Christie’s Property Tax Plan – More Dodgy Numbers

He teased about it last month:

My first thought was that the big idea for lowering property taxes was to eliminate county government in New Jersey but that would cut back on pay-to-play too much for Christie’s tastes so it won’t be that.

Instead the plan, as announced this afternoon and presuming that Christie now has practical control over the state Supreme Court, is to…

give all school districts the same amount of state aid per student, eliminating Abbott districts, and, as with the pension ‘reforms’, dodgy numbers are an integral part of the sales pitch:

Never mind that those 31 Abbott districts include the largest cities in the state with far more than 5% of the student population.

Then there is the claim that the aid the Abbott districts get does not go to property tax relief but rather to bloating municipal government:


Let’s put dollar figures to those percentages.  Assuming $100 in total property taxes broken down as:

  • School: $52 -52%
  • Municipal: $30 – 30%
  • County (Other): $18 – 18%

Now if state aid lowers the School portion to $26 and nothing else changes we get:

  • School: $26 – 35%
  • Municipal: $30 – 41%
  • County (Other): $18 – 24%

It’s basic math.

But the most duplicitous aspect of this spiel is that this is supposed to reduce property taxes:

since the non-Abbott districts are presumably governed by nobler politicians who would not take those savings to bloat municipal governments like their brethren purportedly did.

Here is the full speech:

30 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by George on June 21, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    eliminate county government

    Why not eliminate state government? Better watch out what you wish for, they might take your idea but eliminate local government.


  2. Posted by Anonymous on June 21, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    I can’t wait for that asshole Christi to leave office.


  3. Posted by Anonymous on June 21, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    This proposal is really truly Chris Christie at his best/worst. Turn brother against brother, rich versus poor. So utterly sad for a leader. Cloaked in the pitch of something that everyone really does want. Nice.
    It gets worse. This proposal is really a Trojan horse. In perfect CC dogma.
    This is being introduced to scr3w the proposed constitutional pension amendment clear and simple. Add another constitutional amendment to clutter the ballot. Think about it, everyone really desperately wants lower taxes, but morally CCs proposal is a bit much. So, you vote against it, BUT you would then have to potentially have to agree to higher taxes going forward in support of the pension amendment. The first pill will be such a bitter reminder of the high taxes you already pay, it will make the second one impossible. And if the constitutional amendment for the pensions fails, public workers lose any leverage they have until the day comes when the funds run dry and all of a sudden an emergency exists and yes taxes will rise but at the expense of probably a 30% decrease in PW pension payments. Hold your breath, while PW pensions are a republican dry run at social security. It’s all an immoral practice against a democratic voter base. Who could lose…right? PW pensions are only for a minority right? Keep telling yourself that when the Fed decide to confiscate 30% of your 401ks/IRAs/SEPs To cover their debts they don’t feel like paying.


  4. Posted by Anonymous on June 21, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Sorry, almost forgot. If the dems block CCs amendment they are on record as stating they don’t want to reduce property taxes. The dems lose if they block it and lose if they allow it to progress.


    • Posted by Anonymous on June 22, 2016 at 10:17 am

      I would like to agree w you. Depens on how many grey hairs are around to vote. The grey hair publics apparently mean shit to the njsc and state govt. ( hence the absurd COLA ruling) they may not get away with that for non public ss (at least till millenials truly realize how bad they are getting fucked w SS, which may take a while since Thier parents, even w SS are the first group en masse retiring w no pension, and the fact that many millenials are still living w parents and benifiting in some way from the SS) it’s all about votes. Me personally, after losing my COLA in such a backstabbing, devious, way from a bullshit njsc, I now pray for SS (which I dont get) to go under. I have no pity for one who cheers at my misfortune aND whines about no (or low) SS cola. I say fuck em….cut back like I will have too..


      • Posted by Anonymous on June 22, 2016 at 1:45 pm

        Could you imagine the crying, chest beating and cries that the end of the world is upon us if the SS cola were eliminated. Like you said screw them at least I moved out and do not spend one red cent of my pension in NJ.


      • Posted by dentss dunnigan on June 22, 2016 at 2:35 pm

        I don’t understand your bitterness towards SS ,most people never get what was put in for the reason it takes 17 to 20 years to do that .On a cash balance basis precipitants get about 4 to 5% back every year what was put in …As for state pensions most receive 40 to 50% of what was put in every year hence 2 to 3 year payout of total contributions. with zero interest rate of return on investments you can see where the depletion rate is unsustainably .


        • Posted by Anonymous on June 22, 2016 at 3:48 pm

          The bitterness involves the glee some folks feel when his cola is eliminated. If he is in pfrs like I am, he prob doesn’t get SS. Therefore, he (as i) have no tolerance for seniors whining about a miniscule cola raise. I would’ve felt differently 7 yrs ago, and felt bad for this group, but alas as the saying goes “fuck me?….no, fuck you” You can’t cut my benifits and expect me to hope for the best for you…..Doesn’t work that way.


          • Posted by PS Drone on June 22, 2016 at 4:10 pm

            Well since the “benefit” you get is probably at least 150% of what you would get if you had SS instead I only have crocodile tears for you. Oh, and I forgot. SS retirement age is 66 (without haircuts), not 53 or 55 like when you retired. Don’t even try to compare your ridiculous pension benefits to SS.

          • Posted by MJ on June 23, 2016 at 7:22 am

            To bitter anon, I’m not sure what it is that you are bitter about…your early retirement age 50-55??? your lifetime health benefits???? your generous pension???? your generous pay out for unused sick time???? What exactly is it that you are bitter about?? things didn’t turn out how you had hoped regarding colas???

          • S/he will be really bitter when the pension itself ends

  5. Posted by Anonymous on June 22, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    I believe that SS colas have been suspended from time to time.most recently during Obama’s tenure….as far as no more public pension colas, for the moment be glad that was the only thing that was cut…the beginning of the end. Whether the pension amendment passes or not, the pensions will never be funded as currently structured…to do so would eliminate most other services in the state and most likely reduce the public workforce significantly.


    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on June 22, 2016 at 9:19 pm

      USA Today, Oct. 15, 2015

      ” Seniors won’t get a cost of living adjustment, known as a COLA, in 2016 because such increases are tied to the general rate of inflation — no inflation, no increase. In the past year, prices for the goods and services used to calculate inflation fell, mostly due to a dip in fuel prices.”

      Just in !!!
      USA TODAY, 2 hours ago:

      ” The average recipient of Social Security will receive a slight increase in benefits in 2017, according to projections released Wednesday.”

      Spoiler alert: “an extra $2 for someone getting a $1,000 monthly check”



    • Posted by Luke on June 23, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      SS colas have NEVER been suspended. It is determined by inflation. there have been years where the inflation rate was too low to warrant a cola, that’s all. and Obama had nothing to do with it.


  6. Posted by Eric on June 22, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    You will NEVER see a cost of living adjustment EVER, thanks to the office annexed to the governor’s office. Oh, I mean the NJ Supreme Court.
    Corruption wins every time. Being correct on the law is irrelevant.


    • Posted by Anonymous on June 22, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      Of course it is, hence the bitterness. Instead of coming out and saying “we can’t afford a cola” , we get bullshit about legislative intent. Hogwash. The benifit was given every year and in the handbook. To say it is not part of the benifits program is disingenuous.
      Hey, ps drone, what say you about the cop who retired 20 yrs ago before salaries got good. Didn’t make much, no 457 plan available (Def no town match) and no SS. But he had promise of pension. Not talking about chief w $110000 pension, but 80 yr old with $34000 and no SS. How is that fair? Luckily I am not in his boat, but still. Why can’t those who have no SS, receive a cola at age 67, when they normally get SS? Pension enrollment is mandatory and so is SS opt out for pfrs. Just saying, state pisses so much money away on peiple who abuse system, but shit on some who work hard and play by the rules. So save your crocodile tears and/or real ones. You just can’t expect public employees to have faith in their employers(all taxpayers indirectly) when the score changes after the game is over. So, like I said, just as you feel about my retirement, is how I feel about yours. Could care less about it……4 yrs to go…..then leaving. The way u complain, I feel you’ll be joining me


      • Posted by MJ on June 23, 2016 at 7:24 am

        Im left wondering why it is that police do not pay into SS in the first place…….must be nice to have that extra money is a paycheck……..


        • Posted by Anonymous on June 23, 2016 at 10:06 am

          Windfall elimination provision. If I had the choice, I would have put in starting from day 1. Even with the so called “promise” of cola at the time. If you receive a govt pension, you get a cut in your SS , ranging from 10 to 40 % depending on how long your paid into it. You still would pay full amount in, you just get it cut on the back end. Ronald Reagan did that. So….because cops and fire were removed from the system entirely (except for Medicare, which we pay into) the formula for pensions is higher than for teachers, etc who do get SS. Hence, the cola was considerably more important to cops and fire. As I stated earlier, I just feel that a fairer thing to would be to give the cola at age 67. I am also in favor of raising age to retire to a minimum of 55. Or you can retire earlier but no pension payut till age 55. Instead, we had a slash and burn policy imposed on us w no choice. Hence, the bitterness. The real losers are the old cops retired for decades. They need this the most. Ther pensions are small. The other losers are the new kids starting out. Stuck at no more than 2% (really more like 1 to 1.5%) raises for their whole career. 15 plus years to top pay, etc. Reduced pension that may not even be thier. North of $10 g a year for health care. Those salaries that everyone complains about will not be competitive in 15 to 20 years. People forget that in the 80s there was a big push to increase salaries and get cops college degRees because the profession was unattractive to many. We will be back there within a decade. Smart people won’t take the job and the others will work second jobs and not be as into their careers as their predecessors were. History will repeat itself.


          • Posted by PS Drone on June 23, 2016 at 6:40 pm

            I agree that retirees who are too old to have been able to take advantage of the raping and pillaging that has gone on in the public sector for the last 25 years should have something consistent with SS as far as COLA’s are concerned. But at the same time I think all of these six figure pensions, triple dippers etc. should be cut back to a max of $60K a year and the retirement age pushed forward to be consistent with SS. It’s going to happen anyway so it might as well be done in a logical manner.

        • Posted by PS Drone on June 23, 2016 at 6:34 pm

          Being cynical, I think it is the “employer” who does not want them to be in SS. That way the “employer” does not have to fork over the matching 6.2% to the IRS with every paycheck. Same logic as not making the pension contribution. All bullshit all the time. All politicians are pathological liars. Anyone who thinks differently is naive.


          • Posted by Anonymous on June 23, 2016 at 9:02 pm

            I suppose. But why just cops and fire as opposed to pers and tpaf. There member are IN ss Although at least the town pays into pfrs.
            I would be all for a max pension cap as long as cola starts at 67. In fact new hires have that cap. Not totally sure I want 62 yr old cops en masse still on force. Usually the ones who don’t get promoted and are still working the road are the ones who retire in Thier 50s. Very few retire in their 40s. I would say you need to stay at least until 55. It is a young man’s game. But 50’s is still yung now a days. Listen, because out bread is buttered in different ways, we will always disagree about some things. The idea is to find out objectively what is fair, mostly be talking to each other. Half the posters dont even know cops and fire get no SS. And I’m sure if the cola was only suspended to age 67 for pfrs members, the taxpayers wuld probably agree that is fair. The extremists who think we should work for $20 an hour? Well I will never convince that person. Just like you won’t convince a pw blowhard who doesn’t appreciate what he has. We are all just people who are trying to make a living and for the most part (triple dippers, disability fraud, etc which I’ve always been against excluded) are decent family people who play hy the rules.

  7. Posted by Eric on June 22, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    The money is there; they just refuse to pay it. It is analogous to trust money. As I said, corruption always wins!


  8. Posted by Anonymous on June 22, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    As the Anon who posted the Trojan horse bit, I am private. Was surprised by the Cola ruling, but really wasn’t. Hoping for it to reinstated-mainly from a fair contracts position. State constitution states a pension is guaranteed and doesn’t say an amount. Rulings have been consistent with this. Have to say that the surpremes did say in their pension funding (not cola) that pensions are due regardless of whether the state funds them. It’s the whole yeah my mortgage payment is due but hey let it go for 20 yrs, force a crises (from which the amoral repubs exercise maximum leverage to exact the best concessions). Quite disgusting when you think they want to ruin the lives of several hundred thousand people. Where was I, oh yeah, the supremes said the bill is due. State can’t declare bankruptcy. The twsps aren’t stupid enough to allow the state to force its funding portion onto them.
    The question of this generation is-how will we decide to take care of our parents?
    How will we do it that is generationally fair?

    Think about it and your parents and the social security they will Depend on. The state pension issue is the same discussion we will all be having about SS in 15 years.


  9. Posted by Anonymous on June 24, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Christie is a Donald Trump opportunistic racist, he’s moved from teachers to urban schoolchildren, imagine two bigots leading this republic.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: