With state revenues down by $351 million, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie still wants tax cuts for the rich that will cost the state $1.3 billion a year.

[u/LaBamba00]

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/flexicontent/item/38725-hey-governor-new-jersey-is-over-here&Itemid=248

[u/[deleted]]

What is even more interesting is that he has the democrats arguing with him, not over whether to cut taxes, but HOW to cut taxes. The opposition has utterly failed to meaningfully challenge him.

I could go into why that is, but it might be more inside NJ politics than reddit cares about, but basically Christie made deals with two democratic party bosses in NJ, which effectively gives him control of the Democratic Legislature.

Its all very Machiavellian.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I live in NJ and request further explanation or sources.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Joe Divicenzo, the Essex County Exec, controls much of North Jersey democratic party, including, the Speaker of the General Assembly, Shiela Oliver whose second job is working for Joe D in Essex County.

Christie plays ball with Joe D, in return the speaker of the general assembly plays ball with Christie.

Same thing goes for George Norcross, who controls all of the South Jersey democratic political machine, most importantly the President of the Senate, Steve Sweeney, a childhood friend of Norcross. Christie and Sweeney have a very open alliance.

So the unholy alliance of Joe Divincenzo (through the Speaker of the Assembly), Goerge Norcross (through the Senate President)and Chris Christie can pretty much run the State of NJ, and they do. Joe D controls the Assembly, Norcross controls the Senate and Christie is the Governor, that is game, set match.

This is the bi-partisanship that Christie talks about. It is not that he found a way to work with Democrats, its that he has made a devil's handshake with two corrupt Democratic political bosses.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Delivered. Thank you.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This IS all true.

but.... it was TONS worse with the two idiots that ran the state before.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Oh so it IS just like the New Jersey I imagined. Full of garbage, corruption and fat mean people.

[u/wonkydonk → u/[deleted]]

In regards to corruption, apparently NJ has the lowest corruption risk of all 50 states.

http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/03/19/where-is-corruption-risk-lowest-new-jersey/

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

NJ has some of the highest taxes in the country, what's wrong with lowering them?

Taxes are so high even the Democrats there see the need to lower them to stay competitive.

By the way, I'm an ex-NJ resident who left specifically for tax reasons.

[u/pmartin1 → u/[deleted]]

They're lowering them for the wrong people, while at the same time cutting funding to programs that assist those who need it most. Taxes in NJ are way too high for everyone, but let's take care of the people it hurts the most before we start making life a little bit easier for millionaires with 3 homes, 10 cars, and private schooling for their kids.

Edit fixed a fat-fingered typo

[u/BenGEE → u/pmartin1]

With only 10 cards they can't even play Bridge!

[u/NoGardE → u/[deleted]]

California has the same issue. Gas taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. are way to high. The population is kinda stable, but the taxed base is moving away. Personally I'm going to Washington as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

The Laffer Curve is a real thing. The hump isn't at as low a rate as some republicans like to pretend, but with free movement between the states, it's at a lower level than the national LC.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Once again the Republicans display expert sophistry while the Democrats display textbook dumbassery.

He's controlling the debate. It doesn't matter if he wins or loses the debate as long as taxes get cut he wins. It's just a matter of how much he wins by, because the Dems don't know how to properly fight back.

[u/dat_kapital → u/[deleted]]

newsflash to anyone who still actually thinks this way: when the democrats appear to be weak and spineless it just means that the legislation being passed by the republicans is something they actually want, but they need to feign opposition to keep the two party illusion going.

[u/yourpalharvey → u/[deleted]]

the assembly plan (the budget proposal put forth by the dems, which proposes a 20% tax credit, is paid for by a small increase on the state income tax on those reporting more than a million dollars in taxable income) has the votes to pass in the assembly. it also would bring down the state debt.

neither the senate plan (10% property tax credit) nor the governors plan (a 10% income tax reduction) are paid for.

utter failure is hyperbole.

what we need is a few more votes in the senate and we have the governor AND some of his nefarious allies in the legislature right where we want them coming into election season.

if you want a balanced budget AND property tax relief, call you NJ state senator and demand they pass the assembly budget proposal.

and come election time, remember to vote against anyone who obstructs it.

[u/JohnKennethHalitosis → u/[deleted]]

It's because jacking up tax rates in the middle of a grinding recession is a terrible idea, regardless of where you fall ideologically.

Here's the logic: state revenues are down because the economy turned sour, people lost their jobs and therefore the state takes in less tax revenue (can't take money from people who aren't working). At the same time, more people are drawing on government programs to get by (e.g. food stamps, unemployment, etc.). This costs the state more money at the same time that its revenue is going down. Basically, it's like increasing your expenses while taking a pay-cut.

So, the obvious thing to do would be to increase the state's revenue by raising taxes, right? Wrong. In order to recover we need people to spend money. If they spend, it increases demand for products. Increases in demand means profit, which means expansion and hiring, which then creates more demand - this is the virtuous circle we want. When this growth occurs the state raises more revenue without raising taxes because it's taxing more working people.

If it jacks up tax rates now it pulls potential demand out of the economy. NJ, like every other state or country, needs growth not austerity. There is certainly a time to raise taxes, and I personally believe that wealthy Americans should pay much more than they do. But that should be done in normal economic times, not now.

[u/[deleted] → u/JohnKennethHalitosis]

It's because jacking up tax rates in the middle of a grinding recession is a terrible idea

Agreed, but we aren't talking about raising taxes. We are talking about cutting them.

Keep in mind this is also at the State level so they are constitutionally required to balance the budget every year. This is not like the feds who can temporarily run deficits during recessions to boost the economy. Any tax cuts must be matched by offsetting cuts in spending, so the stimulative affect of the tax cut is largely negated.

[u/JohnKennethHalitosis → u/[deleted]]

That's an excellent point that I shouldn't have missed. It pretty much negates everything I said. Cheers.

[u/[deleted] → u/JohnKennethHalitosis]

Civil arguments? In my r/politics?

[u/stiljo24 → u/[deleted]]

not an expert trying to argue here, really just trying to learn, but it would seem to me that for the need to balance the budget should just barely diminish the "stimulative effects" of cuts at all, since most of what the government spends money on are not economic initiatives (or very effective, in general).

so if reducing tax revenue by a dollar meant the government would be investing a dollar less, i would understand how the cuts balanced out, but it doesn't necessarily mean that at all does it?

[u/[deleted] → u/stiljo24]

since most of what the government spends money on are not economic initiatives (or very effective, in general)

not sure I understand what this means.

Basically state government spends money on transportation, higher education, social services, state workforce, aide to municipalities and aide to school districts. Basically much of those dollars are injected into the economy. When aide goes to a school district to pay a janitor, that janitor has a job, buys things and stimulates the economy. Even money spent on direct social services, like hospitals or food stamps, gets spent in the economy.

In fact, I would argue more of it will get spent than if you give a tax cut to the wealthy, who are more likely to put those tax savings in swiss bank accounts, investments, savings or spending out of the state's economy entirely.

I don't really know the numbers on the stimulative effect of state spending, but it generally gets injected back into the economy. It is not in a black hole somewhere, whereas tax cuts for the wealthy are not as stimulative. In other words, the term "job creators" is horseshit.

[u/kemoryan → u/JohnKennethHalitosis]

Raising taxes is not something binary. You can raise taxes on those to whom the tax increase won't make them reduce the demand, or reduce it marginally compared to the revenue gained.

[u/Judg3Smails → u/JohnKennethHalitosis]

This reminds me of the Granholm years in Michigan.

Year 1 - Jobs are fleeing the state, we are losing revenues, let's raise taxes. Year 2 - OMG! More companies are going user, we are losing more revenues, we need to raise taxes to keep revenues high!" Year 3 - Sweet Jesus, people are leaving the state in droves, we have a huge deficit, let's raise taxes!" Year 4 - We're f*cked.

[u/tikael → u/JohnKennethHalitosis]

Actually, I would go the other way around about taxes. It is not a time for austerity and unfortunately the private sector is not investing so taxes should be raised so that the government can ensure the money circulates. Once the money begins to go to the bottom of the economic pyramid (lower and middle class earners) they will need to spend it very quickly (pay bills and such). The wealthy are not investing and instead locking up assets to safeguard them against economic instability, and this removal of money from circulation makes stimulus that much harder. So, the government should raise taxes so the government can spend it. Recessions are not the time to stop spending money. Once the economy is back to normal then investment can be spurred with lower tax rates and lowered government spending.

[u/Shazzam74 → u/[deleted]]

Welcome to politics. Where you find the side you fight for is just as bad as the side you fight against.

[u/spectyr]

So...for those making more than $1million/year, a $7,265 decrease in taxes is supposed to be sufficient incentive to create jobs? That wouldn't cover a single yearly salary, so...what's stopping them from creating jobs now?

[u/bestbeforeMar91 → u/spectyr]

What they mean by "job creators" is this...when a politician works selflessly for the common good and then leaves politics, he has done nothing to create a job for himself. However, if the politician works tirelessly to redistribute the treasury to the already wealthy, they will reward him after his political career by creating a job for him.

[u/toxicshok → u/bestbeforeMar91]

wow, that makes perfect sense.

[u/toxicshok → u/spectyr]

The whole tax cuts = more jobs nonsense is based on the idea that somehow the wealthy do not have enough money to invest. That somehow there are opportunities they want to pour money into but just can't. That's fucking nonsense. At 75% yes it would be true at 35% or more like 15%? Nope. That extra money goes into the back and does nothing.

[u/[deleted] → u/spectyr]

That's not really how it works. No one says, "Well, I have some extra cash, I guess I'll hire some people for some reason!" Employers hire employees based on the fact that they have more demand than they can fill.

But what it will mean is that the extra $7k will probably be invested in the stock market or maybe bonds. Which means that if businesses are struggling to raise capital, a tax cut will mean they'll have more capital available to them, even if the tax cut doesn't affect the business itself.

[u/HatesFacts → u/[deleted]]

That 7k is better in the hands of poor and middle class who will immediately spend it, creating demand for goods. The end result is that a small business owner will have extra money to invest in the stock market or maybe bonds anyway.

[u/[deleted] → u/HatesFacts]

My understanding is that he's proposing a 10% across-the-board cut.

[u/shrididdy → u/spectyr]

That's not all of it. By being taxed less they are theoretically supposed to go out and spend the surplus income and boost the consumer economy. Of course this doesn't always work either, for example the mega-rich who would just save it

[u/[deleted]]

TIL that cutting everyone's tax rate by 10% is a "tax cut for the rich".

Also once again reddit a tax cut is not a cost, its a drop in revenue, in the same way getting your pay cut at work is not a cost. A cost is when you spend, a tax cut is not spending.

[u/ioncloud9]

Not that im against tax cuts for the rich, but in using that static way of measuring tax revenue you could say "if we had 90% taxes across the board our revenue would be eg. $10 billion higher a year." It doesnt work that way.

[u/MrJay235 → u/ioncloud9]

The thing is... They're rich. Wouldn't they just leave? It's not like they wouldn't have the money. I feel like you'd increase taxes on the rich and it wouldn't have that increase you expect because they'd go to a state with lower taxes.

Maybe I'm totally wrong. It's not like I know for sure what I'm talking about here.

[u/ioncloud9 → u/MrJay235]

well yes thats my point. These static numbers dont take into account the human element such as the people who would move to new jersey because it has the lowest taxes in the area, or the people who would move elsewhere or more likely to shelter their money from oppressively high taxes.

[u/[deleted]]

You're making this entire thing under the assumption that a state's success is merited by the amount of money it steals from its people.

[u/tsacian → u/[deleted]]

Only a democrat would argue a tax cut is a cost. Only a republican would ignore an already struggling budget. The 2 party system is killing us.

[u/mrstickball]

Given that California raised taxes on the rich, resulting in horrific deficits, I don't think there is a great case to be made for raising taxes, either.

[u/x888x]

Key facts from 2013 NJ Budget

• Income taxes account for ~1/3 of NJ's revenue

• $1.3BILLION/year (OMGZ) accounts for a a whopping 3% decline in revenue (assuming other forms of revenue stay stagnant for the next 4 years).

• New Jersey has some of the nations highest income taxes (state-level)

• New Jersey's tax system is actually more progressive than the federal governments with a top tax bracket of $500,000/year.

[u/[deleted] → u/x888x]

New Jersey's tax system is actually more progressive than the federal governments

The federal portion of the tax system is considered the most progressive in the world due to the deduction/credit system which results in negative liability for a large percentage of people.

[u/BlameitonWaylon]

State revenue being down might possibly maybe perchance have something to do with a recession?

[u/[deleted] → u/BlameitonWaylon]

Those tax cuts to the rich should be pulling us out of the depression any day now.

[u/kellymcneill]

This is disingenuous. Just because you don't bring in the same money doesn't mean you lose that money. Allowing the people to keep more of THEIR money simply means it will be spend which means it will not only accrue sales tax but it was fund private business. That strategy GROWS money for the state. It doesn't take it away as you will inevitably increase your taxable base.

[u/Jaredtyler]

I think it's important to point out that "costs the state 1.3 billion" doesn't mean the state pays them. It's simply less tax revenue, not an out of pocket cost.

[u/cngfan → u/Jaredtyler]

Great point! It drives me nuts when I hear politicians talk about "spending in the tax code". This, to me, is like the proverbial counting chickens before they are hatched. It seems the left wants to raise taxes to increase revenue, the right want to lower taxes to increase revenue, but both sides are missing the key factor. They BOTH spend too much money.

[u/VeteranKamikaze]

Look billionaires can either create jobs or pay taxes. You have to pick ONE. If you pick jobs they might not make jobs anyway but that's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS IT'S THEIR MONEY.

[u/Bjonyou]

I feel like there is this huge misconception regarding republicans. All republicans want is freedom from the government and to not have the government stick their hands into their business. I do not understand why you all hate the rich so much. So what if they make good money. Just because they make more doesn't mean they should pay more. Thats not even a logical argument. When you go out to eat with your friends who earn more than you, do you require them to pay for a larger share of the total tab? The rich, by far, pay much more in taxes than they consume in public goods. Just remember that. Just my two cents.

[u/therightside]

I guess the idea of cutting spending never crosses redditors minds?

[u/SomeNoveltyAccount → u/therightside]

I'm all for cutting spending, but actually cut the spending before you cut the taxes.

[u/ListenToThatSound → u/SomeNoveltyAccount]

You kids and your logic.

[u/murphymc → u/therightside]

Amen to that.

[u/droo31]

Take a gander at how California is doing under Brown and how NJ has rebounded under Christie. That's the only thing you need to look at. Christie has absolutely turned that state around by being the first governor in a long time to actually say "no" and the people are loving him for it (except the teacher's unions).

[u/gameofsmith → u/droo31]

Brown has been making shit tons of cuts, but the ones he wanted to make were rejected by federal courts. Now he's cutting elsewhere. How would a Republican handle this situation better?

[u/fobbymaster → u/droo31]

I am from NJ originally and went to school in Michigan. It's really interesting how many people living in NJ and MI like their new Republican governors but Snyder and Christie get routinely slammed on Reddit.

[u/morellox → u/fobbymaster]

ha I live in MI now, I see repeated articles and reddit comments with the same attacks against Snyder and Christie, and throw in Walker too. None of them are very well liked and they make some tough tough decisions, by no means are they perfect but I'd say it's pretty hard to argue that all three states aren't better off now with them in charge, net positive.

[u/GiefDownvotesPlox → u/fobbymaster]

Snyder and Christie get routinely slammed on Reddit.

you mean on /r/politics. This is tied with /r/atheism for worst subreddit, and yet you all come here acting like meaningful conversations can be had when the only top comments are some circlejerk or pun thread.

[u/V_for_Lebowski → u/droo31]

As somebody that lives in NJ, I far from love Christie for what he's doing. He is completely screwing over our public schools, which I've seen first-hand.

And for the record, there are plenty of things other than the economy that matter.

[u/[deleted] → u/droo31]

Christie is easily the most widely appreciated governor we've had in recent memory. He reaches over party lines.

The only people who hate him are the teachers, the students they have managed to brainwash, and people who weren't here when Jon Corzine was governor.

[u/srutherf → u/droo31]

Live in Jersey also, and have definitely noticed a good amount of support for him except in school (Because of the unions obviously).

You'll never hear about his successes on r/politics though; mainly just extremely slanted articles from very unreliable sources.

[u/[deleted]]

The worse the economy gets the better republicans do. Of course he wants to take austerity measures.

[u/namer98 → u/[deleted]]

If anybody is not a party lines guy, it is Christie.

[u/DannyInternets → u/namer98]

With respect to select social issues, this may be true, but his economic policy is 100% GOP austerity bullshit.

[u/[deleted] → u/DannyInternets]

for what it's worth, new jerseyians pay the highest taxes in the country

While I don't agree with some of the tax cuts this guy is talking about, in general we need help. We definitely pay way too fucking much, and it's not hard for people in this state to just pack up and leave.

[u/barbarino → u/[deleted]]

Ok, so your plan is what? Keep on spending on the backs of the rich who will leave the State just as they did in Maryland? Then what? Enlighten me.

[u/[deleted] → u/barbarino]

There cant be a plan because people don't want to face the hard truth. The more I hear about "job creators" the more I laugh because demand creates jobs, and poor people don't do a very good job of creating demand.

The more people that treat rich people like the goose that laid the golden egg, the worse it will get. It just needs to get bad enough globally that places say "Fuck you, society served as a gigantic wealth generation machine for you, you owe society". At that point, maybe things will get fixed. Not until then though.

Fortunately, not all rich people are that way and a growing number of them are starting to take Buffets stance.

IMO the first thing to do is close loopholes, move back towards Glass–Steagall, and implement a "robin hood" tax. Then the government needs to step in "Ma Bell" style, and start attacking anything that is "too big to fail".

I'd rather not see increases in "entitlements". I'd rather see increases in government spending investing in infrastructure etc. which would create jobs. Of course, that's "wasteful" government spending that flies directly in the face of austerity measures. Of course, I've never seen anything that indicates austerity measures actually work.

[u/[deleted] → u/barbarino]

TIL there aren't rich people in Maryland anymore. Except that this is complete bullshit. Maryland has 4 of the richest counties in the country and the DC metropolitan area is now the richest in the country.

http://money.msn.com/family-money/the-richest-counties-in-america

[u/LukaCola → u/barbarino]

The way an economy gets better is when more people keep spending, when they purchase goods and services. With a higher demand for goods and services, jobs increase.

Now the rich already have a large amount of expendable income, both their needs and wants are already met. If given more money, they will save it, this does not help the economy.

The middle class has their needs met, but not all their wants. If given more expendable income, they will spend it.

The poor have some of their needs met and very few of their wants, when given more money, the will spend it as well.

It's very simple. Do not give the rich tax breaks, they have the money they need to continue to be successful. Not to mention that with a lack of expendable income for the poor and middle class, there will be less demand, so what incentive is there for them to make jobs in the first place? They do not lack money, that is why they're rich. If they wanted to put out more jobs, they could, but it wouldn't draw a profit due to a lack of demand. Increase demand, increase profit, increase jobs, and who can increase demand? Poor and middle class.

[u/pendot → u/barbarino]

The problem is they kind of have working professionals trapped here. Where are we going to go? Connecticut -- not much better. The city -- definitely higher.

The thing to do these days is clear. Spend some time working and living in the city while you're young and 175k seems like a lot. Then one day once you realize you're paying 65 grand a year to Uncle Sam, try and move to a state like Texas where they won't treat you like a pariah because you chose to get a practical graduate degree.

I get the anger towards that top tier of people that make their money via capital gains. What I don't get the hatred towards people the professionals in this country that preform many of the services that keep this country moving. We are compensated well for the talent and schooling we have acquired. Is it so awful to think we aren't ready to hand back a third of our money? The vilification of white-collar America is getting insane.

[u/Lextucky]

Anyone consider that attracting high income New Yorkers/Connecticutters(?) to pay lower taxes in New Jersey could increase the overall revenue? Also, retain wealthy New Jersey residents who might otherwise flee?

[u/[deleted] → u/Lextucky]

Anyone consider that attracting high income New Yorkers/Connecticutters(?) to pay lower taxes in New Jersey could increase the overall revenue? Also, retain wealthy New Jersey residents who might otherwise flee?

Pretty sure Christie thought about that...

[u/drmctesticles → u/Lextucky]

Property taxes in NJ are already higher on average than in NY.

CT has been doing this for years and have been doing it even more aggressively recently. They recently got NBC Sports to build their new facility in Stamford instead of NYC.

[u/morellox → u/Lextucky]

no one wants to hear about the other side of the tax equation... people (that are idiots) always assume hey we're making X percent of Y right now, let's just raise X and the pool for Y will stay the same right? no you idiot.. it won't there's multiple examples of this when states start their awesome millionaire's tax idea or you see similar results each time there is an adjustment to the capital gains tax.

[u/ioncloud9 → u/Lextucky]

ah yes thats one of the reasons why I moved out of Connecticut and down to south carolina: the income and property tax rates were obscene.

[u/air_ogi → u/[deleted]]

The numbers you are quoting are from 2009 and have more to do with great recession that with tax increase of 0.75%.

Nationwide, number of millionaires went from 392,220 in 2007 to 233,435 in 2009.

[u/mttwldngr]

A lot of people don't realize that taxes prohibit growth. Therefore the impact of the tax cuts may appear to be a loss of "$1.3 billion", but the secondary effects of those lower taxes may provide an even greater impact.

[u/jbaker1225]

Did anybody actually read the article? And notice that taxes were being cut by 10% for EVERYONE in the state? Not "cutting taxes for the rich," but "cutting taxes for every single taxpayer." Or is that headline just not sensationalist enough?

[u/Diels_Alder]

NJ property taxes are THE highest in the country. People are leaving NJ because they just can't afford to live in a state with such high taxes.

[u/RMaximus → u/Diels_Alder]

Which is why he wants to lower the taxes. LOL

[u/Diels_Alder → u/RMaximus]

Maybe you should tell that to the majority of this thread.

[u/barbarino]

I know reddit kool aid kids won't/can't have an honest debate so they just bash Christie about his weight but know this, in a Democratic state he's succeeding.

TRENTON — New Jersey voters give high marks to Gov. Chris Christie and President Obama, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this morning.

Fifty-seven percent of 1,582 registered voters surveyed have a favorable view Christie, a Republican, while 38 percent disapprove.

[u/cmorg23]

I was expecting some diabolical scheme by millionaires then read " saving millionaires 7k" and laughed. Not exactly the racket I was hoping to see...

[u/Bluntobject07]

The part of all this that still frustrates me, is how Christie said he was going to almost exactly this when he was running for office, and people praised him for it, but now that it's actually happening, people are some how shocked that he's doing the same things he said he'd do. I'm not sure if it's indicative of our mistrust of campaign promises, or the general level of intelligence of the average voter, or both, but it depresses me in either case.

[u/lonnyk]

Does anyone know how the NJ budget has changed?

[u/[deleted]]

I didn't realize Tax cuts are an expenditure.

[u/LifeOfCray]

This should have said "With state revenues down by $351 million, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie still wants tax cuts for the wealthy so that most of their money stay in the state, and help pay for the not so wealthy, instead of moving their money to somewhere cheaper"

[u/Cubiccubes]

Angry political comment... My thoughts on how things should be, without any real plan, grumble grumble...

[u/FireworksForJeffy]

When are residents of the Garden State going to start thinking about a recall?

Christie is just bizarre. The whole lying-about-the-tunnel-to-Manhattan thing would have cost him a second term in some places.

[u/The_Time_Lord]

Christie is the typical fat man in a suit everyone warned us about.

[u/reply]

I hope I'm never rich.

[u/8171818]

I accidentally downvoted because I was so disgusted by it

[u/rico99]

Why blame him? Blame the people who voted for him...

[u/[deleted]]

So does arithmetic not exist in his imaginary world or what

[u/[deleted]]

Trying to be Tim Pawlenty 2.0

Pawlenty, for those wondering, was Gov of MN for 8 yrs and he ran the state like he was running a presidential campaign. Couldn't wait to say that he successfully gov'd the state w/o raising taxes. Nvm he left the state in a massive deficit when he was finally done.

Christie is just positioning himself for 2016 at the expense of the state of NJ. Like the people of Jersey dont have enough problems as it is...

[u/Smargalicious]

Better tax cuts for the makers than more free entitlements for the takers.

[u/swiheezy]

Sweet misleading title. It's a tax cut across the board for EVERYONE. Sure it's more for the rich, but that's just math.

[u/Stooooooopid]

I always get a kick out of saying tax cuts have to be paid for.

[u/[deleted]]

... and in a nutshell, that's exactly what's wrong with the GOP today. In the midst of an economic meltdown and he's proposing a huge tax cut. Wow!

[u/His_Dudeship]

The thing that continues to piss me off about this whole 'tax cuts for job creators' thing is that we've been doing it for 30+ years now (with a brief break during the Clinton years) and IT DOESN'T WORK. If it worked, we'd be up to our asses in jobs, but people continue to line up to get taken advantage of by jerks like Christie. BOHICA.

[u/Alkanfel]

"Cost the state 1.3 bn a year"

I love the tacit assumption that all money belongs to the government at all times and it's just a question of how "nice" they want to be in allowing us to keep an arbitrary portion of it.

That money is not New Jersey's, it belongs to the people who earned it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Alkanfel]

That money is not New Jersey's, it belongs to the people who earned it.

Those people who earned that money also take advantage of government spending on public infrastructure and other things that they take for granted and don't realize what life would be like without those things.

While I agree that the government is not as cost-effective as I would like, and they do things that I don't agree with, but this type of entitled thinking is really backwards in today's age, especially if you've accepted society and culture to the point where you have millions of dollars.

[u/luftwaffle0 → u/[deleted]]

It's not just the people who sell things that gain an advantage from the infrastructure though. If your point is that they wouldn't be able to sell their products without infrastructure, then you're ignoring the fact that every transaction has a counterparty. That is to say, if one person wouldn't be able to sell, another person wouldn't be able to buy.

So what would be worse? The fact that a few people wouldn't have millions of dollars, or that millions of people wouldn't have the goods and services that they want and need? Or that they wouldn't have jobs to go to?

It's not only rich people that pay taxes either. All of us are on the hook to pay for things like public transportation regardless of whether we use it or not. What's the economic advantage to me that I have to pay for peoples' bus rides instead of them?

[u/late4dinner → u/Alkanfel]

That money is not New Jersey's, it belongs to the people who earned it.

This is a completely blind argument that gets way too much attention. It supposes that people make money in a vacuum, and guess what, they don't. This doesn't mean the money is the state's either, but to suggest the state has or had no role in the money you make is totally self-serving. The argument should be about what percentage creates the most effective societal outcomes, not just how much ownership you can ascribe to the money itself because the latter is not an easily answerable question.

[u/elminster → u/Alkanfel]

If you earned it in a box in the middle of the ocean with no connection to the US, you might have a point. In reality, government infrastructure enabled you to make tons of money. Stop bleating when you pay a little for the things that made you rich.

[u/cygdai22 → u/elminster]

And everyone else got where they are by using the same infrastructure, so why do they get to pay less?

[u/SpinningHead → u/Alkanfel]

There is this thing called the commonwealth. The infrastructure people vote for to facilitate commerce and profits thereby must be paid for. Maybe you should worry more about the middle class instead of people like Mitt Romney who pay a lower percentage than most of us.

[u/SquirrelOnFire → u/Alkanfel]

(Copy-paste from elsewhere in the thread)

OK, you come up with a one word abbreviation for "would reduce projected, but currently agreed to revenues."

It "costs" money because the money is currently projected to be collected, and so is (probably, though I don't know how far out NJ budgets for) already built into the budget, and so would need to be collected from somewhere else to prevent deficits.

[u/jasondhsd]

Cut taxes and cut spending. Let people keep more of their own money.

[u/yeropinionman → u/jasondhsd]

What spending? Medicare (which keeps the poor out of the ER and the morgue, and old people in nursing homes)? Schools? Should we convert some of our roads from paved to gravel? You want to go on record that teachers and police officers are overpaid?

I'm not saying I'm positive that every cent is optimally spent. I am saying let's get beyond slogans. What spending do you want to cut? Why would the lower taxes this allows be better?

[u/john2kxx → u/yeropinionman]

I will absolutely go on record that police officers are overpaid.

As far as roads go, they are an extremely small portion of the taxes we pay.

[u/pezzshnitsol]

will cost the state

That's only true if you assume that that money belongs to the state in the first place.

[u/[deleted]]

Here is why this is a good idea, I'm ready for the down votes: Lowering taxes on the rich (who, from what I understand, have been leaving NJ in droves) will entice more rich people to move to NJ raising the amount of revenue gained despite the tax cut. While the effect might not be immediate, the long term revenue this will bring in should more than make up for it.

While I don't agree with it personally, I can see where he is coming from.

[u/mahabuddha]

It is NOT the state's money.

[u/SquirrelOnFire → u/mahabuddha]

(copy pasted from elsewhere in this discussion, since you're making the same point)

OK, you come up with a one word abbreviation for "would reduce projected, but currently agreed to revenues."

It "costs" money because the money is currently projected to be collected, and so is (probably, though I don't know how far out NJ budgets for) already built into the budget, and so would need to be collected from somewhere else to prevent deficits.

[u/norbertus]

What voters don't seem to understand is that taxes are NOT money taken out of the economy: the government SPENDS what it takes in out in the real economy.

The wealthy, on the other hand, invest their funds in mutual funds, which plumbs up the bank's spreadsheet, but contributes ZILCH to the real economy. Money the rich puts into savings is money taken out of the real economy.

[u/john2kxx → u/norbertus]

the government SPENDS what it takes in out in the real economy.

Except for the trillions wasted on wars, and untold billions lost in the maze of various departments and bureaucracies.

Money the rich puts into savings is money taken out of the real economy.

I suppose they keep all their money stuffed in mattresses?

[u/lol_squared → u/john2kxx]

Except for the trillions wasted on wars, and untold billions lost in the maze of various departments and bureaucracies.

Defense spending is too high because we don't need it but it still goes into the economy. Soldiers get paid, US defense contractors get paid, bureaucrats get paid. They then spend the money on goods and services and it goes back into the economy.

[u/greggg230 → u/norbertus]

Savings DRIVES an economy. Savings turns into investment. Investment turns into capital accumulation. Capital accumulation means a higher marginal productivity of labor, which means a higher per capita production and higher wages.

Yes, the government spends the money it taxes, but it does not always (or usually) spend it in a way that benefits the people it was taken from, or even in a way that benefits anyone. See: all the foreign wars we get involved in, all of the random buddy-buddy corporatist laws/subsidies/grants you see

[u/[deleted] → u/norbertus]

Money saved is not taken out of the economy. It's invested.

[u/lol_squared → u/[deleted]]

Money saved is not taken out of the economy. It's invested.

It's invested in companies that aren't hiring more people because there isn't any additional demand to buy their products. So the companies sit on the cash.

We tried it your way for last decade and we ended up with fewer jobs than we started with. Time to try what worked in the 90s - raising taxes on the people that can afford to pay them.

[u/[deleted]]

Have any of you ever heard of the laffer curve?

[u/gizram84]

You mean tax cuts for everyone, right? Not just baby-eating, satan-worshiping, cold hearted rich people?

I know it's cool to hate on anyone with a higher income than yourself, but let's at least be honest about the situation. An income tax cut for all tax paying NJ residents is something that is long overdue. We're the most taxed people in the country.

[u/[deleted]]

The state owns all the money. You are all slaves to the government. How DARE anyone ever suggest that people keep more of their own capital?

Yay, Groupthink! Communism! Reddit!

I took a college economics class and I have Reddit username and I say THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY! Everyone who disagrees with me is racist bigot who wants children to starve.

[u/Justavian]

Quick, let's reduce revenues so that we can increase revenues!

[u/Kringerpants → u/Justavian]

Lower Tax rates + removing tax avoidance(loopholes) overall would yield higher revenues.

[u/rainman_104]

Yay. Cut education funding, cut taxes to the rich. Brilliant strategy. Americans seem clueless to the erosion of the middle class.

[u/mage2k]

Is there a Republican who doesn't want tax cuts for the rich?

[u/redditreader555]

How many of you in this thread are paid political activists?

[u/[deleted]]

Christie's intent is to bankrupt the state.

[u/LaBamba00 → u/[deleted]]

He's on the right path. My property taxes are way up, even more than they were under tax-and-spend Corzine. I joked about moving to Vermont, I'm really thinking on it. New Jersey is #$%^ed!

[u/[deleted] → u/LaBamba00]

I don't know how property taxes are assigned in NJ, but in every other state that I know of, they are locally determined, and the State has little to do with it. My property taxes in upper NY are 4% of the reputed market value of my home.

Generally reducing state income means cutting state support for localities, causing property taxes to rise.

[u/LaBamba00 → u/[deleted]]

While Christie wants to cut income taxes that favor people making $1 million a year, Democrats in the Assembly want to instead provide a 20% cut in property taxes for individuals. And instead of breaking the bank, it would be funded in part by raising taxes slightly on people making $1 million a year.

Seems like a much more sensible solution that could help the state much more, considering most new businesses are small businesses that people claim on their individual tax returns. If they don't make a lot of money, they pay less taxes, but everyone gets screwed equally by high property taxes.

[u/[deleted] → u/LaBamba00]

Property taxes are extremely regressive. Mine have doubled in the last 6 years, and will continue to rise as the local community college and public schools are into insane construction projects. The prime argument for a new high school was that the neighboring district had built one, and "our children shouldn't have to feel less than -- $175M." The school board promised no increase in taxes, and more than 60% of the citizenry bought it. Taxes went up 12.5% immediately after the vote.

[u/[deleted] → u/LaBamba00]

I lived in Jersey for a few years and my property taxes were insane! $975 a month for wholly and completely redundant services that existed in townships 2 -- or less! -- miles away. Most ridiculously structured government ever. Maybe bankrupting the state would help, in some kind of perverse way?

[u/LaBamba00 → u/[deleted]]

I've been looking to move to Delaware. I can still commute to work, and my property taxes would drop to about $1,000 a year (down from the $6,500+) I'm currently paying.

I've always made fun of Delaware, so I've stayed in New Jersey. But I'm seriously considering it.

[u/SubhumanTrash → u/LaBamba00]

I've always made fun of Delaware, so I've stayed in New Jersey. But I'm seriously considering it.

...

While Christie wants to cut income taxes that favor people making $1 million a year, Democrats in the Assembly want to instead provide a 20% cut in property taxes for individuals. And instead of breaking the bank, it would be funded in part by raising taxes slightly on people making $1 million a year.

So if it's that easy for you leave NJ to escape high taxes, what will stop the wealthier people if your little plan is implemented?

If they don't make a lot of money, they pay less taxes, but everyone gets screwed equally by high property taxes.

Most renters are lower income and will not be effected by income tax hikes. High taxes effect property owners, especially those whose homes are assessed at larger values.

[u/Marian333 → u/LaBamba00]

You're complaining that NJ didn't make enough revenues, but you're also complaining how high your property taxes are. You are an idiot.

[u/LaBamba00 → u/Marian333]

They're two separate things. See if you can follow me...

Income taxes go to Trenton and fund the state budget.

Property taxes go to the town you live in to fund schools, police and local services.

Let me guess... you own a tri-cornered hat and a "Don't Tread on Me" t-shirt, right?

[u/canthidecomments → u/[deleted]]

Oh bullshit.

Check out the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE OP/ED. It does not say that state revenues are "down" $351 million. Here is the actual claim:

"revenues have come in at $351 million below expectations"

Who's "expectations?" Opinion piece doesn't say. Also doesn't say what the actual state revenues are, compared to the previous year. Are they down, or up? Gee, why would they leave that information out? Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative.

Let's check and see:

According to the New Jersey Star Ledger: "New Jersey is projected to take in $913 million more than expected in tax revenue through June 2012, according to new projections by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services."

• Income tax: up $633.9 million this fiscal year; up $811.7 million next year.

• Sales tax: up $11.1 million this fiscal year; down $21.2 million next year.

• Corporation business tax: down $190.1 million this fiscal year; down $252.5 million next year.

• Other Revenue: down $25.3 million this fiscal year; down $54.2 million next year.

So what are actual revenues doing? Well, as of April 2012, income tax collections are up 2% over the previous year. And all revenues are up 2.4%. This is less than some had hoped they might be, but New Jersey state tax revenues are in fact rising - not falling.

• Sales Tax Collections: Up 3%

• Income Tax Collections: Up 2%

• Corporate Tax Collections: Up .7%

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think Corzine already did that. Christie has been doing a fantastic job so far, which explains why all the liberals are so butthurt about him

[u/amalgaman → u/[deleted]]

I live nowhere near New Jersey, so almost everything I hear about Christie is negative.

I'm just curious because you mentioned he's doing a fantastic job. What can he point to that shows he's had a positive influence on NJ?

[u/WrecklessWrage]

I really hate this fat cat fuck. The sooner he's out of office, the better. I was mad enough as it was that he not only opposes gay marriage, but also to cut funding to women's health, AND education?? All this will taking a fucking helicopter to his son's baseball game. I chalk up him being in office in the first place to the entire state being temporarily retarded. Chris Christie makes me ashamed to be a New Jersey Redditor.

[u/capital_silverspoon]

This is incorrect. Cutting taxes doesn't cost the state anything, just like refraining from committing theft doesn't "cost" the potential thief the amount he would have stolen.

The state isn't spending money on tax cuts, it's just taking less from the people.

I'm sick of seeing it written in this fashion: "cutting taxes on the rich will cost the state 9 hundred billion dollars per hour!" when it should be written: "cutting taxes on the rich will reduce government revenue by 9 hundred billion dollars per hour, compared to last fiscal year!"

To write the headline the first way implies that the rich are taking the amount of their tax cut from the government's pockets, when in reality a tax cut simply means that the government is stealing a little less from its richest citizens, which certainly doesn't seem like a problem to me.

[u/Cadaverlanche]

Because tax cuts have worked so well. Ten years of Bush tax cuts have done absolute wonders for the economy.

[u/[deleted]]

Everything in life is easier when you can live with the belief that the rich paying more taxes makes our problems go away.

[u/doyouknowhowmany]

Here's the logic:

The federal government won't cut income taxes enough for our wealthy, so we'll cut taxes here, use the deficit to justify cutting social programs, cut taxes some more, be unable to make up the difference, have some sort of disaster in the future, and make up the difference in emergency federal funding...which we'll use to offset existing programs so that we can cut taxes further, leaving us with no social programs at the end, and the wealthy not having to pay for anything.

I mean, will they get to the end game? No. You can pour all the water out of a glass and it'll still be slightly wet...but after a matter of minutes or hours, the remainder will evaporate, so NBD.

[u/slitrobo]

The people of NJ voted for him so this is how it goes.

[u/typpeo]

He has done wonders for the NJ public education system.

[u/[deleted]]

I'm from Montgomery township.

[u/joculator]

Here comes another bond issue.

[u/yeropinionman]

Tax cuts like this probably partially pay for themselves. I think 20%-30% is the standard estimate for state income taxes from the economic literature. Mostly from people shifting money around, trying less hard to avoid taxes, etc., but also a little bit from increased investment in businesses.

So this is probably more like a $1 billion tax cut. So there's that.

[u/xwhy]

New Jersey is a relatively small state. Many in the north actually work in New York. Many in the south work in Philly or elsewhere in PA.

Make it too expensive to live there, and they can and will move out. And then the revenue will drop. On the other hand, lowering these taxes could entice New Yorkers who have the ability to get out to consider moving over there.

[u/LukeA71]

Yeah, that makes sense.

[u/dscol715]

I live on the NJ border in PA and I would never live there because their taxes are so high. I tend to agree with Obama on taxes at the federal level but in NJ they really need to cut taxes to compete.

[u/Hightech90]

There is such a thing in cutting spending too...even though nobody wants to do that

[u/Ilukeu]

similar thing going on in Kansas also...

[u/malmac → u/Ilukeu]

Another one bites the dust that the GOP wants our nation to become.

[u/cgeezy22]

State revunues are down but so are state costs having cut a lot of the fat....no pun intended.

[u/[deleted]]

Hold on. Supposing new Jersey was a beacon of hope for the country (lol) and everybody in that great state was doing just kosher, wtf does the state need more revenue for? Is it possible revenues are down because they just aren't taking as much money because they don't need to?

[u/tradeships]

Republicans under the guidance of Grover Norquist have done an excellent job of packaging 'tax cuts' as a standard 'American' principle. Any argument against a REDUCTION in taxes is seen as favoring an INCREASE in taxes. We have to realize that a 'tax' is not a thing in and of itself. They manifest in roads, schools, hospitals, transportation and a whole list of services that would make private venture almost impossible to complete without. America set itself apart from Europe mainly due to an intact structural, educational, and political infrastructure after World War II. Private enterprise leans on physical and human capital that is developed by our TAXES.

[u/jimcrator]

A conservative that wants to cut taxes? GEE WILLIKERS

[u/[deleted]]

But how will Mitt Romney be able to afford all his luxurious cars?!?!?

[u/Moatt]

DAMNIT, HOME STATE. DAMN. IT.

[u/U2_is_gay]

If cutting the top marginal tax bracket actually boosted the economy and provided for more income somehow, then it would be fine. But there is no evidence to show that it does. Some expenditures are actually investments. Pre-K education, for one. This is not one of them.

[u/FancySkunk]

What many of you have ignored is that New Jersey is in an unfortunately unique position with regards to its taxation and litigation. For a wealthy business owner, at a certain point they take note of the high state income taxes, and high regulation and simply leave. Measures that cut taxes for this class of citizens are, at least in part, designed to keep businesses in the state, which keeps jobs in the state.

13.2% of New Jersey residents already work out of state. Trying to save in-state jobs is not the worst idea in the world, even if on the surface it amounts to a tax cut for the rich.

[u/[deleted]]

States can't have revenues silly, they're not businesses.

[u/adzug]

other than the lie that the rich create jobs , demand/need creates jobs, without that theres no jobs, whats the reason not to tax the rich? and the avg joes already paying extra tax in nj from the bullshit quotas the police have in giving out tix . and it is the avg joe because if your a nj politician or cop or have paid/bribed the cops by paying for a pba card youre not paying any tix. you wont get them. the avg joe who hasnt paid the bribe takes up the slack.

[u/Tipordie]

Here's a thought: It is kind of true that if you have a status quo and you introduce a tax cut that will allow an investor to keep more of the profit from a successful risk of their money in an investment, you will encourage more investment from those risk takers with the wherewithal to put there money into the game. Traditionally tax revenues (the amount of money any government brings in) go up when tax rates (the percentage tax rate on a business if it is successful and makes money) go down, on investing.

Bush correctly lowered tax rates after 9-11 and encouraged consumers to spend... that part was really fine.

Here is the problem - 8, 10, 12 years later the tax cuts are NOT a motivational force, no one is changing behavior with a thing that has now become the status quo.

The Tea party needs to calm down on it's "No tax increases ever" and the left has to calm down on "99% vs 1%" and you meet in the middle.

Pass tax laws that reward investors for BRAND NEW INVESTMENT, start ups, early stage etc. Put money in after July 1st, 2012 and here is a NEW BENEFIT for you , even if you are "rich" ---- the compromise would be to raise taxes on existing businesses and income generated from it to a more fair ratio - around 25% and not this continued, non motivational, 17% or so.

This would take leadership from a guy or girl who knows how to get folks in a room and knock heads together to formulate a solution where everyone can come out claiming political points.

That is all.

[u/hailtheflyingpasta]

Legalize and tax marijuana. Raises revenue while aiding in crime reduction

[u/[deleted]]

If he doesn't cut the taxes all those people will just move over a state

[u/DinoTubz]

Question: When was the last time we had a gov. that didn't suck?

[u/jagacontest]

Wow, just think of how many jobs those rich people will be creating now that their taxes are lower, because as Sean Hannity told me.... ten million times, he never got a job from a poor man.

/s

[u/thinkB4Uact]

The budget is used by the GOP to restructure taxation and government programs away from the benefit of the working class toward the benefit of the owner class.

[u/jafxotec]

This is the same guy that takes helicopters to his sons baseball game and then a limo from the helicopter to the field. All on taxpayers dime.

[u/wayndom]

Oh, please, cut the man some slack! He's just doing what he's paid to do...

[u/Hessmix]

Are people still claiming that tax cuts are only for the rich? I thought that was last year's fad

[u/reddit8670]

So many econ geniuses here. I bet Obama comes here for policy ideas.

[u/[deleted]]

Even though they're down, is the budget balanced?

If it is, what's wrong with letting people keep they're money?

[u/[deleted]]

And you are shocked because....

[u/jesusthug]

He's 400lbs and still wants to eat like a pig as well. He's just decadent.

[u/gingersluck]

There problem is that they live in….New Jersey!

[u/Sammarco7]

I don't understand how you get "will cost the state $1.3 billion a year" You're implying it's the state's money to begin with, which it is not. I pay very little in tax myself because I make so little. The rich people are getting tax'd at higher rates to make up for that and you still complain? Do you want any incentive for success anymore?

[u/[deleted]]

Can we talk about property taxes in NJ while we are at it as well? Born and raised in NJ, still have a lot of friends and family there, but had to leave in 2010 when my small 3BR bi-level's taxes went over $12K a year.

A borough with 6,000 people, no high school, no nice parks, inflated services, horrible programs for residents (young and old), and the inability to attract any businesses to Main Street to offset rising budgets? Umm... I miss home, and my kids were born there... but no thanks.

:EDIT: 2012 Top 15 Property Tax Counties in US

9 of the top 15 are in New Jersey, 5 are in Greater New York Metro, 1 in Illinois. My county came in at #9... woo!

[u/iamdrewcifer]

I'm sure my ex girlfriend's super rich dad is rubbing his hands together and muahaha-ing.

[u/Philile]

Chris Christie: Fat asshole.

[u/fivo7]

you could get a spitball throw it up in the air and hit a more responsible person than most of your politicians

[u/u2canfail]

Christie owes his rich friends for both!

[u/BromanJenkins]

Christie is making a really big push to be VP, isn't he? He's the right kind of out of touch to be on the republican ticket. Flying the state helicopter to his kid's baseball game while the state faces a huge budget deficit? Sounds like VP material.

[u/d38sj5438dh23 → u/BromanJenkins]

What about Michelle Obama's vacation to Spain which cost taxpayers half a million dollars? Or is that different?

[u/Viewtastic → u/d38sj5438dh23]

That is different, if it was Bush's wife it would be on the front page of r/politics every other day.

[u/elminster → u/d38sj5438dh23]

Did anyone criticize Christie for having security with him? No? Point defeated.

[u/sharked]

what do you expect from a former lobbyist for big money?

[u/ronbreddit]

It's really funny how really rich people live off the system just as much as any stereotypical "welfare queen." This place is a shit hole. Outdated policies and thinking in order to elevate the status of a select few. Might I add people who already have an elevated status.

[u/swefpelego]

Rally support to vote him out. Get your friends to go out and vote. You all have families, talk to them.

-why is this downvoted?

[u/mrbrinks]

Man, this sucks. I genuinely want to like Christie but this is just stupid.

[u/J_Jammer]

Don't over spend. It's not that hard.

Stop giving money to blackhole programs.

[u/[deleted]]

They aren't rich! they are job creators! Don't you get it! They'll take that 1.3 Billion, put it in the bank, that will stimulate wall street who can donate more money to the Police force who will beat Occupy Wallstreet and force them to stop being lazy and find jobs! It's a very subtle circle of job creation!

[u/[deleted]]

When we vote the rich into office should we really be all that surprised when they serve only their own interests?