On 4/21/2015 8:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/20/2015 8:13 PM, philo wrote:


It's been a long time since the taxes here have gone up...just found it
so typical that they have gone up at a time when the Gov is telling us
he's working to bring them down.

Here the governor has no say in town taxes, as it should be. I can't
imagine how he would reduce taxes controlled by the town board of finance.

The state doesn't provide any revenues to the local towns
for anything? For example in NJ, the state hands over money
to the municipalities to help fund the schools, which consume
about two thirds of the property tax. Also, we had the lib
NJ Supreme Court decide two decades ago that it would determine
how much money has to be spent on educating kids in the poor
districts. The court has remained involved ever since and
perverted it to the point that the worst districts like
Camden get more per pupil than the wealthiest districts spend.
And of course, the kids are just as dumb as ever.... So,
here, what the state does can impact local property taxes.


I know some funding comes from the state, but it is an indirect
influence on our tax rate. The governor has no say in what the rate
should be. If the state suddenly tripled their contribution, you can be
sure the local B of F will keep the rate the same and spend that money
in some other place.

Governors do have some direct influence on rates of sales taxes and
income taxes, but all of that has to be approved by the legislature too.

Realistic view: No matter what the candidate promises, he is just part
of the crappy system once elected and has only influence, not full
control.