Another NJ Tax Report

On Wednesday, July 25 Stephen Sweeney told Stuart Varney to be on the lookout for some tax relief suggestions that were supposed to come out this past week from a group he got together.
.

.
Nothing came out so far except for a story in the Asbury Park Press about a new rollout date:

On Thursday, the task force will issue a report that provides a series of recommendations that could have a substantial positive impact on taxpayers. A Senate staffer says the report will be the most consequential review of ways to improve government efficiency since the SLERP Commission study years ago. The SLERP report included 111 different recommendations; not nearly enough of them were implemented.  It’s likely that many of those same recommendations will end up in the latest report. Will they go unheeded, as has been the case with previous studies?

There certainly is reason for skepticism. The task force did not include any representatives from the Murphy administration, and many of the study’s recommendations are likely to displease the public unions, one of Murphy’s main constituencies. But New Jersey’s finances are in desperate straits. Continuing to ignore the problem could ensure that Murphy, as with his Democratic predecessors, Jon Corzine, Jim McGreevey and Jim Florio, will never serve a second term.

According to a 2003 NJLM article on tax commissions we had:

This Thursday these guys add to the list*:

* Panel members as reported:

  • Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen
  • Sen. Steve Oroho, R-Sussex
  • Lou Greenwald, D-Camden
  • Eliana Pintor Marin, D-Essex
  • Sen. Troy Singleton, D-Burlington
  • Sen. Dawn Marie Addiego, D-Burlington
  • Sen. Anthony Bucco.
  • Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors
  • Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi
  • Michael Lahr, director of Rutgers Economic Advisory Service
  • Rutgers’ Bloustein Center for Local Government Research Director Raphael Caprio
  • Assistant Bloustein Center Director Marc Pfeiffer
  • Senior Fellow Richard Keevey
  • Henry Coleman, a professor and former economist with the U.S. General Accounting Office
  • Donald Moliver and Peter Reinhart, professors of real estate at Monmouth University
  • New Jersey Society of CPAs Executive Director Ralph Albert Thomas
  • Frank Chin and Ray Kljajic of American Public Infrastructure, Inc.
  • Kurtis Stroemel, president at HR&S Financial Services
  • Jerry Maginnis, former managing partner of the Philadelphia office of KPMG
  • Former state Sen. Raymond Lesniak
  • Former state Treasurer Feather O’Connor Houston

.

.

.

* I would say ‘pile’ but a quick internet search came up with no reports beyond that Henry Coleman article on those commissions which reminded me of that phony Shared Services Committee that Union County set up that first got me interested in county politics. No report to be found from them either but, in the case of Union County, the report was not the reason for the committee. Still packs a punch:
.

7 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by skip3house on August 4, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    wonder what a committee of incomes ranging from mean up to average, but understand/follow such as BuryPensions, cruel regressive tax systems,…. might give as solutions?

    Reply

  2. Posted by NJ2AZ on August 5, 2018 at 12:12 am

    NJ will never proactively reduce taxes in a material manner…too many people at the trough

    once things start collapsing they may have no choice but to lean out..but even then i foresee a lot of kicking and screaming

    Reply

  3. Tell us what that money was spent on…Did you guys meet, did you produce a report, was it lost, did the dog eat it…I am just asking what that money was spent on…$4500… Someone needs to answer for this… $4500 at the time was the average tax bill…You’re saying you don’t recall what you did with that money…I am asking for accountability…
    “George Jorn” needs to be FIRED. Like yesterday. She needs to call the US Attorney, not the State AG. The local and state authorities are not going to do jack shit with local and state political corruption, only the Feds will. And it takes a LOT to get the Feds involved, many times years and years. DID THE DOG EAT IT!!! I love this woman! My local City Hall was raided by the Feds recently but it took 10 years. The local District Attorney didn’t do jack shit. Turns out $40 million ++ is missing. The saddest part is the 7 officials who embezzled the $40 million ++ were given plea deals, not ONE was sent to prison, not one was sent to County jail. ALL received just a laughable one year of “home detention”. That was it. That is what you call “Fixed”. Whenever you see a criminal steal/embezzle, or in any other way jack over $1 MILLION, that is the threshold in my state of CA for state prison. That is ALWAYS prison time. Not County, but STATE PRISON. Here we had $40 million++ embezzled and home detention…I have never in m,y life seen such a plea deal. The Judge had to have also been in on the fix, because there is NO WAY a judge would ever go along with such a laughable joke plea deal unless they were IN ON IT and gave it the green light, just would never happen. Not even close.

    Reply

  4. Posted by MJ on August 6, 2018 at 12:32 pm

    Unfortunately as Ms Renna stated this goes on regularly throughout the state with no accountability, no integrity, utter disdain for anyone who questions, and complete disrespect for those who pay the bills and all of their perks and salaries

    Reply

  5. Posted by geo8rge on August 8, 2018 at 1:41 pm

    DEAD RETIREES COST NJ PENSION FUNDS $650 MILLION A YEAR
    http://nj1015.com/dead-retirees-cost-nj-pension-funds-650-million-a-year/

    They are talking about spousal benefits, “dead retirees” sort of implies checks going to dead persons. I don’t think they are considering the cost of healthcare which could be more than many pension amounts. They are also not considering the possibility that the spouse is also collecting a pension, although a spouse would only get one health plan.

    Also not considered is the possibility of sham marriages or marriages of convenience for the purpose of transferring benefits to a spouse. For example the case of the pension from a person that last worked for NJ in 1941. I tend to think that person might have married a much younger individual where the pension was the key to the marriage decision (to put it kindly). I have recently heard rumors of retirees marrying much younger women from third world nations, but those are just rumors. Health Insurance has also become an inducement now that a marriage contract is no longer necessary by many employers, but that is another story.

    Reply

    • Posted by skip3house on August 8, 2018 at 1:51 pm

      All your thoughts are true, even marriage to someone taking care of you in old age.
      The people who set up these ‘plans’ are not very good at ‘possibilities/arithmetic/what if….’/..?

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 8, 2018 at 2:25 pm

      Workers in the PUBLIC Sector get all sorts of incremental (but COSTLY) benefits because they approach indebted Elected Officials for perks that on casual observations seems reasonable, but upon careful observations come with significant cost.

      PRIVATE Sector employers pay MUCH more attention because THEY must pay for those incremental cost……… there being no 3-rd party sucker (called the Taxpayer) to whom such costs can be passed.

      For example, most Plans off a menu of Joint & Survivor (J&S) pension payout options to a retiree and spouse, with the reduction in annual payout (from the single straight Life Annuity amount) such that each elected option is SUPPOSED-TO-BE cost-neutral to the Plan. Therefore, Private Sector Plans DO LOOK AT the age differential between the retiree and the spouse if a J & S option is elected and for example, upon election of a J & S option, the reduction in payout will INCREASE as the age of the spouse gets lower relative to the age of the retiree.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if NJ’s PUBLIC Sector Plans ignore the significant incremental cost of allowing a J&S pension option ….. with NO INCREMENTAL REDUCTION in payout ….. when the spouse is MUCH younger than the retiree.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: