Sunday, September 10, 2006

Just who should pay for New Jersey schools?

From the Associated Press via Newsday:

New Jerseyans without schoolchildren: Why should we fund schools?

George Rogozin's three children have finished public school, but the 78-year-old East Greenwich man still watches much of his taxes go to educate children _ other people's children.

His annual property taxes have nearly doubled in recent years to $5,400, and like all New Jerseyans most of Rogozin's property taxes go to public schools.

"I'm on a fixed income and it's becoming ever so difficult to keep up," Rogozin said. "When I pay my quarterly tax amount that eats up that month's Social Security paycheck."

Rogozin is part of a growing chorus of New Jerseyans wondering why they have to pay property taxes to fund schools if they don't have children using schools.
"I am not against property taxes, but why should a person that has owned a property in New Jersey for 13 years with no kids be just as liable for the school tax bills as the parent of the kid that uses the schools?" Anderson asked.

As New Jersey lawmakers consider how to reduce the highest-in-the-nation property taxes, many, particularly senior citizens, hope they consider exempting people without school children from paying school taxes.
Jeff Muller, of Mantua, doesn't think people without children should be completely exempt from property taxes "because society benefits from educated children." But he thinks people with children should pay 90 percent of school costs.

"The more school kids you have, the more your tax burden should be," said the 43-year-old who doesn't have children and saw his property taxes rise from $4,000 to $7,000 in recent years.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all should pay for our schools, either property tax and/or income tax. It should be the question how to better manage school spending.

But should we spend 10% of schools budget on administratives? No.
Should teachers union has power over how to spend money? No.
Should we have over 500 school district? No.
Should we pay for an entry level teacher over 60k, which is much better than entry level CPAs or even PhDs? No.

9/10/2006 06:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just going by the title.
Who paid for their school?
and any senior who feels they should be exempt i opse the same question
Who paid for their school?

9/10/2006 06:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to Catholic School and the parents paid twice.
When you have three kids attending public school at $ 11,500 per kid it costs 34,500 per year and you bitch about paying ,let's say $7000, a year RE taxes. I paid for your kids for forty years and had no kids. It's an unfair situtation and is out of balance and should be stopped at retirement. Pay your own way because I'm sick of it.

9/10/2006 06:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only should we childless people not be paying for public schools, we should not be forced into paying medicare! Or, for that matter, public sewer lines since I, for one, never defecate! And when was the last time I called a cop? Never! Why should I pay for them???

Good riddance to the boomers.

9/10/2006 06:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give me a break. I didn't have kids until I was 43, and for 15 childless years my taxes were paying for the now grown kids of these complaining seniors. I paid well over $150,000 in property taxes during the time I didn't have kids.

I feel bad for these folks, and it is expensive and difficult to make ends meet for many people of all age brackets and incomes. However the solution is not to place additional burdens on families who also struggle with rising cost burdens.

If my taxes were raised to pay for public schools, I would simply choose private schools, and then would be exempted from school taxes as well. This trend would totally gut our public schools system, and leads eventually to a breakdown of our society.

9/10/2006 07:05:00 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

just blowing hot air. this is like saying i don't support the war in iraq so why should i pay for it? this wouldn't go anywhere even if hell froze over.

9/10/2006 07:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, it’d okay for you to take advantage of a free public education. It’s okay when you send your kids to public school. But when it’s your turn to pay the bill for others, that’s not okay?

Fine with me, but then I don’t want to pay into Social Security. After all, I don’t use it and it probably won’t be there when I retire.

9/10/2006 09:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the beauty of federalism and states' rights: if your area charges more property tax for schools than you're comfortable with, move someplace that doesn't.

I did. Couldn't be happier. I don't care how dumb your children are, and I gots a nice, moist house.

It would be nice to see a bunch of libertarians find some small-population state and colonize it, and enact a minimalist tax and government agenda.

9/10/2006 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger Roadtripboy said...

"It takes a village ..."

I agree, the solution to NJ's high property taxes does not lie in exempting certain groups from paying them.

NJ towns need to consolidate public services. Small town's insistence on maintaining their individuality is costing them a lot of $$$.

Re: pensions. Why are public servents who hold multiple positions entitled to multiple pensions? I don't think I have a problem with someone holding multiple offices, to the extent that several smaller (i.e., lighter weight) positions can be realistically performed by a single person. But that person should receive a pension that is commensurate with a single full-time position, not multiple full time positions as seemed apparent from Grim's chart from a few threads back.

9/10/2006 10:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, this state is really headed in the right direction, I think I'm catching on to the logic. I guess because I'm not old yet, I shouldn't have to pay social security (sorry mom and dad), or since I don't use the public library I shouldn't have to pay my share to maintain it, or since I don't have fires at my house I shouldn't pay for the fire department, or since I don't have problems with lawless behavior I shouldn't have to pay for the police department, and since I didn't vote in the last election I shouldn't have to pay for the town councilman and his future, I'm really going to save some dough in NJ!

9/10/2006 10:56:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Ryley said...

Anon 11:56 wrote:
Wow, this state is really headed in the right direction, I think I'm catching on to the logic. I guess because I'm not old yet, I shouldn't have to pay social security (sorry mom and dad)

Poor analogy. Social Security was sold as "insurance" so your earnings pay for a "policy."

In reality, it is a Ponzi-like set-up that pays current retirees out of the taxes collected from current workers. It should have never been implemented.

or since I don't use the public library I shouldn't have to pay my share to maintain it,

Why does the state need to run public libraries? Why can't that be done on a private basis through non profits?

or since I don't have fires at my house I shouldn't pay for the fire department, , or since I don't have problems with lawless behavior I shouldn't have to pay for the police

One can make a better case for taxes to support fire and police departments. No argument there.

The problem: everyone votes for programs that sound good, and then think the "other guy" aka. Richie Rich, is going to willingly and gladly pay for it.

NJ residents expect too much from their government. Now they are getting what they deserve.

9/11/2006 12:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

take school buildings as an example
ive heard a middle school in byram or sparta that has just been built has a planetarium. dont know if its true or not but it seems a little extravagent. how much time is spent studying astrology?
people get carried away

9/11/2006 04:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Move out of NJ.


9/11/2006 05:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the answer in addition to consolidating school is competition. In other words, school choice.

If you have a child of school age, the tax money can be given to you as a voucher and then the parents can shop around for the best school.

Competition between schools fighting for your dollar will not only increase the quality of the education but it will also drive all of the waste out of the current system.

Think about it, the public school system is basically a monopoly. It is bearable answer to no one.

9/11/2006 05:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i dont know if consolidating is the best answer. i read an article i think from this blog saying how the smaller school systems were better run then the larger. i forget the examples but i think of manasquan as a small well run system. and they would be absorbed into wall twnshp

9/11/2006 05:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Escape from NJ said...

The solution is easy. Teachers are in a service industry not unlike waiters. Pay teachers $3.00 an hour like waiters and if the parents believe the teacher did a good job, tip the teacher at the end of the semester. I bet test scores and graduation rates skyrocket and property taxes stay low.

9/11/2006 06:00:00 AM  
Blogger Metroplexual said...

(((dont know if consolidating is the best answer. i read an article i think from this blog saying how the smaller school systems were better run then the larger. i forget the examples but i think of manasquan as a small well run system. and they would be absorbed into wall twnshp)))

What is wrong with Wall? I know people who love the schools there.

9/11/2006 06:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

for those of you have not caught on
yet. The NJ taxpayer's pocket
has been picked dry.

The teachers, cops, fireman,local
pols ,and state pols, have been
on to this for years.

Multiple jobs,multiple pensions,
come on they have all known about
it for years.

How about in some towns now
Taxes are a double .

Paying for What? The local schools,cops,local municiple employees,(some towns it over 50%)

9/11/2006 06:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The obvious answer is to change the tax, whatever we want to call it, to be based on income, not property.

It's not right that a senior living on a fixed income in a house that is paid for can't stay there because of the property taxes.

9/11/2006 06:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about library? I live in Edison and there are three public libraries in Edison. In my thought, at most one is enough.

9/11/2006 07:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


9/11/2006 07:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Pragmatist said...

It's called living in a community. Did this moron have children who attended public school? Then seniors at that time paid for HIS kids to go to school. It's part of the social contract.

I have no children and have NEVER used the public schools, but I have no problem with subsidizing them. I am sick of this "I got mine and f*** you" attitude people have.

9/11/2006 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger thatbigwindow said...

No sympathy here. In this ridiculous state we live in combined with out of control house prices and property taxes how are the "new buyers" going to do it on the same income plus over inflated mortgage payment?

9/11/2006 07:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't have a school taxes thread without someone bringing up vouchers.

I am mystified as to how any rational person (particularly the small-government types) ever came up with the notion that vouchers can work in the real world.

A voucher for any service is nothing more than the worst form of public subsidy to private interests. If you don't think the state should be involved in providing education, advocate that (not entirely unreasonable) position. It makes more sense not to collect the tax dollars then to redistribute them. If you want to say that's not possible, show me exactly where vouchers are getting done in any meaningful way.

BTW, if they ever did provide vouchers, I would have 6 kids and home school them and live very well of that wonderful government subsidy.


9/11/2006 07:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My house hasn't been robbed yet, but the neighbor's has. Why should I have to pay for police protection when I don't have crime.

Same argument.

Schools and the communities they serve are inextricably entwined. Deal with it.


9/11/2006 08:26:00 AM  
Blogger skep-tic said...

I'm guessing this guy has never heard the term "public good."

Did you know that the top 5% of earners pay 52% of all federal income taxes? Do you think they use 52% of services?

What would happen to our society if everyone only paid what they took out? We'd have the French Revolution Part Deux on our hands. Old rich guys living alone in big houses would be the first to go.

And at the end of the day, it is very easy for him to avoid the tax. Just rent.

9/11/2006 10:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this guy must live in Boonton...

9/11/2006 11:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

screw it.

Flat federal tax
Pay-for-use state school tax.
Everyone must serve 2 years in the military.

This country is turning into a bunch of materialistic obese wimps.

Rome is about to fall.

9/11/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was recently surfing the net and went to Hillsborough NJ's town website, where I click on the shcool link. Aparantly it costs 98 million dollars to run a school. 12 million of that goes to pay the teachers bennifits. I am sorry schools do not need 98 million dollars to be run.
Lets see if all the teachers in the districts make average of 60,000/year and there are 300 teachers/incuding superidentant and all the others included.
Thats 18 million
12 million in bennifits
Thats 30 million. Lets say to run power to schools its cost 3 million/year
33 Million
15 million dollar budget for all departments to split and sports.
Thats still 48 million.
So where the other 50 million dollars?
Its all a bunch of crap. Thats what the problem is, schools do not need that much money. Put a cap on schools spending and that will help lower property taxes.
Why should we pay a school 98 million dollars a year when most of these schools provide hoirrible educations. Also police in areas that are safe like Montville, East Brunswick, Bernardsville, Linciln Park, need to get paid a lot less. All the extra cops are useless, we are paying them a lot of money to drive around and Harass us.
Cut cops salaries and schools budgets and cut teachers bennifits, make them pay for there own like the rest of us do, hey we all dont make 100K/year and we survive and pay bennifits and nix teachers pensions and give the a 401K. And while were at it give all government workers 401K they are not any better than we are.
Just think how much property taxes would come down.

9/11/2006 07:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I choose not to have children at the moment, and I do agree majority of the school should be covered by people with kids attending these schools. I think all of comunity should support public education, but should my taxes eequal to someone who has 6 kids, it is not my responsibility that some women can't keep their legs closed. Have kids you can support not ones that all of us should support. Being a feelame, birth control is a wonderful thing...belive me..and when I'm ready I have no problems paying higher taxes to support my kid

9/12/2006 08:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who have children should pay for their educations. Plain and simple. Childless folks should be exempt! How overpopulated does the world need to get before we realize childlessness should be an honorable option? If anything, childlessness should be rewarded. The world's resources are dwindling; The world doesn't need more children/people. How dare anyone tell me that "it takes a village to raise a child." Bullshit. It takes their parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles. Not me. More and more children are being educated, and the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing. Violence keeps happening.

Additionally, the public schools are a mess. Half of what we learn is useless information we never use again. We've been pooring more and more money into them and creating more and more "programs" over the last 20 years, and things have only gotten worse. Where is the evidence that my money will make a difference? Higher taxes and more money is not the answer. Read Daniel Quinn's books and you'll understand what I'm saying.

As for who paid for my education? It should have been my paren't tax dollars. And, it was a shitty education. I had to pay for the education that was relevant and really mattered. If I see evidence that educated citizens are making the state/world a better place, then maybe I'll change my opinion. For now, I resent having to support a public school system I believe is failing miserably.

10/04/2006 04:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home