/23-cent_gas_tax_deal_may_be_stalled_in_legislature.html#incart_river_home
The bill includes, "the tax on non-motor fuels will rise from 2.74 percent to 7 percent." Does this mean home heating oil? Or what does it apply to?
How our assemblymen voted: http://nj1015.com/gas-tax-a-done-deal-how-every-member-of-the-assembly-voted/
How our senators voted: http://nj1015.com/senate-oks-23-cent-gas-tax-hike-how-every-single-member-voted/
Now we need to remember them when November rolls around---good or bad.
Christina Hey, if you don't like it, move to another state.
Oh wait, even after 23 cents, you will still pay more tax :>)
10/7 --- always remember.
Gas tax bill is signed. Gas lines form Oct 31.
Will roads get better? Let's see, every month you pay towards the 911 cell phone project. Google how much of your forced, collected tax has gone towards that. Funds for the project that would have prevented the Hoboken train crash were mispent. Now the Feds might take over to force that spend. I hope they do.
Vote next month. Vote to allow the amendment to force our untrustworthy leaders to spend the gas tax on roads and bridges. Just can't trust them.
It's sad that an amendment is even suggested, for that screams from the rooftops that our legislators have zero restraint.
The ammendment won't solve a thing if we don't also change mindsets. There's plenty of other tax money floating around to manipulate, so all this will do is shift the problem elsewhere. Still the same old shell game.
"Gas tax bill is signed. Gas lines form Oct 31."
How long are you willing to wait in line to save $3? I would make a lot more money if I spent the same amount of time working rather than waiting...
"The ammendment won't solve a thing if we don't also change mindsets. There's plenty of other tax money floating around to manipulate, so all this will do is shift the problem elsewhere."
It should solve the problem of not having a dedicated source of funding for road and bridge repair projects, which is all that it intended to solve. I agree with you about the waste elsewhere, but that's a different issue.
"It's sad that an amendment is even suggested, for that screams from the rooftops that our legislators have zero restraint."
I saw thousands and thousands of Muslims cheering from the rooftops in Jersey City. Guess they think they will share in the new profits :>)
SD there were not thousands of Muslims cheering but there were a few Israeli Mossad agents cheering for our entrance into getting our faces shi!!ed on by Islamic terrorists...
Vote each and every one of them out next election by making a list of all those who failed to stop this gas tax.
"Vote each and every one of them out next election by making a list of all those who failed to stop this gas tax."
This ^
This is small change stuff. System wide overcompensation and corruption in the public sector must be addressed to obtain real results to make NJ affordable. Of course doing this takes money out of some people's pockets; whether or not this is correct (which I believe so) it will be strongly fought by the unions...
iJay - I agree with most that you post regarding public workers, but my question is.....why are you still here in NJ? Just curious. Thanks for your reply.
Various reasons - family, job, other. I do have a place "to the south" already which I get to often. I could move quite quickly, but just not yet as the job prospects in the immediate area are not good for professionals. Give me a "few more years" which could end up being a decade more in NJ...
Yankeefan The only "winners" will be those legislators that get my vote due to their support of not voting Yes on the gas tax. So long Senator Oroho, you will never get another vote from me, you failed the public on something that affects all of us every day and voted to give us negligible tax reductions in return.
(Even if I have to vote against party lines, he will not get my vote). We are stuck with him another couple years, I won't forget!
Not so negligible a tax reduction for this family:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/phasing-out-a-tax-saving-the-family-farm-1476237258
For the small percentage that are helped- vs the large percentage that are hurt- doesnt change my mind.
How about the large pct of people that benefit from better roads and infrastructure?
Sorry if I'm not crying because of $2-3$ a week for the average commuter. If it saves me a $700 front end job, I'm glad to pay it. If our bridges and tunnels get repaired properly, then it is money well spent and will improve the NJ economy.
So short sighted.
I have driven my car for 30+ years on NJ roads all over- and have never had to have a "$700" front end job. Either drive a bit more carefully, more observantly or find another shop! (and I say this with a friendly smile, not in anger).
Fix the waste in our govt- which will never happen- or let program funding run dry- which will then cause govt to start running their departments like a business, and actually use any money they are given by the public taxpayers responsibly. (will never happen, of course)
"For the small percentage that are helped- vs the large percentage that are hurt- doesnt change my mind."
I think everyone who drives over NJ's roads and bridges are helped by this tax increase. Those who drive more will be helped more, and will appropriately pay more. And those who don't use the roads and bridges, aren't directly affected.
What could be more equitable than that? Do you propose that we stop doing road and bridge maintenance? Because that's where we were...
Two years ago hit a pothole that popped a tire and dented the rocker panel. Hard to see in 60mph traffic.
If you want to take action, vote yes on the earmark ballot issue to dedicate the entire gas tax to transportation.
Then the real trick is to get them to spend it wisely. Especially since we spend ten times other states on a per mile repair basis.
All I hear out of TRA is 'me me me'. Just because you've never had a front end job (which is just one example) we shouldn't fix the roads? For the record, I haven't either, but if the roads continue in the state they're in, it's inevitable. How about a blown tire? Cracked windshield? Bent rim?
How about the toll it takes on our economy? Wait until one of the Hudson River Rail tunnels closes. It will make a severe dent. And our gas will still be cheaper than PA or NY.
And I agree that waste should be reduced, but guess what? Ain't happening. So at least fix the roads with a dedicated tax.
The average working person should be thinking exactly that- "me"- the tax burden in NJ falls on the middle class. Maybe your not in that class "MeisterNJ", maybe your above or below it. But any tax that falls and lands on the middle classes lap, to affect them directly ever day, yes I am against.
NJ prior to this tax being enacted was already onerous in their real estate taxes, cost of car insurance and general cost of living here. Yet, I would rather live no other place. But, with less and less money in MY pocket, yes me (the middle class), there will come a day that I will have to think it though.
That day is closer now with more burden on me- and I speak for that large group of people called the middle class worker. They are "me".
Is there a separate 'middle class' pump coming on Nov 1 that I'm not aware of? Or there's no need because only the middle class uses our roads? I'm confused.
"And I agree that waste should be reduced, but guess what? Ain't happening. So at least fix the roads with a dedicated tax"
I disagree. If the problem is legislators not doing their jobs it won't be fixed with this distraction. If anything this is a confirmation that funds are never really allocated as promised and that we should expect the shell game to continue, now validated as being ok.
The answer is to vote legislators out of office. Fat chance of that with the duopoly mindset
Lets not fix the problem by curtailing wasteful spending, lets add yet another tax and fix the roads.
Less than 1/2 % sales tax cut which means when you spend a dollar you still pay 7 cents sales tax.
The Man btw, if someone can find it there's a link stating that the majority of the current road tax is used just to pay the interest on previous loans, the implication being that the tax would be fine if it were used as it is supposed to be used. Sooooo, what about the getting into debt thing? How will that be helped with a dedicated tax? It won't, and so is this dedicated tax thing nothing more than an appeasement action because the money will go to *both* the roads and the previous borrowed costs for them? If history is any indicator, this is just more of the same shell game.
Dougherty will sign as co-sponsor on legislation to repeal gas tax.
http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/doherty-joining-as-sponsor-of-bill-to-repeal-the-gas-tax-hike/29681
"If it saves me a $700 front end job, I'm glad to pay it."
This is a defeatist mentality, makes me question that you are part of the public sector employment...
Thank you for the link Calico, I have signed that petition.
Leaders like Sen Mike Doherty and Sen Kip Bateman are at least listening to the masses of NJ residents that disagree with this tax.
The ballot question is a constitutional amendment. So if that passes, good luck on repeal.
Where is the money coming from to fix the roads? The gas tax increase will raise about 1.23 billion per year. Cut retiree medical for state workers and that would save about 1.4 billion in 2014...
How in the flying fig is this gas tax union related?! iJay, you are one tedious... Manners prevent me from continuing.
Is that the same Mike Doherty who condemned Kim Guadagno for "abandoning" Donald Trump? F him and the horse he rode in on, lol.
Plus, you all know damn well that Doherty knows there's no way this tax is getting repealed. Pure political pandering, plain and simple. But feel free to fall for it if you feel like it.
I'm about as far from public sector as can be iJay. And no iJay, it's pure math. $150 is less than $700. Heck, it's less than one tire.
WHY not cut retiree medical benefits? It largely does not exist in the private sector. As Christie says, why are the have-nots paying for those who have? WHY is this topic off the table?
The Bishop, savings could be applied to road repairs (and more) so the gas tax would not have to be raised, understand?
from calicos link:
“I fought against the gas tax increase every step through the legislative process, and I’ll continue fighting against it now that’s it been signed into law,” said Doherty. “We’re not spending the gas taxes we already collect wisely, so it’s not fair to ask drivers to pay more.”
Doherty has long called for a study to examine excessive state transportation costs. He is the sponsor of S-1888, which would create the “State Transportation Cost Analysis Task Force.”
A new petition to repeal the gas tax increase has been signed more than 7,500 times since it was launched Friday evening.
“From the calls and emails I’m getting, I know my constituents are outraged by the gas tax increase,” added Doherty. “They don’t know how they’re going to pay for it, and they shouldn’t have to.”
The petition in support of the legislation to repeal the gas tax increase can be signed at senatenj.com/gastaxrepeal.
OK..... we is veering off course here, but my sum.
- gas tax is still one of the lower in the land; dedicate it to transpo and work the efficiencies where we suck so bad impossible to believe we could not improve.
- second highest overall taxes in the land and structure is all wrong focusing on property as main revenue source screwing retirees unfairly after they stop working. You just have to move, financially speaking. So, change structure however even though we are second, we have lots of company right below us. So I would focus on cost, not overall rate. And if we spin cash, pay off the staggering debt.
- Agree with Ijay on retiree medical benefits. As well as structuring going forward pensions and benefits to be commensurate with the private sector. Wages are close enough, so why not bene's
- Leave schools alone for budget, we are number one.
- Offer buy outs to pensioners, it's a win, win, those needing it get cash, we get them off the books.
- To work the costs, implement find, fix or fire. Set competitive cost targets based on other states or like targets, target the big cost hitters and outages like roads (we pay 10 times other states per mile of repair), health benefits (we pay more than most states), and the like. But make it a process, an visible, transparent process that starts with assessing our cost structure on a competitive basis and setting targets. The rest is turning the crank to fix --- do well and be rewarded, do poorly and be gone.
Use savings to pay off debt. Once at reasonable level, lower taxes.
You know, iJay, you're a hoot. You expect everyone (but you, of course) to work for slave wages and give away their future security, not because *they* did anything wrong, but because the state screwed up and doesn't know how to budget anything without all the cronyisim?
Do you have any actual experience in what it's like to be a public worker, or to negotiate a contract when the people on the other side of the table have a whole lot more money and lawyers and money than you do? You keep blathering on about how 'unions are all powerful' but you have *zero* actual knowledge or experience in what you're yammering about.
If we were 'all powerful' then I wouldn't have taken a $12.5k pay cut when the governor put his pudgy fingers in *my* pocket.
What's extra funny is now that he's got his fingers in *your* wallet, you find some convoluted way to blame the folks who keep you safe. Why the *hell* should I sacrifice *my* retirement because the *state* screwed up and underfunded the transportation fund? I don't see a connection! Maybe they should seize all your assets to pay for it? It would be just as fair!
"Why the *hell* should I sacrifice *my* retirement"
Why should *I* (as a taxpayer) have to guarantee funding for *your* rigged retirement?
In short here is what happened (but I know you don't want to hear the truth):
1) Teachers were once underpaid
2) Then the unions negotiated. Knowing they could not get large salary increases they "negotiated" with the democratically controlled legislature to get high total compensation, specifically with generous pensions, generous medical plans while employed and retired.
3) Since the "sale" of this plan required little money initially, they (unions) knew the adequate amount of money would not be set aside every year, which is why they added legislation that the state has to fund any shortfall (which Christie fought arguing that this legislation cannot force us to borrow money to put money aside).
So, you are being overcompensated. May not be nice to say, but that is the truth...
I am not a teacher. I'm a firefighter.
You keep saying 'the unions' as if they're one entity. They are not. And yes, they negotiate. That's their primary function.
What 'generous' pension are you talking about? The one I *earn* by putting my life on the line for 25 years, endure repeated physical injury with sub-par treatment, have a much higher cancer risk rate than nearly any private citizen, and by seeing and dealing with situations (injury/death/dismemberment) that I will guarantee you couldn't handle? The one that, after medical is taken out of it, will be less than 50% of what I'm being paid, when the original deal I signed on for 23 years ago was supposed to include medical in retirement provided I did 25 years of service and Christie changed by a law he later called illegal? The one that I've been making my contributions to my entire career, as mandated *by law*? The one that is paid by a fund that is very nearly 80% funded and is considered to be very healthy?
You don't know the first thing about it.
Fact: The Police and Firefighters Retirement Fund is close to 80% funded. It is *not* in danger of collapse, no matter what Gov. Crispie might have claimed. The primary means of funding is contributions from members and matching payments from the employers (local municipalities).
Fact: The state does *not* pay for our healthcare. The local municipalities do, and they're free to find more cost effective healthcare plans.
You stated that the 'unions' added legislation... Er, how? We are not lawmakers.
You are talking out of that orifice on the opposite side of your body from your mouth.
Me being overcompensated? That's merely your (grossly) uneducated opinion. I've put my life and health at risk for 23 years in the service of my fellow citizens. I've got damage to my lower back and neck, my right shoulder and elbow, a loss of hearing, and a vastly higher chance to develop some god-awful cancer thanks to the huge amounts of carcinogens I am exposed to on a regular basis in the course of my career.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/career-firefighters-have-increased-risk-cancer-why-smoke-today-more-carcinogenic-352902
http://firefighterfactsnj.org/
Overcompensated? Pound sand, buddy. I earned my salary and my retirement. I've spent half my life becoming a highly trained and specialized professional. Not my fault you don't have a pension and saying I don't deserve one because you don't get one sounds like sour grapes, to me.
"btw, if someone can find it there's a link stating that the majority of the current road tax is used just to pay the interest on previous loans"
Lol, I had already posted the link in this thread above:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/750496#t763719
I'm 472 and proud of it. I wouldn't have anything without them. Bishops rite sounds like Sour grapes to me.
Yes Bishop you deserve your retirement benefits. And people should be paid according to personal risk as well as accomplishment IMO.
And state salaries, pensions, and benefits should take that into account while remaining at competitive parity with the private sector. That's going forward Bishop, not retroactive.
I wouldn't go that far SD... Maybe he should get but to use the word deserve does not properly address that the benefits were overcompensation from the very beginning...
Sour grapes no, doing fine financially for such envy. What bothers me is the amount I pay in taxes -- with Federal and Property taxes being of specific annoyance
While on this topic, coops are the future of employment, not unions. If you have young children review this system as it will likely be this way in the future (for them).
Ijay; fact is you pay a lower tax rate than has been paid in decades. Or put another way, you chip in less to America than folks have for generations.
When it comes to supporting America, we are the greediest generation.
Of course, NJ negates some of that....
But did trump break any tax laws?
Answer that correctly and take appropriate corrective action then this discussion would be completely different.
Did the 45% break any laws?
And in any case, Ijay you still pay the lowest Federal tax rate in generations. Here's a nice view: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
Two wars, The Great Recession, no wonder we are in deep kimchi when it comes to debt. I don't argue why we got there, I argue why are we staying there. We need to not only raise taxes, frankly on all of us, but we need to at least flat-line spending to a balanced budget. If not better. At least for some time till we start digging out of the hole.
But saying you pay too much Federal tax is only true in that any tax is too much. As far as fair, we are getting the deal of the century. The only better deal is what we offer the rich.
After WWII when we were in a similar situation, it took 35 years to bring it down, and Reagan to start the trend of brining it up that we continue today (with a miniscule respite from the last Clinton).
That said, NJ taxes are not only too high, comparatively speaking with any state in the land, we are also burdened by a stupid structure that takes huge hunks of revenue via property taxes. While our total NJ tax bill might only be reduced a bit to be competitive with other states, the structure needs to be changed not to rely on property as the big money maker. All that does is drive retirees out of the state and that's a huge loss. They are quiet, use less resources, and can't be replaced easily.
The reason I say reduced a bit is that NJ too has a bit of a debt problem which needs to be addressed.
Depends on the state, but doubtful. NJ income tax about 6% add 2% for property. Federal about 25% for middle income earners (73K-146K). The income tax rates are marginal, the property tax rate is effective --- doubt that that one changes much for the marginal rate. So NJ about 33% of the Federal rate.
IOW NJ taxes could be rising but not enough to raise your total tax bill.
Fed was 28%-31% in 91 34-80K and over 80K, 42% - 45% in 84 60K-85K and 85K-104K, 50% - 58% in 74 for 44K-52K and 76K-88K.
Those are some middle class rates and yes, there's the value of money over time given inflation but the trend is ever downward as the wars and recession went ever upwards.... The scenario is much more egregious for the upper brackets --- it's a snow job of unfairness.
Point is that frankly we should all be pitching in a bit more to cover our losses due to war and recession. And the rich even more. At least that's what our fathers and grandfathers did.
SD, you think the average person pays 2% in local property tax? That would mean someone making $150,000 would have a $3,000 property tax bill. Many people making half as much probably pay twice as much. I think 8% is a better estimate.
Beat me to it ianimal. 2% of VALUE but if you use that the average family is around 25-33% of salary to affordability of a home purchase, ianimal is spot in at 8%.
If it were really 2% then I would not have anything to complain about regarding property taxes.
Wow, do you text your mother with that keyboard? Keep it civil....
I was not comprehensive covering all the nuances of the tax code in my answer and as you well know from other posts, I have no issue with closing loopholes. I also have no problem with targeted incentives via deductions and credits. There's a difference.
Those were what you were referencing was my use of incentives "many, many occasions" which is not quite true. But I have used them. And they were indeed incentives as in I was incented to do something. They were not loop holes.
Like putting lots of money into the local economy by adding insulation to my home and taking advantage of the home energy credit. Yes, I saved money. But I spent more....
Taking college education credits where I had saved for a lifetime and was incented to educate my family. Took a few of those myself for night school as well. But I spent a heck of a lot of money for those minor incentives, like tax free savings ---- that's like 20% tax savings in my neck of the woods at that time, effective rate of course. And a multitude of tens of thousands on the outflow side.
And cash for clunkers, same thing, Yes, I saved money but I spent money I would not have spent for a number of years because I was incented to keep automakers employed ASAP.
And I have taken a loss during the year of Sandy. Not an incentive, but I spent much more than I received but it was a deduction. It was not a loop hole.
I have no problem with tax incentives where we, the people, decide to incent certain behaviors within our society. For example, we believe marriage is better than not; we have a marriage deduction to incent that. We like children, they are our future. We incent that. We like our children to be educated: we incent that.
And I agree that individuals and businesses, especially small businesses, should be able to claim loss for a deduction. First, for most of it, claiming a loss is not exactly a money maker, but it does lower the pain you have either damage or a lack of business. Seems fair enough.
In a perfect world, I would scrap the entire tax code and bring it back one incentive at a time. Make our representatives discuss and debate each one. And put them on a timer to be reviewed in the future. My metric for a world-class tax code would be one that you don't need software to complete in a few hours. That means the AMT is history.
But you are talking Trump not paying taxes as being equivalent to my taking incentives or even loss. Specifically the nearly Billion dollar loss he claimed. Like I said, I agree that one should be able to claim loss for a deduction. But that is not what Trump did. Trump used a real estate loop hole that allowed him to claim investments made by others as his loss. In other words, he gained by losing other peoples money. That's certainly not your normal loss and in no way an incentive. That's a loophole where Trump claimed the loss based on other people's money and the other people claimed a loss on the same money as an investment. And it was a loophole that opened and closed for a very short time. In other words, as soon as the Supreme Court affirmed it, Trump jumped on it. Both Hillary and Pence voted to close it shortly thereafter. So legal yes. Loophole yes. Incentive --- not really.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2016/10/06/if-donald-trump-exploited-supreme-court-approved-loophole-what-does-it-mean/2/#618f92451470
So sure, I agree close all the loop holes ASAP, not a problem, always have.
Iman and Ijay --- yeah, you're right, that looks weird. Just pulled it off the web. It's NJ so maybe South Jersey pulls it down.
But 8% looks even weirder.
PS Iman --- it's based on the property value, not income.....
https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-jersey-property-tax-calculator
So basically you want loopholes, ergo you require higher taxation to pay for them.
Sorry if you don't care for the language, but if that's not the biggest pile of bs then I don't know what is. You're basically saying you don't want to fix anything, and merely want to extend the game so more can be taken. Selfish indeed.
Nice talking with you, wish you would talk nice rather than spicing it up by spewing your turdberfel....
I actually understand what you are saying when you define deductions and credits as loopholes. To the degree that a loophole lets you pay less taxes than the marginal rate, you are right. From dictionary.com: the first sentence on loophole: "A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes."
But to the strict definition of the word. No. The second sentence of the same definition: "The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law."
In other words, the definition from Investopedia.com broadens to cover aspects including but beyond taxes alone for loopholes: "A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law or restriction without directly violating the law. ... Loopholes are most prevalent in complex business deals involving tax issues, political issues and legal statutes."
Credits and deductions are legal based on the rules. So are loopholes but the difference are that loopholes exploit legal advantages not intended by the lawmakers.
Specifically my personal examples followed the law as intended. So did Trump's but the law was written badly leaving a loophole allowing Trump to declare a business loss of other people's money while those people could declare an investment loss on the same money. The law did not intend for double-counting, nor for businessmen to take personal losses on other people's investment money, and the loophole was closed quickly as noted in the links above.
I do understand that you believe any reduction in taxes to be a loophole. You start from the premise that tax is theft so really, what other conclusion could you come to. I get it.
Hope that clarifies the definition.
Actually I said I wanted to scrap the entire tax code which sort of implies that I am looking to fix it. It's just that I believe in progressive taxes, I believe in a system of credits and deductions, both of which are intended to incent actions that we, the people through our duly elected representatives, believe are beneficial to our American society as a whole. In scrapping the tax code, I think I indicated the goal was to simplify the whole thing. But simplification does not have to mean abolishing credits or deductions, it means simplifying them. And not liking them does not mean our system of representative government is wrong.
We both agree loopholes are bad. We just, at this point, don't agree to the definition.
"PS Iman --- it's based on the property value, not income....."
Perhaps, but all of the other percentages you listed are based on gross income, so you apparently threw an orange into your bag of apples and then used it and added it in with the other percentages to come up with the overall 33% tax rate. My point is that next to no one makes 50 times what they pay in property tax, so it's a lot higher than 2% of AGI.
My property tax bill is about 8% of MY salary, but when you add in my wife's income, it comes out to about 5.3% of the overall household AGI.
You're right, I screwed up. You can't add the 6% and 2%. Apples and nectarines.
Best I can do is look at total tax, property, income, and sales and say the number is 12.2% actually putting us at number 8 amongst the states. Highest property taxes in the union though pointing to the screw up in the tax structure that hits the retired more than any other group. We also have the third highest income which makes number 8 in taxes look better. Can't tell the year, probably around 2013. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/uss_top-taxed_states.html#13
As to total taxes, and is the price going up, the answer is probably not on average, but at an individual level, it depends. If in NJ, retired, and owning a home, you probably took a drop in year one of retirement but have been increasing ever since. If you are working, probably not, unless you just bought a new, larger, more expensive home and then, ouch.
Point is that this will probably not turn the scales on the fact that we are paying the lower Federal income tax rate in generations which is amazing given two wars and The Great Recession stimulus. Does help explain the debt though.
We were trying to answer the question are Federal Taxes going up; which is a no, quite the opposite. While we can all say we pay too much taxes, the thought that we pay more is sadly way wrong. We are the greediest generation when it comes to investing in our country.
Then it morphed to total taxes going up which is a probable no given that Federal Taxes are the majority of total taxes. At least if you start from the point of the Reagan Tax Cuts or Bush II tax cuts.
And NJ's tax structure sucks, and our total rates are pretty bad, could be worse, could be better. At least according to what other states do and where they rate.
As complicated as it is to determine what is fair at the state level, the federal level is much worse. What do you expect your federal government to do, not to do? If we can't solve the state fairness issues we have non hope of addressing the federal issues...
"The gas tax is tied to the consumption of gasoline in New Jersey to guarantee that it produces a consistent amount of revenue. If the state collects money over and above a cap, the tax rate will be lowered. If gas sales fall and it doesn't generate enough revenue, the tax will be raised."
So let's pass a law telling everyone to empty their pockets.
Then lets pass another law to allow folks to put a little back in. Then another law that results on the same. Heck, lets just keep passing laws to let those who need to be "incentive'd" to keep filling their pockets back up.
Oh wait, that's what we have now, 74,608 pages of tax code. If you figure it takes a page or so to describe the percentage to *take* from each of our pockets, that leaves 74,606 pages of tax code. Just what do you think those pages are for, if not to provide a reason to fill up someones pockets?
So yeah, I have a problem with that. You don't, and have frequently talked about all the nice ways to refill your pockets. And yet, still, you have the gall to complain about how much someone else can use the tax code to refill their pockets? Pot meet Kettle.
So now I see an article that states " feds are looking for 14 million back that was given to state for Sandy relief ( seems Christie appointed an out of state firm to disperse the funds ) ....are you kidding me ????
You're just not comprehending what I am saying jit.
First, I have said, now a number of times that I favor a simplified code. I think we agree here except you keep saying a single deduction does not qualify for being simplified. I believe my metric is one that anyone can complete, without software, in a few hours at most, deductions included.
Second, yes I am all in favor of people legally using the tax code to pay their minimum. It's in the rules.
Third, and this is where we differ. I have no issue with a system of deductions and credits given the tax code is simplified from today. Even Reagan continued that process to a degree adding a number of "incentives." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Again, I believe in a simplified tax code including deductions: "intended to incent actions that we, the people through our duly elected representatives, believe are beneficial to our American society as a whole." I have no problem incenting the family, advanced education for children, and given the current environment --- even improving home energy efficiency and lowering green house gases. A tax code including deductions is not mutually exclusive with a simplified code. And I don't see it necessarily lining anyone's pockets, just providing some incentive to act is ways that benefit our society at the time. And these would be selected by our elected representatives, we the people, in service to we the people.
Put timeframes on them for review, maybe a cap as to how many can be incorporated, as well so we don't grow again into a cumbersome, onerous and convoluted code and still fulfill the goal that almost anyone can complete without the need for software support.
Chances are we disagree here too: flat tax versus progressive. I find the flat tax to favor the rich, disadvantage the poor and middle and that makes it not fair. Fair being objective of course and in my case, based on the amount of disposable income remaining post paying taxes. I find progressive taxation to be much more fair.
http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/beck/doherty-bateman-beck-blast-democrats-plans-to-fund-pork-rail-projects-with-new-gas-taxes-from-ttf/29949
Once they get the ballot question approved there will no way to get this repealed.
" Fair being objective of course and in my case, based on the amount of disposable income remaining post paying taxes. I find progressive taxation to be much more fair."
I could be wrong because I don't know much about this- but my opinion is taxes should be based simply on being a singular human.
We all have equal access to the roads, parks, schools, police and fire. We should all pay the same cost for such. How much disposable income should not be a factor.
Because someone either works very hard, very talented, longer hours, etc should not burden them with a bigger piece of the pie of taxes vs someone who has no desire or motivation to rise above a job that a common teenager can get.
Take the 'cost of living in society' and split it up equally- that is your price to pay for being human. If that doesn't leave you with any 'disposable income' then find a way to make yourself more valuable to an employer for more pay. Carry your weight. THAT is fair.
Josh So a hedge fund billionaire should pay the same as a Shop Rite cashier? " Equal cost of living in society"? Wrong and naive on so many levels. Single parents working two jobs to pay rent and feed and clothe children need to "carry their weight "? People living off inheritances and investments are carrying their weight? That is "fair"?
"You're just not comprehending what I am saying jit."
Well, I would hope that's the case. But anyone can talk the talk, it's far harder to walk the walk. Claiming you'd like restraint on one hand then asking for bigger government in nearly every circumstance on the other is hard to rectify given my perceptions of your views. You know, I think we've both been on this board for a while now (is it 10 years yet?). After all that time, do you not know what I'm going to write even before you read my comments? I think you probably do, just as I've got a good idea of the position you'll take.
So I think I comprehend just fine, it's the correlation that I am having significant issues with...
And you are just the person to decide who can keep their property! Got it!
Cue the mob rule in three, two, one... ;-)
A vote "yes" to allocate the gas tax increase to allot the monies to go to the transportation fund will not fix the road and bridges. It gives Trenton free reign to use the funds for their light rail projects in South Jersey and to buy buses and trains. Warren County has virtually no public transportation. Do no be deceived by Trenton.
"So a hedge fund billionaire should pay the same as a Shop Rite cashier? " Equal cost of living in society"? Wrong and naive on so many levels. Single parents working two jobs to pay rent and feed and clothe children need to "carry their weight "? People living off inheritances and investments are carrying their weight? That is "fair"?"
You reap what you sow in life, live accordingly. I smell democrat.
"So a hedge fund billionaire should pay the same as a Shop Rite cashier? "
Sure, unless you can logically instead of emotionally explain why? Is the hedge fund guy causing more road damage, police, fire, school? Again- the job doesn't matter, a human is a human. It is quite simple.
"Equal cost of living in society"? Wrong and naive on so many levels."
Waiting on an explanation.
"Single parents working two jobs to pay rent and feed and clothe children need to "carry their weight "?"
Yes. Nobody told them to have kids, same as nobody forced people to run up college debt, mortgages, fancy cars or credit card debt. It's called responsibility for ones actions. Rare concept these days I know.
"People living off inheritances and investments are carrying their weight? That is "fair"?"
Aren't they still taxed? Of course they are. Still waiting on a factual arguement.
Agreed yankeefan, but you don't unstack the deck by legalizing what would otherwise be criminal activity.
You address the real problem, which is government itself that allows and condones two sets of rules and encourages unethical behavior in all sides.
As Warren Buffett famously said..."there is something wrong when my secretary pays taxes at a higher rate than me".
calico - I'm not for spending the money for the light rail at this point, when you're struggling to pay expenses it isn't the time for capital investments. But putting that aside, isn't putting the money in the general fund far more "free reign"? Not only will roads and bridges go unfixed, it's going to end up paying for debt interest and Homestead Rebate gimmicks.
It's a no win situation because the money is already misspent, and a gas tax isn't a great way to make up for that. But some buses and trains that keep people off the roads and bridges in the first place isn't the worst idea out there. It just needs to be a smaller part of a whole plan that makes sense. It might actually be better to have it ear marked and then fight for spending it right than using the money to cover even worse mistakes.
GC Josh - Even if Yankeefan has added some statements about morality, he's still essentially right. What you are talking about hurts the young, the old, and the poor because they don't have the kind of money that's involved. Run through the actual numbers - assuming you don't want to charge kindergartners $12,000 a piece then you're going to hit adults slightly less than $16,000 each. (given current US budgets) Think about your senior on SS. That's a couple of thousand dollars more than their benefits. To them you're not only taking away that income, you're also handing them an additional tax bill. How many seniors out there have nothing more than SS and can afford to pay $2,000 more, and then still have money for rent and food?
There's more to your statements making it seem like all anyone in the world needs to do is just work harder or smarter and they earn as much money as they want. No, people unwilling to work shouldn't be rewarded. But believing pay is just a function of time and smarts put in isn't right either.
"I could be wrong because I don't know much about this- but my opinion is taxes should be based simply on being a singular human." I agree to this also but the real question revolves around fairness and is it fair to tax the poor and the rich at the same rate? I use "disposable" income as a measure of fair, not that it would ever be used to assess a tax rate. Using a flat tax, IMO, is less fair than a progressive tax. Do we really have "equal access to the roads, parks, schools, police and fire." Last I checked, the rich have improved access to almost all of those facilities. Easier time with the courts and taxes too. But what's fair about "being a singular human," as a example, a 10% flat tax. Let's say you need $90 to live each year just as "being a singular human." You make $100, pay 10 to IRS and can live your year with nothing to spare. The rich guy makes $1,000, pays $100 and lives on, cuz he's rich, $300 a year, leaving $600 to play around with. If you tax him at 20%, he still has $500 to play with at the end of the year. Sounds fair enough to me.
I don't begrudge him his salary, but don't tell me to work harder, I'm doing my 40 a week at Walmart, I finished High School with adequate grades, I'm smart enough, I am not lazy. Shouldn't he be thankful for his success and maybe put a bit more in the kitty for the common good of America, the country that made it all possible? I mean if I don't work at Walmart, he isn't going to remain rich for long.....
"People living off inheritances and investments are carrying their weight? That is "fair"?" Aren't they still taxed? Of course they are." Not if they shelter it in an tax free investment that allows the full spectrum of investing possibilities. Most rich folk set it up this way before they die.
"Claiming you'd like restraint on one hand then asking for bigger government in nearly every circumstance on the other is hard to rectify Claiming you'd like restraint on one hand then asking for bigger government in nearly every circumstance on the other is hard to rectify." I am not sure I have even asked for bigger government much less in nearly every circumstance and certainly not in this exchange.
Not a clue what you are talking about with a correlation.....
Normally I am against earmarked funds. Seems to take the responsibility away from those we voted for to take that responsibility as a major portion of their job. But in this case I am voting yes --- because they deserve it. Doesn't change much, they allocate the major portion to transportation today and after that the same process occurs whether they get all the money or some of it. But yes, transportation will have more money next year than ever before......probably.
No matter what you vote, the next step is to demand they spend it wisely. We know we suck at paying for roads, paying 10 times what many pay. CT laughs at us, NY laughs at us. We need t5 demand to our representatives that a cost improvement plan is required and that they will be judged on the results.
As an aside, we should also raise the minimum wage so Walmarters can actually work and live.
'People living off inheritances and investments are carrying their weight? That is "fair"?'
The top 20% of earners (Those earning 134k and up) pay 83.9% of income tax in America. I don't understand how that's not 'paying their fair share' when 1 out of every 5 in the US pay over 3/4 of the total income tax.
Don't listen to everything the media spews.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384
Meister, that's really only looking at pure dollars. Of course the rich pay the most . If you make a $1,000,000 and I make $75,000, you pay more in terms of dollars.
That doesn't mean that the system is equitable. The millionaire gets capital gains breaks, carried interest breaks, gets to write off mortgage interest (so buy the McMansion).Little old me doesn't have a stock portfolio or an S corporation
to play games with, and I rent. Hence Buffett's complaint that the system lets him pay at a lower rate than his secretary. Sure, he pays more dollars than she does, but his rate is far lower, and as a percentage of his income, it's way more manageable for him than for his secretary. Full disclosure: I own a large home and have a stock portfolio.
And why is a consumption tax so easily dismissed? It deals with both views equally well whil simultaneously encouraging the lower classes to save and bump up their class status.
A consumption tax is more than fair for the population, but highly unliked by both the rich and those in power. The rich because the good life would now have a cost associated with it, and those in power because they can't control individual choice to spend, an unpredictable revenue stream.
But it would be in the best interest of maintaining a fair and just society for all. Surely that couldn't be a bad thing.
And it would put class envy in its proper place - the trash bin where it belongs.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, French finance minister said: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” Methinks some geese hiss for somebody else's feathers.....:>)
It's a messy job figuring out what's fair.
I would not be against a consumption tax, a tax on value-added goods, and other innovations. To rely solely on a consumption tax, like the flat tax, disadvantages the poor while advantaging the rich. So I would not rely on it for the major revenue flow. It's unfair. The poor would end up paying a higher % of total earnings for consumption than the rich because it's a flat tax. It's a matter of volume.....
Yes, the top 20% carry 84% of the tax load. They make more too, even after taxes. Hell the top 1% carry close to 50% of the tax load. That means the next 83% carry about 34% of the load and the next 16% carry 16%. And the bottom 45% pay no income tax and so are not even in the equation (unless they counted the negatives).
The top 20% of Americans also own 85% of the country's wealth. That's 80-cents of every dollar. 3/4 of every acre. 8-stories of every 10-story building..... And you think the crowd owning 85% of America should shoulder less than 84% of the tax burden? Seems they do pretty well even after being taxed at such egregious rates.
The top 100 families own more than the entire African-American community owns. Take it out to 182 and you own more than our Hispanic community. At the top 400, the richest own more than the bottom 61%. Just the top 20, a Trump plane full, if you will, own more of America than the bottom 152 MILLION people. Twenty people/152 million people. Wanna take odds out of 152 million, how many are smarter and work harder than one of those 20.
In other words, the top twenty people own more than the combined people of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey. (removing the rich ones first.....)
https://www.thenation.com/article/20-people-now-own-as-much-wealth-as-half-of-all-americans/
It's a messy game figuring out what's fair. Especially if you look at our fathers.
Up until WWII, only the very rich paid income tax.
The rest is in marginal rates, not effective rates.
Around 1916, the top rate was 75%.
During the 40's to the mid 60's, it was 90%. That's why they were the greatest generation. They paid their bills, paid down the debt, and the rich chipped in mightily.
From about 1965 to 1982, the top rate was 70%.
It's a messy game figuring out what's fair.
Today, it's around 40%. Historically speaking I'd say that's far-freaking fair.
IMO, two wars, the war of terrorism, some hurricanes, forest fires and other climate change events, The Great Recession, all conspired to give us a WWII sized debt. We all should be paying more. And given the economy, the amount of US assets owned by the same group carrying the tax load, I have no problem starting with the rich and circling round to the rest of us once we get a little more economic strength out of our engine.
So what's fair? Is less always more? Is more always wrong? At $20,000,000,000,000 in debt ---- when do you chip in to pay that down?
yankeefan, the definition of a millionaire is not one who makes a million per year. Look it up.
And write offs are not only for the rich. Anyone who manages their money responsibly should be rewarded for it. The money has already been taxed once when it was earned. Why should it be taxed at 30% or more yet again?
How much is enough?
Most millionaires are self made in this country. Over 80% are first generation and did not inherit their wealth, hit the lottery, etc.
MNJ, unless I'm missing something, the profit (capital gains) WASN'T previously taxed, only the principal investment was. If anything, that money should be taxed at a higher rate than money that someone actually worked for, not less (or not at all).
All for the consumption tax... right on, JIT. But we all know that the FED will never let that happen because "choosing not to consume" is anathema to their debt-based inflationary economy.
Meister completely misses the point. The term millionaire was simply an example. These days a million ain't what it used to be anyway. The point is that the very wealthy have a myriad of tax benefits the middle and lower classes can't take advantage of. I'd also like to see your source for your claim that 80% are first generation. Very doubtful and even if true, I would submit that they were advantaged in other ways...educationally, racially or economically.
As for a consumption tax, it greatly disadvantages lower income people. They spend the majority of their income (and that's paychecks, not investment income) on food and shelter. For the rich, that's a rounding error.
Eliminate carried interest, S corporation dodges, capital gain scams. Tax inheritances
At some level, maybe $3million and up. And go after the corporations that make hundreds of millions in profits yet somehow pay no taxes. I find it hard to believe any thoughtful person would disagree.
"As for a consumption tax, it greatly disadvantages lower income people. They spend the majority of their income (and that's paychecks, not investment income) on food and shelter."
Myth. Why? Because it's easily dealt with by excluding clothing and food, something we are all accustomed to already.
"It's a messy game figuring out what's fair."
Well, that's the real problem there isn't it? Who are you to say what's "fair"? Or anyone else for that matter? What you consider fair I consider outright theft!
The biggest plus about a consumption tax (well, a plus for me but for the control freaks not so much) is choice. By golly if I want to save for something I want I would be able to do so without being punished for it. Choice. The opposite is what we have now, and you all are aware of my views on that lol.
Myth? C'mon man. Exclude food and clothing. Really. How about shelter? Childcare? Healthcare?
You have a real plan or just glib meanderings?
Yes, ianimal, I'm talking about the principal. People earned money, paid taxes on it, were smart enough to live below their means, invested what was left after taxes, and now use it to build wealth. IMO, you don't penalize that.
yankeefan, at least I looked it up rather than assuming. Why would you think it's 'very doubtful'? Gut feeling? Figure comes from Dr. Tom Stanley, author of 'The Millionaire Next Door' who has studied millionaires and their habits for years:
'In a 2013 survey of American millionaires by BMO Private Bank, two thirds (67%) said they were self-made, meaning they hadn’t inherited their wealth. “Millionaire Next Door” author Thomas J. Stanley wrote that, in his years of research, he found that about 80%-86% of America’s millionaires were self-made. […]'
And to just state that the very wealthy are the only ones who can take advantage of tax breaks is just incorrect. People of all incomes can become a millionaire. They are smart with their money and save save save. They invest in 401k's over their working life, buy a home that appreciates, invest in real estate, own successful businesses, etc. etc. They then come to a point where they are able to take advantage of capital gains, interest deductions, etc. Is that not the American Dream?
I agree, a million is not what it used to be, and just because you're a millionaire, doesn't necessarily mean you're wealthy (esp in NJ). If you read the book, the average millionaire doesn't necessarily have a high income, doesn't buy new cars every couple years, doesn't eat out 4 times a week. They live in modest houses. In short, they spend a lot less than they make.
What is wrong with investment income? Why shouldn't a person be able to reap the rewards of saving? Not to mention that they are putting money back into the economy and driving economic activity and growth? You would also be hurting retirees whose income is mostly derived from investments and makes up for SS that falls far short most Americans and may not even be there in a couple decades.
Yes, close some loopholes, no argument there. Corporations as well. I do agree that the offshore loophole should be closed.
I think it's just wrong to criticize ALL the 'wealthy' as tax dodging non contributors. Just as it would be wrong to criticize ALL the poor as being entitlement sucking deadbeats.
Again, If the top 20% of the earners are paying 84% of all income tax, they're paying an awful lot and maybe the loopholes aren't as great as the media make them out to be. Is 84% not 'paying their share'?
SD if you to look at what the poor spend or cost the system versus their net worth (which is next to nothing) it would be a different story...
"Because it's easily dealt with by excluding clothing and food, something we are all accustomed to already." So you're already putting in incentives and deductions..... At some point you get to a luxury tax only which I am sure the poor and middle classes would be gung ho to adopt...:>)
"Again, If the top 20% of the earners are paying 84% of all income tax, they're paying an awful lot and maybe the loopholes aren't as great as the media make them out to be. Is 84% not 'paying their share'?" The top 20 percent own 85% of every asset in America. That's own as in it's theirs and not yours or not ours. Paying 84% to keep the surrounds around their 85% looking OK and running OK and being protected OK seems like a deal to me.
How many of the top 20% died in Iraq. Benghazi. Afghanistan.
We owe $20,000,000,000 because of 2 wars, one flippin Great Recession, ongoing war on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, the Western Fires, Monika Lewinsky hearings, 50 ObamaCare repeal attempts, 7 Benghazi hearings, and Solyndra (kidding, we made money on that deal) and you're bemoaning taking the top rate above the current 40% to pre-Bush levels?
You think you got some mighty principles holding strong to protect the finances of those who don't need your help.... Heck, I say zero-base the budget for 5 years minimum, raise all our tax rates, earmark the adder to pay down the debt and we can lower it again when we hit zero 30 years from now....... How about them principles.
Consumption tax is unfair just like the flat tax. Amount of disposable income left over is radically different for the poor and middle class than the rich. At one side you have zero to little money left over after you pay your tax and at the other side, you have more than you could ever dispose of (which is a major reason that only the rich invest). If you tax progressively, the same can be true, but less likely since you are bringing in much more revenue as incomes rise. Yet these people still have more disposable income than one could ever dispose of.
tax is 10%, yearly base budget is $90
You make $100, pay $10 in taxes, spend $90 to live and have $0 left
You make $1,000, pay $100 in taxes, spend $300 to live rich, and have $600 left
I don't think that's fair, IMO.
If everyone pays the same %, its fair. No it's not.
If everyone pays the same amount, it's fair. No it's not, same reason
If everyone pays the same tax on consumption, it's far. No, same reason.
Now if you start "sculpting" the consumption tax for staples to be excluded, it's not really a consumption tax anymore. It's a luxury tax that targets certain groups and buying habits.
No incentives at all. Why? Because there's a big difference between forced taxation voluntary choice. In this case there would be a built-in check valve on the government because taxation would be directly related to our standard of living. The higher our collective standard of living the better off those on the bottom would be.
Luxury tax? Go for it. It's still a voluntary choice to buy the expensive stuff - no gun to anyone's head!
Besides, I thought you said the basic necessities of life should be affordable for all? I don't know how much better you could get when basic needs are tax free.
"The higher our collective standard of living the better off those on the bottom would be." In what Universe is this always true. Sometimes, maybe. Always, never.
What if the guy who makes a $1,000 pays $100 in taxes, starts a business and hires 4 people at $100 dollars and has $500 left. Would that be fair?
In the universe where the government must act responsibly because the system mandates it: Over tax, no sales and the economy dumps. Under tax, the economy explodes.
All because of choice.
At the beginning of The Great Recession, Hoover dropped taxes to a historic low. Didn't work.
Reagan both raised and lowered taxes, so which one worked?
Bush dropped taxes to record lows. How did that work overtime?
This will sound bad no matter how it's said, so I'll apologize in advance because it's not my intention to be mean about this: If you not only expect but desire to be led by the nose through life, following and salivating over all the tidbits and breadcrumbs thrown about by politicians, then I could see why would you expect raising and lower of taxes to be a primary motivation for living your life. But thats just wrong. What I'm talking about is shifting to a system that allows us to shift, at least partially, control of our lives from the government back to ourselves. Maybe it takes a savers mentality to understand, but the simple concept of allowing people to save as they see fit, with a risk level based on their own personal comfort zone without being penalized every step of the way by the "system", would go a long way toward easing the social tensions in society. Add in the feedback loop of restraint, a consumption tax would be as close to a win-win as we will ever get.
It must be me. I read many of JIT's posts several times thinking I must be missing something. That somewhere buried in his vague and opaque posts there must be a kernel of wisdom. Yet I am sadly unable to translate his words into any kind of a coherent position. So, no apology necessary, JIT, I'm not at all offended. Although I suppose implying that many of us want to "be led by the nose through life, following and salivating over all the tidbits and breadcrumbs thrown about by politicians" could be construed as an insult, I don't take it as one. I'm just too dense to be offended by something that for me is much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Think about all the tax credits you seek at tax time yankeefan. Why do they exist, if not to direct your behaviors and choices in the direction that the government wants you to go? They exist because human nature usually makes people take the path of the least resistance, which, when it comes to money, typically is the one where you feel like you're "getting something" and thus your actions can be controlled to a certain extent. Think of it a reward system for participating the current system. But at the end of the day those tax credits are nothing more than a path of breadcrumbs controlling our "choices" so that the flow of money goes where those in power want it to go. And funny enough (actually not funny at all) the money never winds up where you think it will, for if it did we wouldn't have poverty, the homeless, uncared for sick, crumbling roads, etc. Ever wonder why that is? It's the equivalent of the shell game, a not-so-delicate unbalance of forceful taking of property via taxation and borrowing money through debt, ensuring that the bulk of it flows to the folks who've designed and perpetuate the system. And us peons are left to wonder why we never seem to be able to make headway in life.
As for the rest, surely you don't expect to understand the views of others from 50 word comments about specific topics on a forum, do you? I'm actually very easy to understand because I've been more or less a one-trick pony on this forum: Debt is the root cause for nearly every "problem" we see today. IMO sadly very few see it for what it is because they are too busy blindly follow the rules of the current system to get what they can without ever thinking it through to the end. Because we are all human, and it is in our nature to follow the path of least resistance. Breadcrumbs and all. ;-)
Forgive me for not wanting to scroll through everything here. The thread has gotten into lots of tax talk other than the gas tax. Has the diesel tax increase been discussed here? I hadn't even heard about that part of the $0.23 bill until a few days ago. I can't find the exact language. It's something about the tax on diesel fuel getting raised in Jan. 2017 and then again in Jul. 2017. Are these two tax raises in addition to the Nov. 2016 tax raise? Or does the Nov. raise not apply to diesel? I hear Jan. tax raise plus the Jul. tax raise will be a total of $0.29. Trying to find out if that means $0.52 total.
I don't own a diesel vehicle, but this is going to be murder on businesses small and large.
Here's a decent writeup of that the bill entails:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/qa_how_will_the_gas_tax_deal_affect_my_taxes.html
Thanks The_Bishop! That cleared up a lot, but there was nothing in there regarding the January and July 2017 diesel tax increase. Anybody have a link on that?
It's not being mean or demeaning to claim you're right because the other guy's position shows his "desire to be led by the nose through life, following and salivating over all the tidbits and breadcrumbs thrown about by politicians..." "What I'm talking about is shifting to a system that allows us to shift, at least partially, control of our lives from the government back to ourselves." "Maybe it takes a savers mentality to understand..." implying that the other guy's position proves he's not a saver....
Therefore: "Add in the feedback loop of restraint, a consumption tax would be as close to a win-win as we will ever get."
That makes some, IMO, "sadly unable to translate his words into any kind of a coherent position."
First, JIT, I am a saver. Not that saving has anything to do with your conclusion on consumption tax unless somehow you believe that savings will be dictated by the things you consume. No, only based on the things you consume not necessary to your survival. In other words, discretionary spending.
But then you modify to say that the consumption tax would ONLY apply to discretionary spending when you say: "I don't know how much better you could get when basic needs are tax free."
We already have some consumption tax even at the Federal level. Federal gas tax is like consumption, so is state sales tax. But JITs recommendation to replace the income tax with consumption would mean some radical changes.
The good news: no need to do taxes anymore. Plus no tax on savings, capital gains, and the like. So JIT is right if what he meant was now their is one less reason against savings and one more reason to buy as little as possible. Somehow that's not increasing free will; it's just changing the incentives. Its possible that even with these reasons, no habits change OR they could go farther in the direction they are heading (whatever that is).
The bad news: on average, today we pay about 8.5% sales tax, effective rate. Average income tax is about 16% meaning we would triple the current sales tax to cover income tax. However, that does not include the deleted taxes for capital gains and savings interest. Add in close to 10% for capital gains and you probably get a conservative estimate of a tripling of current sales tax. If you exclude staples for living from the consumption tax, you would go beyond a tripling effect. Conservative estimates are a 35% adder to the sales tax for a combined 43% sales and consumption tax on top of the price we pay for goods.
Somehow I don't see this as JIT's "control of our lives from the government back to ourselves" but instead just see the type of control shift from the current to one of limited consumption. It's the same thing, just different.
And this does not include a selective consumption tax to avoid taxing staples of life; that would make the rate on non-staples higher pushing non-stables to truly luxury levels. It's more like adding on top of the current sales taxes imposed on select goods by the states. Not exact since each state has different methods.
No country that uses consumption tax has removed the income tax nor the need to file taxes.
Consumption tax described above does not change payroll. You don't want to know how high the consumption tax would be if those were rolled in.
At some point with consumption tax, you get to a lucrative black market where the risk to avoid tax becomes attractive for avoidance. Most countries have found a 12% sales tax to be that ceiling. 43% would certainly create a robust black market for goods and services calling for a new enforcement team to control (which they would lose badly at). Buy Mexican/Canadian may become the new mantra.
Like I said, IMO I don't see reliance on a consumption tax viable or fair but can see it used to garner a portion of Federal Revenues. As far as control of your spending tendencies, it's does not lessen the control, it's just moves the chess pieces to JIT's way of thinking that he is not being controlled.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/dont-buy-the-sales-tax/
A couple of things:
What you and I call savings are likely different. For instance, I don't call my 401k a true savings because that "savings" could be potentially wiped out in a heartbeat - it's more like a roulette wheel, albeit a manipulated one. IOW, it's something I have no control over. But I do it because I have no other choices. There are really no material things that hold their value, and our money (which by it's very definition is supposed to be a store of value) is consistently devalued by the hidden tax of inflation and thus is constantly being eroded. So no, there are really no ways to truly save without being forced to accept a risk of loss. But if I were King I'd like to change that, even though those in power would hate it because by fixing things I would remove their ability of manipulation.
"It's not being mean or demeaning to claim you're right because the other guy's position shows his..."
I hope you realize the words I used directly coincide with the very concepts you yourself have said are benefits of taxation, the "incentives" you so dearly love. Why are you being intentionally dishonest by pretending to be offended by the reality of what it is?
JIT, a couple of comments...
A 401k isn't "savings" because it might lose value? Or gain in value? Pure semantics. Of course it's savings. For that matter gold goes up and down as well. So a stack of gold bullion sounds like savings to me. You are forced to accept the risk of loss. Or gain. I suppose back in the day the man with a pile of shells and beads was "rich" until people decided furs were more valuable. So maybe you'd favor us by expounding on how King JIT would "fix things".
I guess that thinking about what money is, specifically "honest money", hasn't been on your radar yankeefan. I think you would find the subject interesting, with a side benefit that you might understand a different perspective. Google the term for background. Here's a start that looks to be pretty good:
https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/ei/ei9601.pdf
The King needs to send me to a link that explains money? King of vague obfuscation. Can you elucidate In YOUR words? You condescend very well but you're ultimately a bun with no burger. No offense. Oh, and if you're short of cash you can take a loan from your 401k to buy the meat. You know, your non- savings account.
Ping Pong game over. It's like playing against a wall.
Well, I guess since you understand the concept of honest money that I needn't explain that King JIT would push for a monetary system that wasn't specifically designed to benefit those who run it, a system that respected you and i as individuals, and a system in which restraint of those running it was part of the package. But you already knew that.
Or I could forget all that and just keep the unrestrained system we have, not worry that it's abuse, supposedly for my benefit (even though we all know that it's not), is at the expense of future generations, and where I close my eyes and shut off my brain and completely ignore reality because acknowledgement of the true nature of it would horrify me. Yeah, I could could be like you Yankeefan and just want to keep the current system and milk it for all it's got. But I can't, and so we will continue to disagree...
Not to take away from your heated debate, but the Lt. Governor urges New Jersey voters to vote "NO" on question #2.
NJ101.5 had a lengthy discussion today on why we should vote NO on ballot question 2. Google to read. Typical politics - we as voters and taxpayers don't need to know how we are being screwed.
justwondering Here's an article that explains why to vote "no".
http://www.northjersey.com/news/guadagno-joins-republican-revolt-against-gas-tax-increase-1.1683655
So, voting "no" will allow the government to use the $0.23 gas tax on whatever they want and not to dedicate it to transportation. It does nothing to lower or eliminate the gas tax, just removes any restrictions on what the government can spend it on. Yeah, I think I'll be voting "yes"...
So let's make all laws constitutional just to make the legislators do the job they are paid to do????
No thanks. Better to send them all packing IMO.
Only in NJ. The Lt Gov comes out directly opposing the gov saying a no vote is somehow a vote against the gas tax in the first place.
And then the gov says:
That prompted a terse response from Christie spokesman Brian Murray.
“The governor supports Ballot Question 2 because it will ensure that all gas tax revenues can only be spent on roads, bridges and mass transit. This protects taxpayers from future wasteful spending by Democrat legislators. The governor finds it hard to believe that the lieutenant governor supports giving an unguarded pot of money to the Democrat-controlled Legislature, rather than on needed infrastructure projects,” Murray said. “It must be a misunderstanding.”
No wonder they screw it up worse than ever.
The problem is that the rail projects are needed, but they are typical (njtransit) public sector costs - way too expensive. This applies to road and bridge projects as well. School construction where BILLIONS were wasted and not one person held accountable.
Yes folks, we live in a land of no corruption...
ian - The money they borrow, by using the money in the transportation fund as collateral, can be used for anything they want. They are using this constitutional amendment only to borrow more money that they can piss away.
VOTE NO PEEPS!
That doesn't even make sense, Calico. Who in their right mind would allow someone to use money that ultimately can't be used to repay the loan as collateral for the loan in the first place?
The current law says 10.5 cents dedicated to roads with a minimum of $200M, I think. This year we brought in 541M, dedicated about $215M of it to transportation. The new tax will add about $1.4B in revenue and supposedly these schmucks said they did it to fix the roads. But the current laws says they don't have to add one penny to the roads over what they are spending today based on the new increase.
Currently our roads carry a $30B debt. Even if we built no roads with the extra money, but just paid down the roads debt, that would be an improvement for the state.
Most often I agree with JIT that balanced budget, earmarking funds, and zero-based budgeting should NOT be Constitutional amendments. Budgets are a major reason we elect these yo-ho's to the job, it is the job, their job, they should do their job or be fired. However......at the state level, they have proven time after time to not be up for the job.
Most states have a balanced budget amendment in their Constitutions. We shouldn't need it, but face it, these guys just can't do their job in this regard. So it seems to be a good thing since they are unilaterally incompetent when it comes to budgets.
NJ uses zero-based budgeting which is a good thing. Supposedly it means each spending organization starts from zero each year and can not just roll last year's numbers asking for an increase.... Whatever. It's not in the Constitution, we just have been trying it under Christie.
But balanced budgets can be a sham. They only cover operating expenses like salaries, pensions, etc. They do not cover capital expense for long term stuff requiring long term loans. Like buildings, bridges, and roads. So these things get a work around in the balanced budget. The loans are not included, only interest payments and principal payments are included.
So I am voting YES to the gas tax earmark because these schmucks don't deserve to manage the amounts needed, they are incompetent. Take the decision out of their hands, don't let them waste the money elsewhere, make them waste it all on transportation and then focus on solving that waste problem we just highlighted by dedicated all this money.
The bigger problem than budget is that our roads cost 3 times more than the least competent road building states, 12 times worse than some. That's where we really start fixing our roads: at the expense level, not the spending level. Don't matter how much we allocate, we still will spend too much per mile which is the 800lb gorilla on the table that needs to be removed --- not what the budget is.
So I say turn the spotlight on, turn it on big time. Let them try for light rail (mass transit can be good you know), but don't be fooled. These are capital expense events which means the only part that hits the budget are principal and interest payments on the loan --- not the loan. Now we should be able not only to pay down our current loan, but to grab some really HUGE loans for $1.4B a year extra.
We should be the world-class transportation state in no time. If not, at least we didn't waste it on something else we couldn't even see. An extra $1.4B is a pretty bright spotlight.
But if you don't vote yes, then 10.5 cents total (not the approximate 38 cents from the entire gas tax) at a minimum of $200M per year goes to roads. The rest gets lost in the general fund to not fix the pension crisis, not fix he healthcare crisis, or forget about the debt crisis ---- it just gets lost in the budgeting quagmire where however we waste it, we still have a balanced budget at the end of the day.
From the link I posted above.
“What we’re really saying in this ballot question is that you have my permission — the taxpayers — have my permission to borrow $12 billion and pay for it with that 23 cents,” Guadagno said. “You have to vote no.”
Your'e thinking they are paying cash for projects but why pay cash when you can borrow. It is all about the games to balance a current years budget with not enough regard for the long term picture. The long term picture where pensions must be transitioned to 401Ks, and retiree medical abandoned.
What happened to my property tax rebate? Money for retiree medical but now for my property tax rebate...
This is true whether you vote yes or no. It's just WHERE you get permission -- transportation only or anything you want.
I read that. Kim Guadagno saying that does not make it so. And the alternative is for the money to go into the general fund where it can be borrowed against anyway (even if what she is saying is true, which she has not demonstrated in any way, shape or form).
So, has she or anyone else put forth an actual solution that makes sense? Or is she capitalizing on the unpopularity of the gas tax among Republicans and just pandering for votes for her 2017 gubernatorial run?
Unfortunately, and generally tax revenue all goes into one pot. It is just that people are fed up with taxes and they have to earmark tax increases to get the public buy-in. The problem is much higher-level and basic. Our state is spending too much money. Hate (not) to keep saying it but the unions and waste is what is driving these problems. Don't be naive and think otherwise. Pensions, retiree medical, chronic cost overruns cost us -- just common sense...
it really doesn't matter if the tax is directed to roads or not. what happens: state congress decides roads should get $220m in funding. vote yes and $200m comes from the money that came in from the gas tax and $20m comes from the money that came in from other taxes. vote no and the $220m comes from the money that came in from other taxes.
ianimal - More info on why to vote no on question #2.
http://nj1015.com/spadea-explains-why-you-should-vote-no-on-nj-ballot-question-two/
Thanks Calico. If that dude has the story straight, it's a pretty easy decision to make.
I can't understand why anyone would vote "no" and choose to have the money go directly into the general fund with no restrictions whatsoever.
ianimal - They are going to get 12 billion into the general fund anyway which will be unrestricted. The 12 billion will be borrowed on the basis of the money in the transportation account. If there is no dedicated transportation account, they can't borrow the 12 billion against it. This whole thing is bait and switch. Th question is intentionally misleading to make the public think that they are actually having a say on where their taxes go. In the end, no roads will be fixed with that money.
Of course it will. Even if what you say is true, the gas tax money is still going to be in the TTF and used to fix roads and bridges. The fact that the state is $12B more in debt because someone was dumb enough to accept that money as collateral on a loan when they can't get the money in the event of default doesn't change that fact.
That would be like a bank writing me a loan on the value of my house that was actually already owed to a different bank.
justwondering - You're welcome.
To post a link:
Highlight the URL (web address of the page you want to link to), then right click on it and choose copy. Go to where you want to post the link, right click and then choose paste.
In my world, we should have had the chance to vote on the gas tax increase. But majority rules, and the majority of those we elected to vote in our best interest decided we need a tax. Now, we seemingly get to vote on how it gets accounted for?
This is where we need to consider that we have the ruby slippers to fix this. Someone we elected to office borrows 12 billion, we get rid of them. Fearful of losing their cushy job, they will work hard to please us and won't borrow. It's just that NJ sheep do not have the you-know-what to follow through on that. Seems most citizens like parties way too much.
"the unions and waste is what is driving these problems. Don't be naive and think otherwise. Pensions, retiree medical, chronic cost overruns cost us -- just common sense..." You really expect us to be naïve to accept that on face value.
Yes, NJ has a pension funding issue: politicians have robbed from the fund for year.
Does NJ have a pension spending problem. Not compared to other states. Not compared to the private sector for total compensation (salary and pension). Yes, public pensions are higher than private sector (and salaries lower) but only by about 5%. So, on the spending side, it's a tweaking exercise not an egregious amount.
https://www.njpp.org/reports/new-jersey-has-modest-public-pension-benefits
On Health Insurance, I am pretty sure it's a generous plan in a world where insurance requires more co-pays and deductibles and is becoming the dinosaur of the retirement benefits package in the private sector.
But this is true in other states and NJ roads still cost 3 to 10 times what it costs other states. Don't think this is the issue causing that.
On the $12B, that's a max; they are getting about $1.9B, of which $1.4B comes from the 23-cent per gallon tax increase. Most roads are capital expenses so requiring bonds/loans outside the balance budget equation; however the interest and principal payments are included in the budget and would be taken from the $1.9B.
This year we spent about $215M to service the $30B in existing bonds and the $600M we added in bonds in 2016. We have about $30B in total road debt today. We issued $600M in bonds during 2016, about $900M in each of the two preceding years. Not that's a long way from $1.9B (yearly interest and principal payment funding level if you vote yes) and even longer away from $12B --- the maximum.
So seems a bit odd however this spending level would provide the ability to increase the bond level maybe 5 to 7 times but 12B in a single years seems a stretch.
Also, the comment that a no vote signals legislators to review the 23-cent tax increase has no basis. It just puts the funds in the general funds and now legislators will be spending their time divvying up the loot to their favorite projects --- not spending their time trying to give the money back knowing full well that Christie would veto any of that action. And, of course, they would ignore the roads giving them more that the $215M they got this year, but probably not much more.
Nope, I say vote yes, put it all to transportation and focus on the bright spotlight of all that money for roads to call them to task for lowering what we spend per mile of road development. Otherwise, vote no and throw the money away to the general fund where you will never know where it exactly went, just that everybody got Christmas in January......
http://www.state.nj.us/ttfa/faq/
I already told you all how the gas tax could not be raised. Just cancel retiree medical for state workers. This amount exceeds the annual gas tax revenue. There is also nothing legally stopping the state from doing so. It could be implemented almost immediately, after December 31st...
Well if you're voting yes then that seals it: Voting no is the logical choice! ;-)
Thanks again Calico. I usually post from a tablet. I think it is different from posting from a pc but not sure.
iJay --- I am pretty sure while they can cancel retiree medical instantly that they won't touch those who are grandfathered. Not sure many businesses or other states have done that. "No state, however, has cut accrued pension benefits already earned by retirees, which are regarded as a contractual property right."
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/06/04/analysis-retiree-health-benefits-easier-to-cut-than-pensions/?p=all
Of all 200+ person companies offering health coverage, retiree health coverage is now down to 23%. Many states are either cutting or seriously looking at cutting.
So cuts going forward costs but does nothing to current. Not sure even how much that is given at 65, post deductible Medicare covers 20% of all approved procedures.
I agree, NJ should go the way of corporate America, right or wrong, and cut pension health benefits. A number of companies still offer to "pool" retirees into a special plan you can take or not. Beyond the pooling though, no company administration or money. State could do that too; we have a big pool. Then we can either take care of it ourselves in our old age or work to make Medicare solvent and meaningful. Right now it operates like you are out-of-network.
"Well if you're voting yes then that seals it: Voting no is the logical choice! ;-)" I am not sure how much logic is in either cost, but a no vote seals it too. Only difference is now they can spend the money any ole place and any ole how they want to. Bond projects, salaries, people, operating projects, any department or division --- and it won't be roads.
I say instead of a free lunch, carte blanche, across the board, budget increase, instead vote Yes and make them spend the entire increase all on transportation, focus on transportation, and run the rest of the state budget like you have been ---- work that out without an giant influx of bail out money. And then the voters should focus on the transportation focusers to see if they can be professionally competitive with other states. With that much money, we should make the H-town to NYC in 45 minutes mid-town.
As for question one, I am fed up with the bombardment of ads telling me to vote "No" especially the woman who says "I'm voting no and you should too". Fluck off, I'm so sick of these ads that I'm voting yes for question one.
And then it hit me.....the ads are reverse psychology and it worked, on me anyway.
CBGB CBGB
I don't really think they're trying to use reverse psychology on us, but using the "appeal to the masses" by putting a mother up there (subconsciously - I'm afraid for my children's health & safety" heartstrings tug). I have little doubt that they're being paid for by either Atlantic City Casino Groups and/or the Pennsylvania/Connecticut Group of casinos that don't want competition that will pull gamblers from either AC, Eastern Pennsy of Conn. back to NJ rather than making the trip South, West or Northeast.
Personally, I down see too much of a downside, especially if it will allow for the usage of the old Oxwall property (or something similar) and an abandoned or so far unusable other property in Morris County. The old BASF building would possibly be good I think IF (and only IF) they improved the road and rail infrastructures with special casino exits, etc. Rt' 80 East and West traffic can be nightmarish as it is, though "How many extra vehicles would it actually add?" would perhaps be the best question to ask.
Perhaps we should start a thread dedicated to this very question, since I don't think I've seen one already. If more people have thoughts or other suggestions on that, then we should do it. After all, we have until the eighth to vote. I just got my sample ballot in the mail today!
Phil D. The state has spent billions trying to prop up
Atlantic City. Some people benefitted but most certainly not NJ taxpayers. Anyone who has been to Atlantic City recently sees shuttered casinos and dismal poverty. You certainly won't see the thousands of jobs and revitalization we were promised. Vote No.
I like a good casino but plenty in striking distance around here. So seems to me to be successful either another casino has to go broke or casino's everywhere have to sign up more people. Neither of those seem good to me, seems we have enough to me.
Not much good grows up around a casino. And I am saying that while loving a good time in Vegas but can't imagine having a good time in AC. Have tried the little ones and probably in a once in a blue moon for me. Too much other better stuff to do. Just worth waiting on Vegas for that kind of stuff ---- for me.
So I will vote no on ballot question 1.
calico, jr and jit are right about voting no on ballot question 2;:
Why should you vote “no” one question 2? It would force the legislature to revisit the entire package. If question 2 passes, it authorizes up to $12 billion in bonding because the gas tax legislation and ballot question are bound together. There will be no protection for taxpayers from the misuse of funds.
also vote no on ballot question 1, it's not needed, adcs no value,
"It would force the legislature to revisit the entire package." No it doesn't. Not at all.
If you vote no, the only re-visiting will be as the $1.4B in extra new taxes hits the general fund instead of the transportation fund, the politicians will "revisit" to decide how to spend it on any project they want to instead of being forced to spend it on transportation. Voting no does not mean they will revisit the 23-cents, it just means they will spend it on other things from the general fund.
Do you really think if faced with not having to spend the 23 cents on transportation, the politicians will say: "well, we don't need the money in the general fund, let's give it back......."
They can still decide to spend it all on transportation, or anything else they feel like. But they won't choose to spend it all on transportation, they will try to fund their pet projects and glaring shortfalls.
A good portion would probably go to Pension pay-offs and other shortfalls.
That's what a no vote does.
Might want to read this.... according to the Lt. Gov, strangerdanger is incorrect...
Voting no on the measure would force lawmakers back to the bargaining table, according to Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno, who spoke recently on NJ101.5’s Bill Spedia radio show.
“A vote for number two is a vote for the gas tax,” Guadagno said. “If you like the gas tax, then you’re going to like number two.”
Guadagno said voters can essentially nix the gas tax with a no vote
“If you oppose the gas tax, then you have to vote against number two because it requires them all to go back to the drawing board because they can’t borrow the money they need to make it work,” she added.
http://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2016/10/nj-gas-tax/
"Guadagno said voters can essentially nix the gas tax with a no vote"
LOL, that's a lie. The gas tax is going into effect tomorrow. The referendum doesn't get voted on until the following week. The only thing that remains to be seen is where the money is going to go.
If question 2 passes, it authorizes up to $12 billion in bonding because the gas tax legislation and ballot question are bound together.
this empowers the state legislature to authorize the borrowing//bonding of an additional 12 billion dollars without coming back to the public for approval. that's why this ballot question should be voted down.
they will dedicate the 23 cents to the transportation fund, (notice the weasel words, 'transportation' , that's not roads, that's transportation) then come back to us for even more to make up the difference elsewhere in the budget, up to the full 12 billion dollars extra. which they can spend anyway they like. (can you say 'poorly')
the gas tax won't go to road repair, it will go to light rail in south jersey, our roads will still be a mess up here, then what? thew state will come after us for even more to cover their bad spending habits.
once this becomes part of the state constitution it will be there forever, won't be easy to adjust it after it's inked into the constitution document.
i do not believe that this kind of thing should even be in the state constitution. that's not what it's for to be honest.
vote NO on question 2
Seemingly innocuous Ballot Question No. 2 has emerged as an unlikely flashpoint among those angry that the gas tax is going up Tuesday by 22.6 cents a gallon. The question asks voters to guarantee that all gas tax revenues go into the TTF, rather than into the general state budget.
Left unsaid is that $12 billion in borrowing over the next eight years depends on it. The section of the TTF refinancing legislation that permits the state to issue up to $12 billion in transportation program bonds through 2024 takes effect on the day the constitutional amendment is approved.
If it’s not approved, where does that leave things? In limbo.
“Well, obviously we would have to then regroup and need to do whatever we would have to do as a cleanup bill,” said Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, D-Hudson. “But again, I have the utmost confidence in the voters that they will understand.”
One thing a defeat of the ballot question wouldn’t do: Eliminate the hike in the gas tax.
http://nj1015.com/could-this-be-the-nj-gas-tax-version-of-brexit-ballot-question-fuels-opposition/
"they will dedicate the 23 cents to the transportation fund, (notice the weasel words, 'transportation' , that's not roads, that's transportation) then come back to us for even more to make up the difference elsewhere in the budget, up to the full 12 billion dollars extra. which they can spend anyway they like. (can you say 'poorly')"
The only way they can use that money to borrow up to $12B is if the bonds are to fund TRANSPORTATION projects... which is perfectly fine with me. If you have a project that costs a billion dollars, you need to finance it.
that's incorrect Ian, and that's what they are counting on to get this passed,
ballot question2, will dedicate the 23 cents tax to transportation, but the 12 billion in additional borrowing it authorizes will NOT be dedicated to transportation.
and yes, katjubum the tax arrives tomorrow , that's a done deal, voting yes or no wil n ot change that fact.
the problem is that the legislature gets to borrow another 12 billions dollars without asking the public for approval, this additional 12 billion is NOT dedicated to the TTF, they can use it in general funds wherever they want, and trust me they will, they will put out to bond the entire amount , mark my words, and we the taxpaying public will be on the hook for it. that means they will have to raise another additional 12 billion dollars plus interest in taxes to cover the loans they enter into.
vote NO on ballot question #2
Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno is just plain wrong. That would be the maximum bonding level, there is no mandate that the entire increase in the gas tax would be spent for bond payments. It's a maybe. Plus, if you don't allocate it to transportation, you can still get bonds for $12B, just not transportation bonds. Kim knows this but is going up against Christie for spin.
BDog: I do agree with you in spirit that mandating funding levels in the Constitution makes it harder to change the mandate, or even modify for just one year in an emergency. And it restricts lawmakers to an unwavering set of rules requiring no thought whatsoever. But in NJ, not that hard to change. It's just a vote by the people.
If you vote no, and it's not in the Constitution, then the lawmakers can do whatever they want with the 23-cents every year which equals $1.4B extra in spending OR $12B in bond projects (and the $1.4B is used to pay the bond interest). Anything they want and I would gather Kim, for example, has some ideas already.
I agree with you Bdog on the mandate for the balanced budget amendment too because why would you Constitutionally mandate what you think you need to spend every year, forever. That said, it appears the balanced budget amendment was the only way to get these fiscal incompetents to exercise any level of financial awareness, much less prudence. Even though the wrong idea, these guys are so wrongheaded, so stupid, that the wrong idea seems to work right.
But even the Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget is a sham. It only mandates operating budget; all capital budgets are outside of this --- only the interest and principal payments for capital projects would be operating budget. Any big project with a number of years of expected benefits will be a capital project. That's how $1.4B in extra operating budget can be turned into $12B in bonds --- all you need to cover is the interest payments.
Like the balanced budget amendment sham, same can be said with Question #2 --- it only mandates that the money be spent on operating budget for transportation. Does not effect the size of capital budgets which every sizeable transportation project would be.
So your two choices for the $1.4B operating budget windfall from the gas tax increase: choice 1, question 2, vote no, says put the entire sum to a yearly legislative vote where to spend it including to the general fund. Now the $1.4B will be spent wherever the legislators like, including transportation. Free hand, freedom of spending choice --- every year for the gas tax increase. Where it went will be lost in the breeze.
Or choice 2, question 2, vote yes and mandate the whole thing to transportation. They voted the 23-cent tax increase for transportation, let them spend it for transportation. Stick it in one place and where it went will be known.
In either case, yes or no, capital projects for $12B in transportation can be accomplished. Choice 1 just says you can still allocate the interest payments for the $12B for transportation when you do the budget or divide the 23 cents (and $12B in bonds) between the general fund and the transportation fund. Or put it all in the general fund but allocate it to transportation later. You could float the $12B in bonds for just about anything you want if the 23-cents is in the general fund.
On the other hand, choice 2 says you can have your $12B in bonds in transportation only. That's the only choice. Yes, you have more transportation money than you have ever had and you have to work the rest of the budget with the same meager money you got last year. But you got what you asked for so let's see some transportation improvements.
My take is they raised the tax 23 cents for transportation and now they are asking you to allow them to spend it anywhere they want to. Like pension, health, union salary increases, casino's ---- anything they want outside and including transportation.
Vote yes on question 2 and say no to that and instead remind our lawmakers: you raised it 23 cents to cover transportation, now do it, according to the constitution.
BD - "but the 12 billion in additional borrowing it authorizes will NOT be dedicated to transportation."
That's wrong. The ballot question does not authorize anything. What you state later about the possibility of borrowing without public ballot is correct. There is an exemption about public ballot requirements when it is constitutionally mandated funds. However ianimal is still correct that the money gets spent on the TTF because it cannot pay back a loan that was spent elsewhere. Nothing changes where the fund $ can be spent.
That's what Guadagno is trying to sell. Don't fall for it.
VOTE...THEM...OUT
That's the only way to send a message. A whole new group would certainly hear us I'd think...
It's not so much the 23 cents a gallon. It's not so much that the average commuter will pay about $175 to $200 more a year (tell that to the large numbers of Americans living paycheck to paycheck).
It's the fact that this was the *last* thing in NJ that was significantly cheaper than your neighbors. It's the fact that while, yes, the TTF will be more funded, no one is buying the lie that this will be used to fix your deteriorating infrastructure (A billion dollars of the funds have *preemptively* been set aside to fund unneeded light rail projects). It's the fact that you are one of the most heavily taxed state in the union, taxes which fund a broken pension system, which are thrown down a black hole in a never-ending stream of waste, and which are used to service the massive amounts of debt you have. It's the fact that your legislators, despite the vehement opposition and protest against this, saw fit to give you - their constituents the middle finger and say "This is good for you, we know what's best for you".
Sure, gas is cheap now. But I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune in a few months/years when it skyrockets again. Then that 23 cents will seem like a lot more when you stop to put $4 a gallon of gas in your car. And the roads still won't be fixed.
There's a reason people are leaving NJ in record numbers.
JIT. So, vote who in?
Skippy, nice unsubstantiated rant from someone with no skin in the game.
Unsubstantiated rant, I think it is well known that a lot of the funds will be used for light rail projects. State Senate Stephen Sweeny said we have been committed to this (North Bergan Rail expansion) for a while. The project costs are expected to be in the 800-900 million dollar range. In NJ you know it will cost more than that.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-senators-hope-gas-tax-increase-will-fund-bergen-light-rail-extension-1.1682658
No if you don't agree with the libtard here - even if your correct - it's unsubstantiated - and damn right I have no skin in the game - I got out - use some Bayesian logic and do the same or enjoy the mess
Smile !!!, we are up to 6th in the nation.
One of the great perks of living on the state line is coming to an end.
After Monday, cheap gas in New Jersey is a thing of the past. New Jersey's beefed-up gas taxes take effect Tuesday.
Gov. Chris Christie and New Jersey's Democratic-led Legislature agreed to raise the gas tax by 23 cents. It will go from 14.5 cents per gallon to 37.5 cents, marking the first time it has been raised since 1988.
Rather than the second-lowest gas taxes in the nation behind Alaska, New Jersey will leap to sixth-highest.
If you don't dedicate the funds to the trust fund in 8 years when there plan expires we will be in the same boat we are in now. No money in the fund, in debt, and guess what gas will go up again.
"If you don't dedicate the funds to the trust fund in 8 years when there plan expires we will be in the same boat we are in now. No money in the fund, in debt, and guess what gas will go up again."
Hmm.... I have a feeling that's where we're going to be in the future REGARDLESS of how this question gets voted on. Because government. They'll NEVER spend less. Never. It's not in their DNA. This "game" has an end, eventually. They can't keep spending more, yet they will never cut. It's like a game of "don't spill the beans", we're all just waiting for the pot to tip over....
...and some of you are still so stuck in the good cop/bad cop political system that you don't CARE if it tips over... so long as the OTHER GUY does the tipping....
Enjoy. As mentioned this could have been avoided by curbing excessive benefits for public workers...
Just another example of the influence in the cities. Warren County has no buses & we must drive. Lower income retirees will save very little from the supposed offsets. We will again slowly slide closer & closer to poverty. Politicians should lose the mileage percentage of their salaries & then we would not see this type of increase.
Tom Mchugh "VOTE...THEM...OUT" I agree. These guys couldn't manage a lunch money budget.
Vote yes on Question 2. At least you will know where the money is going and can work a focused problem of spending it in one place: transportation. Even with all the light rail you could imagine, roads will get better. It's a $1.4B increase on top of the existing approximate $400M budget. I think capital projects are at about $4B per year, so you can see how $1.4B (three times the current budget) might support up to $12B in bonding projects --- but that's a one time affair, not a yearly capital budget increase of $12B.
Vote no on Question 2: Throws the money to the general fund, good luck even figuring out what they spent it on, much less was it a wise investment. And it still could support up to $12B in capital projects --- just wouldn't necessarily be transportation projects.
"As mentioned this could have been avoided by curbing excessive benefits for public workers..." Really. Got numbers or just smoking crazy?
"The first duty of any bureaucratic process is self perpetuation." As is every process, organization, and individual......but true and well said.
"Rather than the second-lowest gas taxes in the nation behind Alaska, New Jersey will leap to sixth-highest." Really? Because I show nothing even close to those numbers......
"No if you don't agree with the libtard here" Wow, demeaning liberals and tards in one swell foop.
"Unsubstantiated rant, I think it is well known that a lot of the funds will be used for light rail projects." Not that I would like it spent here, does nothing for me personally, but it's less than 10% of the additional revenues from the new gas tax.
"There's a reason people are leaving NJ in record numbers." An absolute truth. Don't let the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of Skippy's rant obscure the fact that there is a reason, somewhere. Just not with anything Skippy blathered.
"But I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune in a few months/years when it skyrockets again." Yes, I will be saying thank you Jesus for making me feel good again about squeezing into this freakin head bangin cramped 120HP low-powered, bad handling, 50-mpg hybrid.
Does anyone remember reading ballot questions from past elections where in the explanation it would say something like: voting yes will authorize the legislature to issue bonds up to 10,000,000 for "whatever"? Is the 12 billion in bonding explained in the interpretive statement? No. This is a poison pill buried in the legislation and they are counting on the fact that no one will be aware until it's too late. Our legislators come right out and tell us they can't be trusted to spend the money on the roads and bridges, therefore you must vote to put it in a lock box trust fund. I'm reminded of the scene from the Wizard Of Oz where he says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
If we can't trust them with 1.3 billion from the gas tax, why would anyone trust them with 12 billion more? I'm voting No!
Sorry BD, you already blew. It's not in the interpretive statement because it's just not there.
"Rather than the second-lowest gas taxes in the nation behind Alaska, New Jersey will leap to sixth-highest." Really? Because I show nothing even close to those numbers......
sorry 7th - http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/as_higher_gas_tax_moves_in_where_do_other_nj_taxes.html
Monday, only Alaska had lower state gasoline taxes than New Jersey. But after midnight, that all changed when a 23-cent-per-gallon increase hit pumps across the state, boosting the 14.5 cents the state charges per gallon to 37.5 cents and to seventh-highest in the U.S."
or 6th depending on where you look
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-gas-tax-set-rise-49th-6th-highest-u-s-article-1.2851490
if you consider a Bergen County light rail project an "infrastructure improvement" when your roads, bridges, and existing trains are crumbling go for it. This is one of the most affluent places in the country and 4th in the state.
http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/new-jersey/richest-cities-nj/
Furthermore, if you do dedicate the funds, it's going to be used to borrow $12 billion dollars in bonds. If the ballot question doesn't pass, what is to stop this administration or the next from diverting it to more useless spending and mismanagement? (it won't be repealed, but the borrowing won't be authorized).
The whole issue of the TTF was that it was raided for any number of things (balancing the budget, making pension payments, etc.) without a fresh infusion of cash. The fact that I don't have "skin in the game" doesn't make anything I said less accurate.
vote NO on question 2
as you can clearly see from the quoted material below, the interpretive statement on ballot question #2 does not contain any information about the state bonding an additional 12 - 15 billions dollars if this is passed, but it is included in the amendment to the Constitution: read and be aware.
here's the ballot question and the interpretive statement from the warren county web site:
Question 2 · Dedicates all revenue from oil and gas taxes to the Transportation Trust Fund
Do you approve amending the Constitution to dedicate all revenue from the State motor fuels tax and petroleum products gross receipts tax to the Transportation Trust Fund?
This amendment would provide that an additional three cents of the current motor fuels tax on diesel fuel, which is not dedicated for transportation purposes, be dedicated to the Transportation Trust Fund. In doing so, the entire State tax on diesel fuel would be used for transportation purposes. The entire State tax on gasoline is currently dedicated to the Transportation Trust Fund and used for transportation purposes. The amendment would also provide that all of the revenue from the current State tax on petroleum products gross receipts be dedicated to the Transportation Trust Fund. In doing so, the entire State tax on petroleum products gross receipts would be used for transportation purposes. This amendment does not change the current tax on motor fuels or petroleum products gross receipts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=warren+county+NJ+sample+ballots&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#eob=va/3/13/m.05fjf
here's the exact language from the bill that authorizes (using a negative proof technique in the weasel wording) an additional 12 - 15 billion dollars in bonds to be issued with out requiring any additional consent from the public:
SR2412 page 10, lines 4 - 8
4 Commencing on the day that Assembly Concurrent Resolution No.1 of
5 2015, a constitutional amendment to Article VIII, section II, paragraph
6 4 of the New Jersey Constitution, takes effect, and ending June 30,2[2026] 20242
7 , the authority shall not issue transportation program
8 bonds in excess of 2[$15,000,000,000] $12,000,000,0002
SR2412 page 81, lines 8 - 10
8 Transportation Infrastructure Bank, and section 2 shall take effect
9 on the same day that Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 1 of
10 2015, a constitutional amendment to Article VIII, section II,
11 paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution, takes effect.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2016/Bills/S2500/2412_R3.PDF
The Bergen Rail expansion is stated at coming in between $800-900 million. The South Jersey Rail (18 miles long, 14 stations) project expected cost is $1.6 billion. Being conservative, they bond $2.5 billion at 5% over 10 years. That's $1.25 billion in debt service and they still owe the 2.5 billion in principal. That's about 28.5% of the expected $14 billion they say they will raise over that 10 year period.
KB is spot on as usual; the initial estimates for these rail projects are always way lower than what actually is paid by time of completion. anyone who still thinks this 23 cents is going to go to road repair is fooling themselves.
thx KB, good stuff
Vote "no" on #2 fact sheet.
http://nj1015.com/lt-gov-guadagno-steps-up-efforts-to-urge-a-no-vote-on-question-2/
OK, one more time.....and only because it's funny to see conservatives and liberals each on the wrong side of the earmark fence. Usually it's the conservatives lobbying for earmarking funds to specific purposes rather than a more liberal approach of "anything goes."
The 23 cents or $1.4B per year of gas tax increase will go to the NJ budget....somewhere. It will not be repealed or negotiated down. The increase is a done deal at least until the next voting cycle.
Wherever the 23-cents goes, it can turn into about $12B in bonds to fund capital expense projects....or it can go to operating expenses like snow plowing or debt repayment or salaries, whatever.
Your only choice on Question 2 is whether the gas tax is earmarked for transportation (vote yes) or not earmarked at all (vote no). That's the only choice. The rest is conjecture.
For example, there is no number on how much would be turned into bonds. All we know is the top end is approximately $12B IF it was used only for capital projects.
If not dedicated to the transportation fund, it still can be turned into $12B in bonds for capital projects for either transportation or outside of transportation. That will be the governor's and legislators choice next year. A no vote gives them freedom of choice to spend it where and how they choose. It will alleviate many of their budget woes, a problem of their own making. It lets them off the budget hook.
A yes vote says it will be dedicated to transportation and, yes, that could mean a one-time purchase of up to $12B in bond projects or any amount less. And yes, a yes vote says the current transportation budget of about $400M jumps to $1.8B or higher, a four times budget increase effect that certainly will create a lot of transportation projects, and not just rails or not just roads.
While not in favor of earmarks (liberal, remember), in this case, our legislator's are fiscal and budgetary incompetents. A no vote lets them spend the money wherever and however they feel like to be decided by them on the next budget cycle. That's a lot of trust. Christie and most legislators would favor that, no matter what they are saying, because it's a free lunch. $1.4B to the general fund erases a lot of our budget problems --- or at least pushes them off for a few years.
And if you vote no, good luck in even telling where the $1.4B in extra revenue from the gas tax actually went. It will just be part of the giant pool of available funds at budget time to be allocated as part of all the other funds. You won't know what you got for your increased gas tax, you will just see that you got more of the same.
A yes vote says fu to that and instead forces them to only spend it only on transportation like they said they would when they voted yes to raise the tax. Sure, transportation will be overfunded, but hey, have you driven out there? Taken a train or bus? The rail bonds KB noted would be less than 20% of the increased tax budget and less than 10% of the total budget. There will be plenty of budget left for road and bridge repair. And once the hook is set, it's up to us to see they spend it efficiently and effectively. Tough to do but at least we know where the extra money went and what it was intended to do.
A vote yes will also force lawmakers to deal with the rest of the budget as it is today rather than giving them a $1.4B Christmas gift for any of their budget problems. Personally I say they made this budget, let them figure it out without a $1.4 bailout to the budget mess they created. Don't vote no and let them off the hook.
That's the long and the short (well, long, anyway) of it.
The $0.23 gas tax is NOT being repealed. This ballot question has nothing to do with that and Guadagno admits that if you read her full comments rather than the sound bites.
The only question is whether you want the money to be dedicated to fund transportation projects or if you want it just to be a blank check for Trenton to use however they see fit.
As far as the bonding issue goes, bonding the expenditures required to undertake large scale capital improvements is nothing new and it's never going away, even if this referendum is rejected. If a bridge needs to be replaced, you bond the money required to replace it or watch it fall down. Those are your choices.
And yes, public transit counts as "transportation" and light rail projects will be included. I don't think that's a bad thing. Our highways are at capacity (or beyond) and the population will continue to grow. Additional right-of-way to expand the existing highways is largely unavailable.The more commuters you can efficiently get off the roads and onto trains the better.
That little possible option was conveniently left out of the write up in the description of the bill. Imagine that !!!
Question no. 2 on the ballot voting yes ensures the money is dedicated to the transportation trust fund. Otherwise it would go to the general fund and could be used for anything they decided was relevant. Probably lunches and rounds of golf. If the gas tax is not dedicated to the TTF they will find money somewhere else, no doubt higher property taxes.
calico linked to the fact sheet which describes the issue clearly, it's worth checking out.
i supplied the exact wording of the interpretive statement and the associated legislation above, so you can see how the two are tied together and by voting NO we can stop the unbridled and unchecked borrowing of an additional 12 - 15 billion dollars (with it's associated long term interest payments added on) by 4 appointed government toadies who are not accountable to the public any longer.
that's a big pill to swallow in a state that is already in financial trouble.
they are trying to mislead the voting public with this trigger trick hidden in the legislation that links the two events together (the 23 cent tax bill already in effect, and this question 2 which is a constitutional amendment). I showed the detail above that connects the two separate issue, and the bonding/borrowing debt structure that it authorizes with links, its not conjecture and it's not wrong, Kim G. has been right about this all along. Look at the info provided, think about what is actually in there and what it means.
voting NO on ballot question #2 will make it much harder for the state to go into hock another 12 - 15 billion dollars (yes they can still find ways to do it, but it's much tougher for them if we vote NO)
Please vote NO on question 2 to stop them from getting away with this.
Which "little possible option" is that Old Gent? Bonding? It's not an option, it's an inevitability. Or the public transportation part?
The tax isn't being repealed and the need to bond large-scale transportation projects isn't going away either.
Well Someone is trying
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/republican_lawmakers_urge_repeal_of_23-cent_gas_ta.html
That article is two weeks old and was never anything more than political pandering at its worst. The bill passed the Assembly 44-27 and the Senate 24-14. They will never get the votes needed to repeal it in either House. The tax went into effect yesterday. It's here to stay.
It really doesn't affect anyone much. On a 15 gallon fill up, it is going to cost $3.45 more. Not that big of a deal.
As ianimal said above, bonding will always be a necessary part of large scale capital improvements. They will happen with or without question #2. I want to make certain that extra $3.45 I pay every time I fill up goes strictly to the original intended purpose...to transportation and infrastructure improvements, rather than into the general fund to be wasted. Yes on #2.
eperot But it wont, eperot. Just like in the past it will pay off other debts. Not much wil be used as intended.
Unless it's in the constitution the ttf can be raided with the approval of the legislature at any time. They just need to vote
Constitution
[kon-sti-too-shuh n, -tyoo-]
noun
1.
the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.
2.
the document embodying these principles.
Spending legislation has no place in any Constitution as it is supposed to convey the basis for how we are governed. It is not meant for the purpose being asked.
Vote NO with an exclamation point! Then remind our representatives why you are voting no: They are not doing their jobs! Do what they say they are going to do. If situations change (as they always do) then be clear on what needs to change and how. IOW, stop with the shell games and fess up to reality. And stop treating the public as a bunch of morons.
JIT - a yes vote accomplishes what you want - no disrespect but you want it locked to the ttf correct ? We're on the same side here I think
So silly. How do you do "remind them" after you give them free rein to do whatever they want with the revenue? JIT as usual being vague, ethereal, mainly purposefully obtuse. Just sayin. Peace and love, peace and love.
No skippy, I would like to see government run by responsible people. Trying to tie this to the Constitution is not how this works (please see the definition above). All it will do is validate the bad behavior that has led to this proposal in the first place. IOW, it states that the shell game is just fine and that if we really want our officials to do what they say (what they tell us to get elected) then we need to put it in the Constitution. BS to the nth degree. This will legislatate irresponsibility and set a precedence that can't be rolled back.
NO NO NO NO NO
And pretty adamant about it.
The right answer is to vote ALL Republicrats out. I don't even care who replaces them in the short term because once it's conveyed that we demand responsible spending then the right choices will be made.
Yankeefan, what is your problem? Truly, wth? You act like thinking problems through is wrong, that simply believing your favored politician will right the ills of the world. People do what you do ALL THE TIME. Your views permeate politics - yours is the prevailing view! - yet you refuse to acknowledge the reality of how your thought process and that of your team have led to where we are today. You can't fix things by doing the same thing over and over again!!!
I actually feel sorry for you. Blindly listening to your team's story without ever being able to step back and see things for what they really are.
I have never claimed to have any answers, however I do claim to see through all the crap to recognize that you and your team, just like those on the other team, have simply picked sides in a national game. And that game books down to selfish motivations on all sides, for if that weren't the case you would see with the clarity of crystal the positions I take.
Like I ask on a regular basis: please take a step back and look at how ridiculous this whole process is. It really isn't that hard
"You can't fix things by doing the same thing over and over again!!!"
Doesn't that closely resemble the definition of insanity? Just saying.....
Great posts JIT!
First I'm going to give you the power to do what you want with my money, then I'm going to VOTE YOU OUT!!!
Except that I've forgotten where I live and all I've done is give you the power to do what you want with my money... since my representatives have already voted against the bill in the first place.
It seems a lot of people don't know how bad the bridges in nj are. Instead of taking the tax money intended to fix them. The reason this bill was so important. You want to just give the money to the people who fd it all up to start with? The tax is here to stay the roads need to be repaired the bridges need to be repaired public transportation could be expanded. Unless you don't drive a no vote seems like a pretty un intelligent decision.
Vote NO - Newark Central High needs a new baseball stadium
I animal was this a serous comment?
We're back to conflating problems vs symptoms again.
Roads and bridges being in a state of disrepair didn't happen because of a lack of money, it happened because our elected officials told us they would tax us to fix them but diverted the money to other projects. That's the real problem here, so I'll ask if that problem will be solved by taking this *one* issue and trying to force a solution by writing it into the document that those in power are already ignoring?
Any Constitution is supposed to be an instruction manual for writing laws, the guiding light do to speak for legislators to do their work. In that sense one could argue that it's pretty unintelligent to use the document for legislation itself simply because our *elected* officials have failed to do their job. Shame on us for not holding their feet to the fire. Voting them ALL out is the solution, not changing the purpose and intent of the Constitution.
And since I seem to be the only honest money guy around these parts, I'll take this opportunity to again punctuate that where we are is a result of unrestrained debt-based money. Someone above mentioned that these projects are always bonded. Why would that always be the case? What it really means is that every project IS going to cost a lot more than budgeted because of the FUTURE interest payments needed to pay off the loans. So we already know part of the problem but refuse to address it.
If we really wanted to fix things we would deal with our debts and the monetary system that allowed them to become such a problem in the first place. Otherwise we will continue to be presented with false "solutions" such as this one that only serves to divert our attention from where the real problem lies.
Think of it this way: If you get your YES vote here, what will be the next "problem" that will be solved by adding it to the Constitution? Government worker pensions? School funding? IOW, what's the next crisis, also caused by irresponsibility of our no-restraint economics, that will require this drastic measure?
Vote NO NO NO NO NO
Can we please fix the real problem for once????
Right on point JIT, if history tells us anything we will back in the same boat in short order.
A yes vote on Question 2 "would create a constitutional requirement that all revenue derived from taxes on motor fuels be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF).
A NO vote allows the legislature to do whatever they see fit with the funds collected via the extra gas tax.
Dedicating the gas tax to TTF debt service will allow the TTF to borrow an additional $12 - 16 billion. What they spend that $ on will be determined by a 4-person appointed committee. It might not be roads or NJ Transit it may be another tunnel to NYC or basically anything they want.
This explains some of the "use" the TTF has seen in years past:
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/04/03/christie-s-borrowing-binge-makes-transportation-trust-fund-run-dry/?p=all
Currently funds in the TTF have to be used for "Transportation" projects, as defined by law. This requirement though is only based in statute, not the state constitution. If the legislature gives itself permission to use TTF money to fund something then there's nothing that can be done - the legislature retains the right to amend the law that restricts the use of the TTF at any time, for any reason, with nothing more than a simple majority of the legislature and signature of the governor just like any other law.
If the gas tax money goes into the TTF and then from the TTF to an approved, but not "transportation" project, nothing illegal happened.
too long - don't want to read:
The gas tax is here to stay - theres no voting on that at this juncture and you only get to pick if there is an added step towards using these funds for non transportation since they are earmarked for "transportation".
https://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Dedication_of_All_Gas_Tax_Revenue_to_Transportation,_Public_Question_2_(2016)
Just a reminder - when the NJ Turnpike bonds were paid off in the 50's the tolls were supposed to be removed.. hows that going?
dedicating the 23 cent tax to road repair is a good thing, but not at the cost of having an appointed panel of 4 government 'officials' being able to incur another 15 billion dollars of debt at their whim.
yes i agree that forcing the legislature to put that tax money into the TTF is a good thing to do, but look at what happens when you vote yes on question 2. You will authorize these yet-to-be-named panel of 4 to enter into any captiol improvement project they desire up to the full amount of 15 billion dollars
personally i don't think that's a good idea for our state which is already in big trouble with it';s credit ratings.
yes , fixing roads is good, but not at the total cost of 15 billion in brand new debt. that's overkill and should be reason enough for reasonable people to decide to vote no.
there has to be a better way.
i provide the detailed linkages above that connects this ballot question to the already passed and in effect 23 cent gas tax legislation which has this trigger in it that authorizes the 15 billion in additional debt. (see above).
think!! just for a minute, stop and think!! that's fifteen billion dollars in new debt!!
$15,000,0000 !
who is gonna pay for that???? (it's us, the taxpayers that's who)
this issue is so much bigger than just dedicating the 23 cent to transportation, don;t buy the hype. please - think.it.through. -
the 23 cent gas tax bill has a qualifier in it that requires the passage of the constitutional amendment. by voting NO we stop the state from allowing a appointed panel of 4 people decide without any other approval from the voters to obligate us to the bonding/spending/borrowing of another 15 billion dollars (plus interest)
who pays for all of that? that's a LOT of money. (we pay, that's who)
these legislators are trying to mislead the voting public with this trigger trick hidden in the legislation that links the two events together (the 23 cent tax bill already in effect, and this question 2 which is a constitutional amendment). see above for the detailed proof i provided straight from the state web site
vote NO on question 2
in re bonds - just because the gas tax increased doesn't mean that the projected revenue just hits the state coffers overnight. For state projects that money still needs to be borrowed someway somehow. They do that through Revenue Bonds. The state uses the tax revenue as collateral for issuing said bonds (a practice that's been in place across the country (and the world) for decades.) The money is getting borrowed no matter what that's how the world works JIT.
in re pensions - you have the 33rd largest public pension fund in the world by assets. If you funded the pension in line with the average US state, you would be ranked around the 15th largest pension fund in the world. This issue WILL come home to roost - that money has to be paid. Remember a year ago when NJ transit fares were raised? That was for the budget shortfall and the dues for public pensions - hmm sounds like that could become a transportation initiative.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/nj_public_worker_pension_fund_now_the_weakest_in_u.html
so yeah - expect that to come to a constitution near you at some point..
in re Newark High - the state took over Newark schools 20 years ago and thats how they fund stuff such as gymnasiums etc needed - through state taxes. same thing with Jersey City and Paterson.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/04/newark_schools_takeover.html
that's $15,000,000,000
forgot the extra 3 zeros in my post above, sorry about that. 15 billion dollars is a lot of scratch for us to have to come up with, vote NO
"dedicating the 23 cent tax to road repair is a good thing, but not at the cost of having an appointed panel of 4 government 'officials' being able to incur another 15 billion dollars of debt at their whim."
This is one of the main sticking points for my "NO" vote. Appointed! By guess who? That's right our esteemed Governor Christie. No thank you.
That 15BB is getting funded any way you slice it and spent however they want - the referendum merely gives the illusion of control
Vote yes. I don't care if it goes to rail, bridges, roads. As long as it's transportation. The whole 'vote no' movement is just a feel good desperation play to make you think that there's a chance of repeal.
Guadagno just wants a bigger piggy bank in case she gets into Drumthwacket.
Guadagno lost my vote if she runs for governor. I don't care if she's running against Sharpe James. I'm voting for whomever opposes her.
"So silly. How do you do "remind them" after you give them free rein to do whatever they want with the revenue? JIT as usual being vague, ethereal, mainly purposefully obtuse."
In spirit I agree with JIT that one of the main jobs of legislators is managing the budget or how do we spend our money wisely to advantage future generations. If they prove unable to do this, our recourse is to vote em out.
JIT is a bit high n mighty on this claiming there's us, them, and he --- the rugged individual with unique problem identification and solving skills. He's probably even too pure for Galt's Gulch :>) Hey, at some level, we're all the same as well as being unique. Case in point, you are taking the liberal stand here on budgeting (no directed funding) and I am taking the conservative stand on Question 2 earmarking a tax to a specific cause.
My point is sure, the legislators should be managing the budget, I agree. But they have proven they are not up to the job. No even close. They are fiscally incompetent and neither a yes or no will change that.
One adage I live by is that too change something, something must change. The only change here is a pile of new money to spend. There is absolutely no change is how they will do that and a NO vote is a vote for the status quo process of creating a budget. They will just continue to spend like they always have except now they have $1.4B or $12B in bonding projects to divvy up. A No vote says just keep going on like your going on and here's $1.4B extra to play with. A yes vote is a vote for change, they will be forced to use all the money is one place: TTF.
Look at the entire tax package. Do you see change or do you see a grab bag of meaningless compromises aiming at little tax change (beyond the 23 cents) for maximum political spin by either party (or even JIT). First the 23-cents. Remember there was nothing in that vote saying it would have to be spent on roads. Don't you think they were already licking their spending chops, Christie included, on how they would really spend it outside of the TTF? Look at the other compromise taxes thrown in to get the 23-cents passed. A sales tax reduction that means nothing to us but looks good for tax cutting spin; ending the estate tax which will not touch the property tax which is the main tax retirees leave the state to avoid but give them a retiree political spin, increase to the earned income credit basically matching the Federal baseline for a poor-folk spin (wow, you matched the Federal minimum), a decrease in retirement income tax helping those who no longer work for big income and will be leaving anyway because of the property tax you flipping hacks, and veteran's tax relief, a good thing but not much revenue -- it's the smallest total reduction.
So, it's a compromise package that does little (except for the 23 cents) but allows all of them to spin success claiming victory for some constituency. It's more of the same fiscal irresponsibility that a No vote will allow this status quo to continue, a compromise bag full of .....nothing but spin.
Look at the supporters. Christie says yes, but does he believe it or does he just want to look conservative on the national stage? His Lt. Gov. says no, is she defecting, distancing, or is that a signal that voting against Christie is OK? I mean who would vote with Christie, everybody hates him now. Could they have teamed to do this to get the No vote where Christie will look good (I tried to earmark it) but in the end gets to spend the 23-cents anyway he wants to? It's a win-win for him, win or lose on Q2.
I say vote Yes to focus all this spending to one place: the TTF. That's change. Let them prove they can spend it wisely to fix one thing: transportation. They are fiscally incompetent, the compromise tax cut package itself proves they are still incompetent. Why let them continue in their same-old-story status quo budgeting ways? There is nothing in the no vote except more of the same we have today, just with an extra $1.4B to move around the budgeting table where we will never be able to see where the 23-cents bailout even went. It's a no change vote expecting magical change. A yes vote says no, you must solve your budget problems using the money you had last year (no change but no bailout either and a very tough fiscal problem to solve, tougher without an extra $1.4B). BUT with a yes vote you can have a $1.4B change to put into transportation, and transportation alone. And we will be watching. That's a big change where we can expect and demand real changes to happen in transportation. Or the failures will be $1.4B glaringly obvious.
some of you guys are missing the forest for the trees;
requiring the 23 cents tax to go into the TTF is the shiny apple they want you to look at while they come in the back door uninvited for the real whammy.
authorizing an appointed panel of 4 government 'officials' to have the power of spending / borrowing / bonding a total of 15 billion dollars (plus interest) without any checks on their decisions is a bad thing.
watch out for that denial of public accountability they are engineering here to be part of the states constitution.
WOW!
Vote NO, at them being able to incur another 15 billion dollars of debt on the say-so of a hand picked panel of insiders.
yes, people named BrotherDog and justintime are absolutely missing the forest for the trees. Agreed. The ability to bond for large-scale transportation projects appears to be the headlight that Guadagno is shining in your little deer eyes. Bonding of roads and bridges has been done since Roman times and you wouldn't be able to build without them. It's a non-issue to the current discussion.
The ONLY question that will be answered via this referendum is whether the money goes into the TTF or the General Fund. Guadagno apparently wants it in the general fund. She's got you on the hook, but let's hope most others can see that shiny piece of metal glinting just beneath the surface of the water for what it is.
"Another 15 billion dollars"
I'll say it again. You've been duped. You've been had. You've been hoodwinked. You've been tricked. You've been deceived.
A bond is the same money as the .23 cents you pay. It's just available now instead of waiting for it all to accumulate. Instead of cash flow from pumps to fund to projects when there is enough eventually, the flow is from pumps to fund to bond payments and the projects start quicker. That's it. The .23 cents was already approved, and no vote is going to undo the tax.
The rest is FUD.
I've seen all the evidence, listened to all the "experts", and read the opinions of people-who-think-they-are-experts here on the forum. The bottom line for me is the additional 15 billion in debt ... to spend how they please.
NO. Just NO. I don't care about the rest of it. NO.
In the end, they will get what they want regardless of this vote: they'll figure out another way to borrow 15 billion. But I won't be a part of it.
dude - you're a part of it wether you like it or not - fact is the tax is there and they are passing a bond with the anticipated revenue. all you get to say is wether or not they need to jump through the hoop of pulling the money out of the TTF for non transportation projects or not . The TTF has been raided before and will be again - the tax is a done deal, the bonds are a done deal.. do you want the money earmarked or not - thats all you get to pick.
You're right in that there's really no point in debating it anymore, JR.
All the arguments have been laid out at least 5 times. I'm gonna guess the referendum passes with 65% of the vote. If you had asked me a month ago, I would have said at least 80%; seemed like a no-brainer. Then the real "no-brainers" got involved, lol.
I've changed my mind. I don't care about the 15 billion. I'm voting NO just to cancel out ianimal's vote... "lol"
Nice. I should vote for Hillary to cancel out your Trump vote, but it's not like she's gonna need it here in Jersey anyway...
Gary Johnson 2016 - Because NJ Votes for Republicans in Presidential Elections are Completely Worthless
Reagan won NJ. Anything is possible. Not necessarily probable, but possible. ;-)
ianimal - Haven't seen you on the question #1 thread. Get over there and give us you opinion on that one. I'm interested in hearing it.
Who says I'm voting? As you say... "NJ votes for republicans in presidential elections are completely worthless"
And the democrat votes are pretty much worthless too, since no self-respecting democrat who's about to "landslide" a "lunatic" will even NEED NJ to win...right? I mean, when's the last time NJ decided a presidential election, right?
So we should ALL just vote for Gary Johnson, and help out that 3rd party cause! Of course, unless you can get enough OTHER states on board to get 15% of the general vote.... ooh..... tsk tsk.... probably not. Which means a vote for Gary Johnson is also "completely worthless."
I guess NJ is just completely worthless.
"So we should ALL just vote for Gary Johnson, and help out that 3rd party cause! Of course, unless you can get enough OTHER states on board to get 15% of the general vote.... ooh..... tsk tsk.... probably not. Which means a vote for Gary Johnson is also "completely worthless.""
Why not? There are plenty of states in the other boat, red states where people who would usually vote D could throw their votes to the Third Party. But, yeah, you're finally catching on to what needs to be done. Too bad you aren't willing to go through with it. Quit pretending to be anything but what you are, a Republican. You are how you vote.
Oh... so you're a democrat then? Because the way you defend Hillary and vilify Trump (and make fun of Johnson), I have a hard time believing you're actually going to vote for Gary Johnson.
And as I have said already: if the republicans had run someone not worth voting for, like Bush, I would not be voting for them. If a democrat comes along and says they want to protect 2A, ACTUALLY secure the border, and have much heavier vetting of incoming refugees, I would vote for them. If a democrat ever comes along on a platform of less spending, lower taxes, and shrinking govt, I will vote for them.
But I won't hold my breath.
If Gary Johnson was actually WORTH voting for based on his positions on issues and where he thinks the country needs to go, I'd vote for him. But Gary Johnson is no more libertarian than Trump is a republican. But there's ZERO mistaking Hillary is a democrat. On steroids. (or alcohol, if you believe some of her staffers)
"If Gary Johnson was actually WORTH voting for based on his positions on issues and where he thinks the country needs to go, I'd vote for him. But Gary Johnson is no more libertarian than Trump is a republican."
If you were a prybar, we could use you to move the moon...
"The TTF has been raided before and will be again." I am guessing some of this was a legal move since currently the gas tax is not dedicated to the TTF. Today the law says a minimum of 10.5 cents or $200M but when times are flush, I am sure they skim off that top. Also Christie can use executive orders, emergency orders, etc. to divert funds around the law.
But it is much harder to executive order your way around the constitution.
No matter; there's not much money anyway so might as well vote yes so they don't do the same thing in some other budget area...
http://nj1015.com/half-of-njs-new-gas-tax-is-being-used-to-pay-back-old-debt-can-state-curb-that-trend/
"Bonding of roads and bridges has been done since Roman times and you wouldn't be able to build without them. It's a non-issue to the current discussion."
Lol we are at the point where we can't even build them *with* bonding! You think this amendment is just for kicks? ;-)
Anyway, isn't the sole reason for wanting a constitutional amendment because previous bonding hasn't been paid back due to irresponsibility and we can't spend the monies already collected because of all the current debts? The bonding issue is the driving factor, so claiming it's a non-issue gets it backwards.
From earlier in the thread:
"New Jersey is projected to collect $541 million in state gas-tax revenue this year, of which $516 million has been set aside to pay for about $1 billion in debt interest. "
Yeah, that's one heck of a non-issue lol
Skippy, your pensions are yet another manifestation of corruption. I dare you to swear on your family's lives that that is not true...
Lol I know how you feel about it and I agree it is certainly out of alignment with the private sector - I'll say that . I also stated previously that the underfunded pension system will come home to roost - sooner than later.
SD the constitutional amendment will put the funds in the TTF after that the legislature can vote to take that money right out for any measure at their discretion- in addition the monies can be used for anything "transportation" pursuant to the decision of a 4 member autonomous board appointed by the governor - this allows the current or future governor direct access to the fund
"A bond is the same money as the .23 cents you pay. It's just available now instead of waiting for it all to accumulate. Instead of cash flow from pumps to fund to projects when there is enough eventually, the flow is from pumps to fund to bond payments and the projects start quicker. That's it."
I think the facts and spending history of NJ scream quite loudly that that's not the case at all. If we had some restraint built into the system then I'd agree, but we don't, and all the bonding does is to leave money "that isn't really there" on the table while debt is accumulated in its place.
"The rest is FUD."
No, FUD is what our elected officials are using to scare people into voting for Constitutional amendments. They are the problem, they have failed us, and they are the ones who say one thing yet always do another because they lack integrity and are spineless when it comes to saying "no" to a public that thinks money grows on trees. The only way to remove the FUD is to get on with it and vote them all out.
So folks, which way are you voting? I am voting No as I don't want to initiate new borrowing. Our State Budget has to be for everything and it must be balanced.
Interesting the Ballot Question for funding the pensions every 3 months was pulled as they knew it would have failed; but that is what the selfish unions want. They want to be first in line for getting money from the state (you and me)...
"pursuant to the decision of a 4 member autonomous board appointed by the governor..." Sounds like you have the link describing this Skippy? Can't find one myself and find it hard to believe that it's a cabal process.
"the constitutional amendment will put the funds in the TTF after that the legislature can vote to take that money right out for any measure at their discretion" Nope, not true Skippy. If it was a statuary dedication of funds, you would be correct. Either the legislature or governor can relatively override the statute via executive order or emergency status.
But constitutional dedication of funds is much harder to break, might even require a public ballot vote. That's why the balanced budget amendment has not been broken.
"I dare you to swear on your family's lives that that is not true..." Wow, there's a weird challenge.
"I think the facts and spending history of NJ scream quite loudly that that's not the case at all." Really, that's not a bond?
"all the bonding does is to leave money "that isn't really there" on the table while debt is accumulated in its place." You mean a bond is a loan? An advertisement for investment dollars? A mortgage?
As to how much to bond or borrow and is NJ out of control, that's a yes and no because it depends.
Either a yes or no vote does not change the ability to put the entire 23-cents into bond projects, it just determines what function these projects will fulfill. Yes = transportation only. No = anything they darned well want to.
"The only way to remove the FUD is to get on with it and vote them all out." Voting them all out does not change the funding levels or the bonding process. It's does nothing to affect that or the earmarking of funds.
I think what you are getting at is that NJ needs fiscally responsible and intelligent lawmakers with some concept of budgeting, debt, revenues, and spending. Voting them all out does nothing to assure that. Voting the right people in might. But you have no clue whether a field of "right-minded" candidates are even available. Not a clue.
In lieu of the impossibility to do what you say needs to be done, you do have a choice to make on Question 2. Vote No to allow the 23 cents to be spend anywhere, anyhow, for anything they want as in whatever department they want to spend, either as operations cost, debt servicing, or bond project, for anything they want to do. Or Vote 2, and constitutional direct all gas tax funds to be directed to the TTF for operations cost, debt servicing, or bond projects.
Personally I say yes, put it in one place where you can watch it, evaluate it, and then drive your point of electing people to manage it wisely can be focused to a much more narrow beam than spread across the entire breadth of the entire budget.
iJO, you are a one trick pony with a vendetta. Guess I'm calling out a BS artist too.
"In lieu of the impossibility to do what you say needs to be done, you do have a choice to make on Question 2."
-------does Skippy even live here in New Jersey?
I speak the truth, some don't like the truth. Some feel the truth hurts. To me (and many others) to live a lie is worse. I will never buffer my comments because it might hurt somebody. The fact is, policies are hurting people every minute of every day...
You speak what your truth is. Policies by their nature will make some people happy and others not so much. The trick is to pass thoughtful laws that are intended to benefit the many, not the few.
Nope I don't - Hence why you have a choice to make - was not aware that the constitutional funding created a lock box - I'll look up the ttf appointment link and send it when I'm not mobile
We finally agree yankeefan -- in theory only. In implementation I am sure we differ as, for example, providing excessive compensation for public workers at the tax expense of others is only thoughtful if you are part of a union...
If you really want to grind your gears look at the civil service system - promotional and appointment based on test scores and seniority rather than merit- unions have their place especially in law enforcement - but I'm not pro-union in the private sector..
In case the extra gas cost has you pushing the limit on what is left in your tank, here's an estimate of how far you can drive to look for the best gas price after the light comes on.
http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2016/09/14/heres-how-far-can-drive-once-fuel-light-comes-on.html
They should elaborate that the fuel pump(s) in the gas tanks are cooled by the gas itself they are submerged in. Driving the car down to empty can cause the pumps to overheat and shorten their life span.
"but I'm not pro-union in the private sector.." because my pay and my benefits are just hunky dory super duper. Better watch out, jr's making sheep eyes at you.
I find it funny that the guys looking to bring those high paying factory jobs back really believe that you can make 1960's union-fought-for factory wages and benefits in a right-to-work state where the returning factories will be located.
Nope, they would rather not believe Unions made private sector wages and benefits better for all of us, and now without them wages and benefits are fair. Check your raises lately? Those HealthCare benefits getting better or worse. Oh wait, you can blame Obama for that even though you've been under benefit attack since the 90's.
I worked construction for 42 years,been under some of the bridges repairing them from years of neglect. Years of salt,because nobody can drive,unless the roads are perfectly dry. If any of you could see the underside of the bridges in this state, you would vote yes on question # 2.
I called up Senator Doherty's office on 11/4/16. His recommendation is to VOTE NO on question #2 (dedicated 23 cent gas tax). They are going to leverage up this gas tax increase and borrow $16 billion more. Of course they never tell you that in the explanation (how convenient). This will last for about 8 years before they have to raise it again. Don't worry, the whole system (debt) is going to collapse long before then anyway.
I don't discredit unions for what they did in the past / the 8 hour work day etc - however I would rather be treated on merit and performance not on how much time my ass as been in the seat - get bumped through no fault of my own because someone else got surplused etc
So if we vote no does any one really think this tax will go away? More than 460 million dollars have been diverted from the TTF in the last decade alone. By these people telling you to vote no. So now there's a shot at replenishment and you want to just give to the crooks who stole it to start with. And let's say the no vote wins. What then. They aren't going to revisit and get rid of the tax there going to use 97% of the money as they wish and 3% for the TTF. What then? How do we fix bridges and roads the light rails then? Or do we just ignore it till they fail?
Only thing I see is THEY BARROW MORE MONEY. That is with hardly any mony going into the fund meaning the debt will go up drastically without and projects being completed. You are entitled to vote as you wish but if you are voting no because you think that will get rid of the gas tax think about our government and there reputation. You are kidding yourself. There just tricking you all into giving them 23 cents a gallon so they can give themselves all raises.
iJay, give it a damned rest already. It can't rain without you finding a way to blame it on 'evil unions.'
2 days ago Ol' Bishop... Rest no. Nationalize pensions like in Canada where all have and none are excessive. Sorry if the truth hurts, you should heal...
"Sorry if the truth hurts, you should heal..." Uh...... I think around 40% of Canadians have private pension plans..... There's also the Canadian version of the 401K....
How is the Canadian plan that much different from the US version?
iJay, heal from what? Some keyboard blowhard on a forum? Hardly. Also, you have yet to define what 'excessive' is. Still waiting for that one, or has the anti-union leadership not given it to you yet?
SD, are you asking that in terms of the real world, or iJay's world?
http://www.state.nj.us/ttfa/
The Authority consists of seven members, two ex-officio and five public members appointed by the Governor
The previous TTF was raided to cover other expenses. The constitutional amendment will prohibit that practice, at least as it applies to the Transportation TRUST Fund. The 23 cent gas tax hike was 'sold' on the premise that it would be used to repair and renew the state's transportation infrastructure. That we even have to consider an amendment to the constitution to ensure that happens is an indication that the Trenton legislature cannot be trusted. Nonetheless, a 'yes' vote at least gives the appearance of holding those who brought forward the tax, a responsibility to apply it where it was designated and not raid those coffers again for other pet projects.
b1rd1e skippy said - "SD the constitutional amendment will put the funds in the TTF after that the legislature can vote to take that money right out for any measure at their discretion- in addition the monies can be used for anything "transportation" pursuant to the decision of a 4 member autonomous board appointed by the governor - this allows the current or future governor direct access to the fund"
"in addition the monies can be used for anything "transportation" pursuant to the decision of a 4 member autonomous board appointed by the governor" - Skippy is right about this!! everyone needs to p[ay attention and look at the details!
that's good that you see this now skippy, i've been trying to inform folks about this for 2 weeks and have been roundly castigated by the HL: regulars. but i was right, and it seems it is hard for most to understand and come to grips with the hidden whammy contained in the ballot question.
skippy - you are quite correct; this amendment will allow the governor to 'appoint' a panel of 4 individuals who will have sole authority to enter into 16 billion dollars in new debt based spending. that's a lot of money.
that's too much money to be spent by 4 hand picked toadies who serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
that's why Hackettstown's beloved senator Doherty has said he will vote no. (see post above for his direct quotes and rationale)
G.Edwards and b1rd1e: I am sorry that you guys can't see this hidden wallop of 16 billion dollars to be spent by a hand picked panel of 4 'special interest' appointees. It's not about fixng the roads. Please reconsider and vote NO on allowing NJ to go into hock for another 16 billions dollars. That's a lot of money!! and there is no accountability for it.
SD said - "Sounds like you have the link describing this Skippy? Can't find one myself and find it hard to believe that it's a cabal process." it is a cabal process , it wrriten into the legisaltion i linked to way up above on the states web site. i also proided the linke to the article that details out this bait and switch scheme being foisted on an unsuspecting public under the guise of a 'protected lock box'. Watch out for the left hook coming our way in the rest of the amendment that turns on the provisions in the tax bill already in effect.
here it is again for your reference:
Transit 'death' panel could kill road projects under gas tax plan
A bill that would raise the gas tax to finance transportation projects also would create a panel that would have the power to block any new transportation project in the state.
The gas tax bill could create the four-member Annual Transportation Capital Program Approval Committee, which would have the final say about what projects are funded with Transportation Trust Fund dollars
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/gas_tax_bill_would_create_panel_with_life_or_death_say_over_projects.html
gc and ianimal - leave your snark on the sidelines and review the spot on material i have provided to you that proves what i have been saying all along is correct.
Vote No to stop a cabal panel of 4, hand picked by the governor, to obligate the tax payers of NJ to another 16 billion in uncontrolled 'special interest' spending. it's not about he lock box, that's a diversion to get you to give them the keys to the kingdom.
Sorry BD, but you still blew it. I read all that before, and if you see snark then it's just your passive aggressive mo again. Bonding the existing 23 cents already approved is not new borrowing, and the commission is already governor picked. I know your confirmation bias is really running hard on this one, but it's just not Right.
SD, the Canadian system offers true security to ALL citizens not just union members:
1) Nationalized healthcare (for life) with cost taken via taxes
2) Nationalized pension system (publicly governed, privately run) where the employer pays 9.5% and the employee pays 9.5%. If you are self employed you can opt-in by paying the entire 19%
3) A variant of Social Security to get a little more money for retirement
It levels the playing field. There are no Cadillac medical or pensions...
Bishop, excessive is when TOTAL compensation exceeds the private sector equivalent employment...
Uh.... I hate to burst your bubble, but the 7 member, not four person group that you linked to is responsible for creating the financing for the projects selected by a number of other groups through a project selection process. Before these projects go before the group you noted to get the finances, the projects approved by the legislature.
In other words, your cabal is accountants who have nothing to do with project creation or the selection decision process.
Well, iJay, I pay 10% of my salary... So I'm paying *more* than the Canadian system. I'd like for you to let me know what the private sector equivalent is of a professional firefighter and what their salaries are, because as far as I can tell there isn't one.
At the end of the day, I can look back on my career, the services I've done the public, the lives I've saved, and the property I've protected and feel content about it.
Question for you... Sports fan? Why are you OK with some half-educated clown that can throw a ball/catch a ball/run really well making millions a year, but so vehemently against the folks that actually save lives and protect property and risk their necks to do so earning an honest, decent living?
"Bonding the existing 23 cents already approved is not new borrowing"
Just curious, but how can you bond against taxes that only recently came into being? So the tax is new but our legislators have already borrowed against it?
Math. The amount of fuel sold over a set amount of years times there .23 increase. And here's a question how can you buy a car if you haven't made the money yet? how about a house orcollage? Its the same thing every other american has done to make things work it just upsets you when its not your decision to do it
But my question was did the government bond against an income steam it didn't yet have? If it did already bond against the recently approved income stream, *when* did that happen? How far before? To me I don't see how they could do it.
It would be like you getting a loan to buy that car by telling the bank "well, I don't have a job just yet but I plan on getting one". Good luck with that.
That's how I interpreted GC's comment and was just looking for clarification. If it's just plain old debt not based on the new tax then his comment isn't true.
BTW, what is the legal definition of a "trust fund", what legal obligations are associated with running one?
I ask because, and I apologize but I'm assuming here, is there nothing but debt - IOU's - in the TTF just like for SS? If so then this Constitutional Amendment is nothing more than a way for the legislator's to cover their irresponsible butts, to prevent them from having to break the law regarding legal trust funds.
Either way, obfuscation rules the day...
“I believe the passage of Public Question #2 would give the state the green light to add $12 billion in new debt,” said Doherty. “Our state is in the fiscal hole it’s in because we keep borrowing for things we can’t afford, when we really should be tightening our belts.”
Doherty said the failure of Public Question #2 would put the state’s ability to issue that planned debt in jeopardy. “There’s much dispute about what will happen if Public Question #2 fails, but we know for sure what happens if it passes — $12 billion in new debt,” said Doherty. “That’s enough for me to vote ‘NO.'”
JIT - The answer to how is in the reason why they can. The law that was passed to allow the bonding hinges on a revenue stream guaranteed by the NJ Constitution. That's the crux of the matter - if the proposition passes then the stream is guaranteed by the state to the point it can be bonded. Without that, it goes through the black hole of the general fund. After Christie's brilliant threats to let the state default on obligations, the cost of borrowing against the hole is sky high.
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2015/title-27/section-27-1b-4
NJ Rev Stat § 27:1B-4 (2015) states how the members are appointed.
So it'll get voted down as I suspect and then what? The 23cent gas tax passed to fund transportaion will be slung into the general fund for them to bond money for other things not transportation related. So we will all be paying a tax ment for transportation that goes elseware. Sounds dumb to me.
what's dumb is condoning the behavior that results in this situation to begin with. I wonder if we will have the needed incumbent turnover. Probably not...
Hmmmmm. Too late now, but here are some good points:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nj.com/articles/19624056/ballot_question_2_a_no_vote_on_transportation_mean.amp?client=safari
"what's dumb is condoning the behavior that results in this situation to begin with." I dunno JIT. I think it's dumber to make conclusions without a foundation of facts.
Facts are our friends and in this one, I agree that JIT is right that "obfuscation rules the day..." Irresponsible legislators spinning partial truths into fantasy. Journalists doing the same. Bad math, incomplete process descriptions, a complete menu of partial truths trying to steer the results by spinning cherry-picked facts without revealing the full picture.
Re: "I apologize but I'm assuming here, is there nothing but debt - IOU's - in the TTF just like for SS," I think you really need to provide some facts that lead you to the conclusion that the TTF debt is just like the SS debt (which it is not) as well as "how can you bond against taxes that only recently came into being?" combined with your whole rant that the 23-cents is already spent. Got numbers?
First off, since the TTF was bankrupt, and since TTF projects are mostly paid (99% of the time) over the useful life of the project via bonds, it seems somewhat obvious to the casual observer that we borrowed more money than we had coming in.
You might say we overspent, or you might say there was a revenue shortfall starting in 2008, our year of The Great Bush Recession. Who knows? I certainly don't have those facts. But we were bankrupt, that was obvious.
I had provided a link for all this which estimates that 11 cents of the 23 cents is to cover completed projects funded by bonds. It is not all needed to cover the current TTF debt. Only about 50% of it.
Now as to the bonding of TTF projects versus paying for them from current revenues; that's another discussion. But good luck with that one, I suggest starting with "why do people use mortgages...."
When people don't pay their mortgages they get kicked out of their house, worse if they resist and try to manipulate keeping the house without paying.
Nice example, too bad that doesn't happen at the legislature level...
"Re: "I apologize but I'm assuming here, is there nothing but debt - IOU's - in the TTF just like for SS," I think you really need to provide some facts that lead you to the conclusion that the TTF debt is just like the SS debt (which it is not) as well as "how can you bond against taxes that only recently came into being?" combined with your whole rant that the 23-cents is already spent. Got numbers?"
Of everyone here, you can't find them? No, I suppose not when they don't jive with the view you want to convey. Per below, If "The Transportation Trust Fund goes bankrupt July" (2016) then how could the trust find NOT be completely filled with IOU's???
http://www.nj.com/elec/2016/02/new_jerseys_transportation_tru.html
It's not like this is a well kept secret seeing as we just voted on the most drastic fix possible by codifying fund allocation in the State Constitution.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/new-jersey-s-20-billion-road-repair-plan-ladles-new-debt-on-old
And here I thought you'd back off pushing for ridiculous measures requiring ever-more debt once the election was over, especially since you just agreed with me that the debt is a huge problem. Silly me.
Bottom line is we are in a HUGE hole, and all anyone can offer is more of the same. Ridiculous indeed!
Does anyone have the link for the full NJ election results? The one that shows how people voted by county for the candidates and questions. I can't find it.
iJay eh... Never thought I'd see you advocate for Canadian socialist benefits :>)
"the Canadian system offers true security to ALL citizens not just union members:" (You are correct, but I am not sure that I said it did nor did I say only unions have true security in the US (since that's not true either)…. However, I think you may be a bit generous in defining it as “true security.”)
Here’s how SS works in Canada: “The contribution rate of CPP (Canadian SS) is 4.95% for employees and 4.95% for employers, up to.... $50,100" average salary in 2102. That’s about 10% on $50K. I think your CPP of 9.5% is combined employer/employee contribution unless you are self-employed.
US: “The contribution rate for OASDI (US SS) is 6.20% for employees and 6.20% for employers. The maximum earnings for 2012 is $110,100.” So that’s 12.4% on $110,000 at max.
Basically, the US version provides 20% more on top of a maximum that is twice what Canada uses. Canada’s average payout for new pensions in 2016 was $550 per month. Maximum was $1,100. Do you really call that “true security?” Average US payment was $1,200 per month, maximum was $2,400 (at age 66). I wouldn’t call that true security, so you know what I think about the Canadian level.
Canadians also have OAS for those with less salary, has a giveback based on your income, and basic payment is $570/mth. They also have GIS which is basically welfare. So do we.
Also, as I said, Canadians can have private employer pension plans, just like the US, and 40% of working Canadians do have these plans. And yes, they are under fire just like in the US.
And, about 24% of Canadians have an RRSP or 401K. In the US we’re closer to 32%, but 40% of those are under $10,000.
You jumped to Canadian healthcare and all I can say is, sure, I agree it's better. Perhaps you will suggest that to Trump to replace ObamaCare. Let's see, checkbox one --- does it save people dying in the street? Check. Yup, looks good to Trump....
Therefore, Social Security, is very similar in the two countries, it’s just the US version takes more, gives more. For SS, I don’t see the Canadian plan offering “true security,” quite the opposite, it takes less and gives less than our plan.
In either case, for SS, the lesson is ----- if your plan is to survive on Social Security, whether in Canada or the US, it’s gonna suck. And it will suck more in Canada. Hear me 40’s and under folks --- if you see a pension, take it for the maximum company match. Same for 401Ks, to the company match point. Free money, taxpayer funded, and if you don’t take it, thank you very much for the tax savings. Never put more in. If you have more, just make another investment/fund/CD, whatever, where you can invest outside the company’s choices.
Or the bottom line is unless you plan to survive in retirement on your SS 20%-25% of your current take-home, you have a very bad plan. You better find somewhere to save/invest some money to make up the difference. And more if you live in Canada.
I would love to see the salaries the 7 member panel is allowed to steal... oops, I mean "earn". Will there be anything left over to actually fix our infrastructure?
sparksjbc1964 SD, that is Canadian Social Security. The pension is separate and is the combined 19% contribution is what I read.
Basically, in Canada it is a three-pronged approach to give its citizens peace of mind:
1) SS equivalent
2) Nationalized pension
3) Publicly funded healthcare for all
Ijay, let’s leave health insurance out of this for now as it’s really another separate topic, although related.
You’re right, I wrongly assumed the two Canadian components of SS were an either/or, they are combined. For working folks, the US system offers a higher payment potential. For folks who don't work, we have welfare.
But it doesn't matter. Both systems are very similar, the US version just has a higher maximum payout.
Both CAN and US systems are still safety nets, they are not pensions or pension replacements. Both countries still offer private pensions to many citizens, and in either country, if you rely on SS/OAS/CPP for sole retirement income, you are living on the safety net --- won’t be incomes like when you were employed, not even close.
Everyone who has lived in Canada gets the OAS after ten years of residency whether they worked or not at age 65. The basic payment is $570 per month with a reduction after incomes of about $72K. If you worked, you also get the CPP with an average of $550 and a maximum of $1,100. (There’s Canadian GIS for those falling under the financial/eligibility lines too).
The OAS is tax funded, the CPP is worker/employer funded like our SS. Even that gets a bit muddy because our worker/employer funded SS is also a tax deduction for both worker and employee. Not sure on the Canadian plan and tax deductions but like SS, you do pay taxes on retirement incomes in both countries.
The bottom line is Canadian OAS/CPP payout is average $1,120, max $1,670 which is still not close to 19%. The US SS average is $1,200, max of $2,400. So the averages are literally the same but the US has a better maximum payout for those earning and contributing more. However the US maximum is still $28,800 which many might consider a bit tough to live on.
The point is: “In either case, the lesson is ----- if your plan is to survive on Social Security, whether in Canada or the US, it’s probably gonna suck. And it will suck more in Canada. Hear me, 40’s and under folks --- if you see a pension, take it for the maximum company match. Same for 401Ks, to the company match point. Never put more in. If you have more, just make another investment/fund/CD, whatever, somewhere else so you can invest outside the company’s choices. But pensions/401Ks have free money, taxpayer funded, and if you don’t take it, thank you very much for the tax savings.”
And yes JIT, it's a mandate......:>)
Commenting is no longer available.