I agree with pretty much every frustrated, angry sentiment the great majority of these comments convey. What I cannot fathom is why we are not all in the streets over this.
3
My folks in Essex County, NJ pay 20K a year in local property taxes on their house on an eighth of an acre...Just so you folks out there in America have some idea of the situation...Wish they'd move to Western NC or even dreadful FL...
2
We will remember come November!
1
58 per cent of Livingston voted Republican in 2016. Who ya gonna call?
1
Frelinghuysen and Lance have been supporting these inane Republican trickle-down policies for years. Hopefully the voters will not be fooled by their desperate last-minute conversion to hold onto power - if the Repubs needed their votes on this does anyone really think they wouldn't cave?
3
How does the author not stipulate that Freyhlingsen (sp) voted against final, but voted for it to get it out of committee. Get with it!
6
Property taxes in Essex County NJ are unfreaking believably high. When we moved out 16 years ago we paid 15k taxes on a house worth $345. An 1/8 of an acre. That same house is now worth $850plus and taxes are over 20 grand. Who the heck can afford that???? It's insane. That's why almost everyone moves out of the eastern part of the state to the west or Florida after their kids finish school. There is little traction to change things because of the constant churn. There will always be a new family willing to live there for 15-20 years thanks to NYC. But it is generally temporary.
7
I live in Livingston - I moved here 5 years ago from Bergen County. The characterization of Western Essex in this article as "not the bluest" gives a false impression. It is Red, Period. This tax bill is an example of the new reality of Trumpism and it will be interesting to see how it affects how people think and vote here. After a failed experiment with Chris Christie and his politics of financial terrorism we now face a national version of that experiment. I wonder when people will learn? When it comes to taxes - the truth is the money has to come from somewhere. (No free lunch) Government gets it's revenue from a variety of sources - a reduction in taxation from one source leads to an increase in another. After Christie starved and stole from the transportation ifund for 7 years, the state was forced to raise the gas tax. The roads need to be maintained and the fund was bankrupt. Trump's plan to cut government expenditures by starving the revenue side (to the benefit of his rich cronies and donors) will surely backfire - but it will take time for the real damage to make an impression. As for Rodney Frelinghuysen, again you miss the truth. His no vote was a study in hypocrisy. He is a rubber stamp for anything with a Republican (R) next to it no matter how outrageous. His long tenure in Congress and his father';s before it, are proof of the voters' mindless attachment to a party that has not truly represented their real interests for a long long time.
9
I am sick of reading the comments of readers gleefully sticking it to those New Jerseyites who voted for Trump. They were the minority folks, New Jersey went proudly Blue. That's why we're being punished. Oh and yeah, enough with the false equivalence, NJ will still pay more in tax than Nebraska.
10
This reminds me of a Hurricane Katrina story:
"[New Jersey] Towns charged higher property taxes knowing that those local taxes would be deductible from [residents' federal taxable income]..."
After Katrina, the federal government issued rent vouchers to New Orleans residents who'd been displaced. Noble motives, but area landlords promptly jacked up rents because they knew most renters would be using federal vouchers to pay. Apartments that had previously rented for $300 a month soon were renting for $900 a month, and so on. Ironically, it turned out to be the renters who HADN'T been displaced by Hurricane Katrina that suffered most from those jacked-up rents. They didn't have any rent vouchers, but the landlords knew they could charge high rents because there were plenty of potential tenants out there who did.
It's much the same when a New Jersey town jacks up property taxes because it knows its residents aren't really going to have to pay all of those high taxes. If someone living in Livingston NJ knows that nearly half of his property taxes will be paid by someone else (because he can deduct those taxes and thus shift some of the cost to other taxpayers in, say, Nebraska), he's much less likely to complain about local tax hikes. And, needless to say, a NJ politician couldn't care less whether a Nebraska taxpayer thinks taxes are too high in NJ. After all, that Nebraska taxpayer doesn't vote in NJ, or have any NJ tax dollars spent on him -- he just PAYS those NJ taxes.
3
We don't know this because we don't control what gets "counted:"
"[R]esidents of high-tax states are already subsidizing low-tax states by sending more dollars to the federal government than they take."
As others have pointed out, many federal dollars are sent to a state whose residents do things that help residents of other states -- soldiers' families being a great example. If the federal government gives food stamps to his wife and two young children, but he's helping to protect Americans who live in other states, should the cost of those food stamps be counted as federal money sent into that state?
And if taxpayers in, say, Nebraska help to pay a NJ resident's property taxes because the NJ resident deducts those property taxes from his federal taxable income, shouldn't we "count" the Nebraska taxpayer's subsidy as dollars being sent into NJ?
3
Taxpayers in low-tax states receive a standard deduction that by definition exceeds their expenses. So they're not subsidizing anyone. Also the cost-of-living is simply higher in coastal and urban areas, regardless of tax policies, which drives up property values. If everyone moved to Nebraska its cost-of-living would increase as well.
The current system of SALT deductions works well, and giving that money to the Trumps of the world ain't going to help Nebraskans.
11
The next question is how will this effect NJ municipalities ability to bond and borrow.
2
I have lived in Livingston for a very long time, rest assured, no one is moving out because of recent tax changes. Only retirees move to Florida, until then people love this wonderful community and keep coming back. While NJ gets subject to jokes, the fact is, NJ is a wonderful place to raise a family, have great quality of life, excellent education, excellent job opportunities, access to world class healthcare, science, arts and beaches. Anyone that lrvrd NJ just to save a few bucks is being short-sighted. Finally, NJ repealed Estate tax and raised non-taxable income for retirees, rest assured a lot of people will be staying back in NJ rather than moving away.
2
Fantasy thinking
3
You get what you vote for! My conscious is clear as my condo, which still hasn't recovered from the Crash of '08, loses more value once this sham of a tax deal gets rammed down our collective throats. We remember who had Trump signs on their front lawn, some of the very ones who are about to get shafted. Again, you get what you vote for!
6
Let's think about the contention that people in low-tax/low-service states subsidize people in high-tax states for a moment because the idea is flat out backwards.
Many tax payers in low tax states take the standard deduction. The vast majority of people who take the standard deduction do so because it's the better deal. That means that even with today's standard deduction, many people pay less in state and local taxes (and mortgage interest and other deductions, too) than the current standard deduction. Yet, the primary reason the standard deduction exists is that the tax code recognizes that people have expenses such as property taxes and that those expenses should be deductible.
Since Nebraska seems to be the state of choice today, let's look at Nebraska. If a single Nebraskan with no kids owns a home valued at the median cost, that person pays a little under $2500 in property taxes. Throw in some reasonable amounts for state income tax and mortgage interest and this person's eligible deductions are probably still less than the standard deduction by a few hundred dollars. So, our Nebraskan gets a small extra tax break.
Of course now the standard deduction is going to double and our Nebraskan forgoes paying tax on an extra $6000. To make that happen people in high tax states pay more due to the new cap on SALT.
How is that fair -- especially when blue state money already goes to red states that refuse to pay for the services their citizens need?
13
"Blue state money already goes to red states that refuse to pay for the services their citizens need."
Eventually these citizens from red states move to a blue state that provides better services! Here in Oregon we are seeing an influx of new residents (coming from red states by golly). Many of them are not easily employed and are setting up tent cities in our neighborhoods! It looks to me that we blue staters will not only be paying more federal taxes, but will also have the privilege of taking care of more and more under-serviced citizens from red states. The ogre president may be right...it may be time to close our borders.
3
Judging by the comments here already, it seems the GOP strategy of getting all the little people to fight over the crumbs is working great! Meanwhile, the heiress who inherits $22 million won't pay a dime in taxes and when she collects her dividend checks after sitting on her behind all year, she'll pay a lower rate than the cop, the plumber and the teacher.
GOP Brilliance.
21
Will, I despise this tax re-do bill for a number of reasons, but your explanation best summarizes my concerns.
1
Taxes are paid in dollars not percentages. You sound like the bleeding heart liberals who were upset that Mitt Romeny paid "only" $3 million dollars in income taxes. That was for 1 year. Never enough for tax and spend liberals.
1
Wow, according to NBC news, the guy highlighted in this article voted for Trump!
At least we now know one person who is getting what he deserves!
7
I went to public junior high school in Livingston in the early 1960s. It was by far the best school I ever attended, and I cherish the two years my family lived there, where I was more stimulated by my bright classmates, and had better, closer friends, than in any other town my family ever lived in. We moved frequently because of my father's ambition--I attended public schools in upstate NY, Conn., PA, Mass., and Fla. but Livingston was the best. I hate to read that people who have chosen to live in Livingston for its excellent schools may be feel they have to make different choices.
5
Wouldn't a 10% reduction in property values result in a 10% cut in property taxes? The voters in Livingston have a choice: continue the status quo or elect leaders that will cut property taxes just as Governor Scott Walker accomplished in Wisconsin. I doubt that the schools in Livingston are much better than the schools in the wealthy suburbs of Milwaukee .
4
No, the town, county and school district each set a budget. Properties are assessed and a tax rate is determined that will provide the necessary revenue. If one home get its assessment reduced 10% then the taxes on it would go down but if all homes go down by an average of 10% the tax rate is likely to increase by 10% to keep revenue steady.
3
No, no, no! You're not getting it!
Nobody's asking NJ residents to "fund others' tax reductions." What they're asking is that THEY stop funding tax reductions for NJ residents. That's what happens when two taxpayers -- one in Nebraska and the other in NJ -- make exactly the same amount but the Nebraska taxpayer pays higher federal income taxes because his deductions of mortgage interest and/or state and local taxes are much less than the same deductions claimed by the NJ taxpayer.
Why shouldn't they pay the same federal income tax?
If NJ is a better place to live than Nebraska, and people are willing to pay higher state and local taxes to enjoy the advantages of living in NJ, so be it. But if someone lives in Nebraska and is NOT getting all of those advantages, why should he pay for them? Why shouldn't they be paid for by the people who are getting them?
That's all that's being asked for here.
3
No, you're the one not getting it. First of all, the increased state tax liability is going to fund tax breaks for corporations and the richest of the rich, regardless of where they live. Secondly, residents of high-tax states are already subsidizing low-tax states by sending more dollars to the federal government than they take.
10
If this bill puts pressure on home prices which is far from clear despite Moodys' opinion that will be bad for current home owners who are looking to cash out or downsize. But it will be a win for homeowners looking to move to a bigger home or to younger people looking for an opportunity to buy there first home. Ever rising home prices create winners and losers. Government policy shouldn't be focused solely on policies which raise real estate prices.
4
NJ residents know in their hearts that the problem isn't the reduction of the unfair SALT deduction - the problem is their high tax state and the absence of any will to change it.
5
It seems the Republican Party would like the whole nation to live without Zoning Laws, Regulations, Services, or Local Taxes.
Yet the places, like Houston, that do not have Zoning or Regulations then come to the Feds for a handout when their lack of taxes and zoning costs us all.
Remember when Houston flooded with the recent Hurricane Irene and houses were built (and lost) right at the Reservoir's edge, because there is no zoning? Who paid for that? The Federal Taxpayers.
Remember when the water became toxic because the Arkema chemical plant was built amidst housing? And then it exploded in August 2017? Who paid for that? The Federal Taxpayers.
Remember in 2013 when 15 people were killed and 226 were wounded after a chemical plant blew up near a school in Texas?
Why does the Republican Party work for the giant companies who wish no regulation, and then thwart the locals (and double tax them) when they want to control and manage their communities?
It's unconscionable.
14
There is only one way to change this is to vote Democratic in November. This is a deliberate slap at the Blue States who are the engines of our economy. If I lived in New Jersey and my representative voted to support failing red state America. I would make it my personal mission to see that person defeated.
11
And to add insult to injury - this article doesn’t even mention people’s commuting times & costs.
2
May be NJ should reduce the pensions of retired government workers who move to Florida (or any other state) and pass on the savings by reducing taxes.
10
I sympathize with you:
"I am a resident of Livingston, and I am not affluent... I am a single mom and homeowner who works hard to cover my high property taxes, SALT and other taxes."
But who's in a better position to complain about those "high property taxes, SALT and other taxes," and get them reduced? Someone who lives in NJ and pays those taxes (you, for example), or some other taxpayer who lives in Nebraska and gets none of the benefits of those high taxes? Do you think the political leaders of your state will pay any attention to that Nebraska taxpayer?
2
My family lived in Glen Ridge NJ (wedged between Montclair and Bloomfield) in the mid ninety's. We had family friend who pays 24K property tax for about a third of an acre at the most. Space has been an asset because of human capital for highly skilled professional work force. New Jersey politicians are not to be blamed. It is the contempt of GOP politicians in the red states and its constituents goading the New Jersey's achievements economically in this competitive world and its affluence.
4
I wonder if Republicans who see their taxes go up in this deficit spending bill will hold the Trump Administration accountable?
3
No, they'll find some way to blame it on President Obama or Hillary Clinton. You know those two are just evil!
1
Minority opinion from a (relatively) low-tax area: why should ANY state and local taxes and property taxes be deducted from federal income tax? Presumably the federal government needs a certain amount of tax revenue to function, and ideally that should be collected from all citizens with income, based on a sliding scale. If you are in a high tax state and are allowed to deduct SALT from the amount of federal tax you owe, that means that basically I’m subsidizing your lifestyle. Ok, your houses are fancier and your schools are better and your town offers more amenities —- but why should those you scorn in “flyover country” subsidize it? You chose your lifestyle, YOU pay for it, okay?
7
How about you return all the federal dollars high-tax states generate that subsidize low-tax states who take more federal dollars than they give?
4
I'd be happy to do that if and only if: Every dollar New Jersey sends to DC in income tax MUST be matched with a full dollar spent by that same Federal government in New Jersey. I lived in North Carolina for a number of years and I GUARANTEE you if North Carolina ONLY got a dollar back for ever dollar spent, your state would suffer, as would SC, Ga, Ala, Miss, La, Ark, Missouri, Okl, Ky, Tn, WV, Va--why, other than Tx and Florida, the whole South!
Yeah, let's do that. Make a Constitutional Amendment that every dollar taxed from a state's citizens in Federal taxes must be spent in that state. NJ will grow like a WEED with that giant influx of cash. NC? You'll be cutting costs, if you have any left to cut when Art Pope gets done with you!
3
By all means, live in New Jersey!
"Many people make fun of New Jersey, but everybody seems to live here, and that costs money."
Nobody is saying you can't live in New Jersey, or that New Jersey can't charge whatever taxes it wants to charge, or can't spend the proceeds of those taxes on whatever it wants to spend them on. All people are saying is: "Do it on your own nickel." Don't expect a subsidy from taxpayers in other states. They don't get any of the benefits of NJ's high taxes – just as NJ residents don't get any of the benefits of taxes imposed by their states.
It's not fair that two taxpayers who make exactly the same amount of money pay different amounts of federal income tax just because one of them lives in New Jersey and the other one lives in Nebraska. They should pay the same federal income tax, and then it should be up to them and their states or localities what they pay in additional state and local taxes. If they decide they want state and local taxes to be high, so be it -- just don't ask people in states that decide otherwise to share the cost of your high taxes. You'll get all the benefits of those high taxes, and so you should pay all of the costs.
Deal?
4
Why no mention of Jared Kushner? He grew up in Livingston.
4
I am not making a statement on whether this legislation is good or bad. No legislation will ever be able to accommodate everyone and it is easy to find those that will be hurt a lot, in this case the NYT has picked the one area most impacted negatively. To make any kind of conclusion on the legislation based on this worst case situation is really bad journalism that serves no purpose at all. Shouldn't we be looking at people who if actually impacted negatively will have more dire consequences than possibly having to move to a nice town in Florida?
1
Many commenters insist that the Republicans did this to punish the "blue states" that didn't vote for Trump.
Maybe so -- I have no idea what the Republicans' motives are, and I'm entirely willing to believe they did it for vengeance rather than for sound economic reasons.
Whatever their motives, however, they got it right. It's flat out unfair for two people who make exactly the same amount of money to pay different federal income taxes just because one of them happens to live in New Jersey and thus takes larger deductions for state and local taxes (and, therefore, pays lower federal income taxes) while the other one lives in Nebraska and thus takes smaller deductions for state and local taxes (and, therefore, pays higher federal income taxes).
Nobody's denying what many commenters insist is true: that the services are better in New Jersey than they are in Nebraska. Let's assume they are -- that's not the point. The point is that the people who receive those wonderful services should pay for them -- not insist that the cost of those wonderful services be shared by Nebraska taxpayers who don't get any of those wonderful services -- and who may prefer to keep in their own pocket the taxes paid by New Jersey residents for those wonderful services.
In short, if New Jersey residents want wonderful services and don't mind paying higher taxes to get them, they should PAY for those wonderful services themselves.
10
We wouldn't mind paying more for them if we didn't have to also subsidize the low-tax states with our federal dollars.
6
And speaking as a resident from one of the towns featured in this article....... When you look at statistics, you make the assumption all things equal. However, in the matter of states, all things are definitely not equal. For one, the standard of living is very different across the nation. In California for example, the median cost for a home is much higher than in Alabama. That is not only based upon the house, but it is based upon the fact that there is a lot of industry which attracts more people, driving up the cost of a home. Because of that, on average salaries are higher. Some states have larger numbers of retired citizens, driving up healthcare costs. The tax code should absolutely be concerned about this, especially given the fact that wealthier states subsidize poorer ones. Punishing the richer states, as this tax plan most definitely does, will have the unintended consequence of also hurting the poorer states since there will be less money to divide. Clearly, this administration aims to hurt blue, most Democratic states. But it will also hurt the weakest among us. And sadly, this administration doesn't care.
6
Then don't send our tax dollars to Nebraska. We are subsidizing the red states, not the other way around.
Is it fair that the wealthy pay a lower effective rate than middle class people? And that the disparity is going to grow even worse?
1
Exactly:
"Clearly this is a opportunity for the voters of New Jersey to decide how much government that they wish to pay for."
If the voters of New Jersey decide they want a lot of government, they can pay for it. If the voters of Nebraska decide they don't want a lot of government, they can pay lower taxes and get less government.
What does NOT make sense is for the voters of New Jersey to decide they want a lot of government, but then insist that taxpayers in Nebraska help them pay for it. That's the way it is now, and that's unfair.
5
The article didn’t mention that the standard deduction will double (to $24,000 for a married couple) and the overall tax rates will decline, for most, by at least a few percentage points.
5
Standard deduction doubling doesn't mean much in real dollars because the personal exemption (two-thirds of the current standard deduction) is being eliminated. But of course the GOP never mentions this.
2
abo in Paris puts it perfectly and succinctly:
"Why should someone residing in a low-tax/low-service state subsidize someone in a high-tax/high-service state?"
That's EXACTLY the question. If one state's residents want "high services" and are willing to pay "high taxes" to get them, they shouldn't expect residents of "low-tax" states to help pay for those "high services" and yet get none of them. They should pay for those "high services" themselves.
6
They constantly talk about how high-tax states get back less than low-tax states from the federal govt.
That might be true, but it's for a myriad of reasons, including the fact that red states absorb the consequences of blue states voting for open borders. As others have pointed out, many red states also host military bases (which are where many of those federal dollars go).
4
Point is, you don't tax the same money twice. If I pay taxes for one governmental entity, that money should not be taxed by another governmental entity. We even have tax adjustments among nations and among states (like between NY, NJ, PA and CT). So, having double taxation within our country, between federal and state/local governments is ridiculous.
You have it backwards. New Jersey, New York, etc. have been since subsidizing low tax sates like Mississippi for decades.
4
People who think this tax bill will impact the real estate of high priced homes and communities (meaning "others") is in for a surprise.
When a home that was $600K is now priced at $550K would you buy that or another home that was originally priced at $550K and is continuing to be listed as such? General human tendency would point to you buying the house that was costlier before but now at the same price. So, to compete with that, the $550 home would have to reduce its price and that would make the $500K home reduce in price and so on.
Another aspect is that the Home Equity is no longer tax deductible making it more expensive. Home equity loan is used for variety of purposes (actual home improvement, vacation, college education, small business startup, business funding etc.). With a higher price tag, there will be reduction in usage and reduction in many of the activities. Many contractors that do home improvement will see decline in business. Many vacation spots, including red states like Florida, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada will see less of tourism dollars coming from coastal states. Small business startups will be less and some businesses could close down due to cash flow crunch causing less job growth. There will be significant reduction in home purchase and refinancing, resulting in job losses among realtors, mortgage brokers, banking staff etc.
Lots of risk for nothing!
1
Maybe it will be easier for NJ residents to see the unfairness of the existing system if the roles are reversed.
Imagine that Nebraska has high property taxes and high state and local income taxes, and that all of those taxes in NJ are very low. Suppose that Nebraska -- state and towns -- uses all of those high taxes to do wonderful things for the people who live in Nebraska and its towns.
Do you imagine that any of that Nebraska tax money will be sent to New Jersey so that it can be spent there rather than in Nebraska? If not, do you feel it's fair to require that you help pay for all of those wonderful things done for the people who live in Nebraska and its towns? Or would it be more fair if the people who live in Nebraska pay for all of those wonderful things done for the people who live in Nebraska and its towns?
Does this make it more understandable?
3
It is understandable if all states get back similar share of federal taxes back from the federal government. NJ gets back much lower amount from Federal government than what it sends out. A state like Nebraska (or any of those low tax states) make do with lower taxes because they get back more in federal money than they send (in effect, the low taxes are being subsidized by states like NJ). So, yes, I still don't see your "fairness" argument.
5
It's not the bill, it's the high taxes you pay in NJ (just like NY, Calif., etc). Your gripe should be with your state representatives and other officials who gouge you out of every nickel. Your property/school taxes are STUPID. I suggest you elect new leaders with the gumption to cut taxes and spending, and once that's done then you can gripe with Congress.
11
You mean do what Kansas has done and deprive their children of an adequate education? No thank you! High-tax states are the ones driving this country's economy, providing the brain power that makes us competitive with the rest of the world.
1
“Mr. Levine estimated that his taxes would rise by $14,000 a year, just from the loss of deductions on the state and local taxes he pays”.
Really???? Did he mean that his deductions would be reduced by $14K (and he had not calculated the impact all the way to the tax bottom line?) I hope that the reporter first ran this estimate by the newsroom tax expert (who would take into account the new tax brackets and tax rates), as it (the estimate) seems much exaggerated.
By my reckoning, were Mr. Levine to file his 2018 taxes as an unmarried filer, and be fortunate to have $200K-$500K of taxable income, putting him in the 35% marginal rate, he would have to be ‘losing’ about $40K of property tax deductions to owe $14K of additional taxes. [Must be some house!]. If Mr. Levine’s income level is lower than in my example -- and/or he files as married --the ‘lost’ deductions would have to be even higher than $40K to require the $14K hike.
I’m no CPA, but I can do arithmetic. If I’m correct, the NY Times – in a front page story -- is not properly informing its readership on this important issue. Report the facts correctly and separately from the political commentary. You owe us that.
8
If he pays 25k in property taxes and 20k in state and local taxes that are now not deductible, that’s 45k now being taxed at 35%. That would be an additional 15.5k in taxes.
Those numbers are not unreasonable for people in that “200k-500k” earner band in high tax states with high property taxes.
Maybe now it’s only 35k because he can deduct 10k, but people in that scenario (a lot) are going to pay thousands more in taxes.
4
Correct, try. The Times does “owe” its readers the duty to report fairly and without political bias. Do you really think that’s a debt which will ever be paid?
3
Well, if they voted for him.... as it sounds like many of them did there in lovely Livingston.... they deserve whatever he brings their way. Period.
8
Only 36% of Livingston voters went for Trump. Nearly 60% went for Clinton. And the state went solidly for her.
How did the Tar Heel state vote again??? What? For whom?
The politicians outside this area like to say "why should the rest of the country subsidize places with high taxes"? Well, we would like to know why our high taxes should be spent on people in your states who are getting Medicaid, etc. because they can't work due to "nerves" and other bogus reasons. We pay out lots more in taxes than our states get back. But beware! When the deficit is not reduced based on this stupid tax plan, the Repubs will start hacking away at Medicaid, Social Security, and all the other security blankets and there will be misery throughout the land.
5
More federal dollars go to red states who absorb the constant influx of illegal immigrants who require Spanish education, healthcare, food, and housing.
Who votes for open borders? Blue states.
Now you're finally being forced to put your money where your mouth is.
2
Nonsense, it is the blue states which subsidize the poorly educated red states and are the real engines of growth in the national economy. We also welcome immigrants with open arms which fuel are success and the rethink in policy we need is to cut off are federal tax dollars from going to your benighted and racist parts of the country.
4
Honeybee, this is patently FALSE. The states with the highest number of illegal immigrants are the same states that contribute more federal tax dollars than they take.
where were the complainers over many years when their prop. and state income taxes were being raised thru the roof? Everyone up there makes allot of $$ and government employees have primo benefits and can retire early with huge pensions. Suck it up snowflakes. The rest of the US does not want to subsidize your lives. Rich people moving because they would need to pay $5000 more?? I don't think so scooter.......Complain to your state reps about the fleecing they are giving you.
11
Look at Alabama, Mississippi, and places like that where only the wealthy can properly educate their children and have access to safe neighborhoods and good healthcare.
That is what the GOP wants for all working Americans.
10
no. the gop doesn't want anything for working americans all the gop wants is to pay back their rich donors out of all our pockets.
2
You do know that those 2 states are numbers 49 and 50 when it comes to school scores, don't you?
1
The Livingston area is a bastion of Republicanism in New Jersey. So-called moderate Republicans, like Rodney Frelinghuysen, are the reason that this tax proposal may be enacted. If they want Congressional Republicans to consider voters in northern suburbs, they can start by voting Rodney Frelinghuysen out of office and electing a Democrat.
18
We have to keep correcting and correcting this fallacy. Livingston voted nearly 60% for Clinton, and only 36% for Trump. We voted heavily for Phil Murphy, and we were gerrymandered into a district that's heavily Republican in Morris County and many rural sections. We're not even IN Morris County.
Most of our town's officials are Democrats, too.
So I have no idea where the notion that we're a bastion of Republicanism came from, and I've lived here 20 years.
An article complaining about the loss of SALT deductions but not mentioning the higher threshold for AMT and the lower marginal rates is not balanced.
8
Agree also the standard deduction is worth $13000 more so offsets most of the hit.
NYTimes can do better. I hate trump but you can report stories that don’t Always drive this narrative. Your stories are boring and predictable .
3
This tax plan does too little for most people and too much for those that already pay too little
1
New Jerseyans that have grown up there, and have lived there for decades, will not be able to retire there if this abominable tax bill is passed. They pay some of the highest real estate taxes in the nation already; capping their deductibility for the elderly, infirm and retired will force them out, ruining the diversity of the State and penalizing them for living here in order to fund others' tax reductions. NOT FAIR. The State will become the haven of Wall Street deadbeats who garner huge incomes for doing virtually nothing. No middle class, no poor, no one to clean the mansions or man the food counters. The Republicans can take their fake tax plan and shove it where the sun doesn't shine! On the next go-around, they will have to pay for their inhumanity.
19
Oops...voted for the wrong person! And you thought Hillary was a liar.
25
Only 36% of us. Nearly 60% KNEW Trump was the liar. And we voted that way--look it up before snarking.
Living in NJ and owning a home IS expensive due to Trenton corruption, placing school taxes mainly on homeowners. In our town it's 77% for the first $10,000. trump adds to the hardship by capping state and local taxes. Basically the GOP is giving more to the rich and less to everyone else. MacArthur is at trump's feet . Most republicans in DC need be kicked out of NJ. At the same time, sanctuary cities cannot continue be the burden of taxpayer dollars.
7
Paying taxes on income that you used to pay taxes? Aren't Republicans supposed to be against this kind of thing? Will we lose the deductability of taxes we pay to foreign countries on dividends from companies based in those countries?
9
I just have to smirk for a moment. My home, a neat little Federal period with 2 baths and 4 bedrooms sits on 2 lovely acres, with the most beautiful view in the valley. I paid a far market price in 1990 of $19,000 for it then. Yes, my taxes have gone up Combined school and town taxes are almost $900 a year. Please don't think of moving here. Smirk.
4
Don’t worry. Those of us in Essex county can get to NYC in half an hour.
9
These people and this reporter are very confused about how taxes affect real estate values. The federal deduction for property taxes leads to higher property values because more bidders can bid more for the limited supply of houses, knowing Uncle Sam will give them cash back at tax time. Eliminating or capping the deduction lowers property values and makes houses more affordable. This helps (younger) people with modest incomes but hurts the (generally older) rich. What’s not to love?
5
the elephant in the room is that all the places with high SALT that are going to take the big hits are blue. this is revenge, pure and simple.
taxes are going up exponentially for huge swaths of this country but there is no corresponding reduction of the federal deficit or improvement to infrastructure or way of life; that is, unless you now get to write off your private jet and no longer pay inheritance taxes.
10
If you have a successful business, you can raise the price of your product by a cent or two and make up for your 'higher taxes'. Most folks will just use this as a excuse to gouge the customer.
Rodney Frelinghuysen initially voted in favor of the House tax bill moving forward, despite the evident dire impact it would have in New Jersey, so he should not now deny responsibility for its likely ultimate passage. He may have voted against the final bill in the House, but that fianl bill would not have proceeded without his initial support. In doing so, he played pure party politics and seriously betrayed the interests of New Jersey.
16
This must surely be the case in other places with fewer taxable entities and high property taxes such as Long Island and Westchester County. Before the election, I felt like Donald Trump had contempt for people unlike himself, the working class or the working-poor and he was there solely to create a largesse for himself and his cronies. I wonder, however if he thinks the electorate is stupid or gullible, because election day, 2018 is about 10 months away and it is quite possible that the election in Alabama should be considered a referendum. Do our elected representatives actually believe all the hype or have they just been drinking the Kool-Aid? Hopefully, the flim flam man's run is coming to an end and people will be more cynical.
3
You fail to see the big picture. The Democratic Party is a lumbering dying dinosaur. There is no hope for 20 -30 years. We need a third party with a viable candidate.
5
The irony is that many in Livingston dont get the full SALT deduction because of the AMT. That is the very AMT the Rs left in the bill to double whapp it to the state, but removed it for the corporations!!!
Words can not express the frustration, the absolute con game these Rs are attempting to visit on all the citizens of this country at the benefit of those who dont need at tax cut at all!!!!
7
The AMT threshold has gone up to $1m for a couple. A big change.
3
To all New Jersey Voters: Remember this. Bigly.
20
There's always South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi. Time to move, but not to California, for sure, dude.
4
Do you want your kids and their kids to grow up learning that the Confederacy was a noble cause, Jim Crow was 'an expression of states rights', that science is wrong and the earth is 6000 years old, and the only valuable people on this earth are straight, white people with little education? If so, then move their by all means then wonder why your kids and their kids end up in despair and drug addiction because there is no quality of life there.
11
You sound like some who gets their news only from the main stream media and belives it.
Seriously bill d? We are in 2017 not 1960, however much some commenters would like to pretend.
1
Many people make fun of New Jersey, but everybody seems to live here, and that costs money. Add to that, so many small communities in NJ wish to maintain their small-town identity which costs a great deal money for fire, police and municipal services, which might be considerably lower if the small communities regionalized with other small communities and shared the costs of the aforementioned municipal services. One must remember, firemen, policemen and munipal workers are expensive to pay, insure and equip, and wish a high standard of living for themselves and their families.
It’s expensive living in New Jersey; it always has been, and with the proposed changes to the tax structure, it will be tougher still. Add to the above that we have a new untested governor coming into office and it’s clear thing may get a bit dicey for those living in the garden state.
And what is it I always heard the accountants and attorneys say? Something about “Make sure never to die in New Jersey”.
10
We have the same issue with towns in Connecticut.
Though frankly, I'm willing to pay the financial price to keep it that way. If you live in a nice Connecticut town, for your property taxes you get a highly responsive police force, the equivalent of private quality schools, and country club amenities like resident only parks and pools.
It's not a bad deal, if you like your town, have kids in schools, and use the amenities. At this point I'm happy to pay the taxes for the quality of life, deductible or not.
2
I too am furious at Frelinghuysen. He has not held a town hall or met with his constituents since the election.
Personally I cannot figure out if my taxes are going up or down because even though my family pays $36K per year in SALT taxes we deducted little due to the AMT. Now that they moved the line on the AMT - we may break even - there will be little to no change - certainly not one that we will feel in any meaningful way.
What is new is that we will no longer spend any money on home improvement as it may be difficult to sell the home - so why throw good money after bad....contractors are already feeling this pain
The big winners are the licensed professionals who can re-categorize themselves as pass-throughs -You can have two neighbors that earn the same and pay different tax rates. That is the part that will drive inequality, put me in therapy and bankrupt us all.
5
Actually, lawyers and doctors and accountants are not going to be able to qualify for "pass-through" tax treatment because they earn their money by actually working in non-capital-intensive businesses. Only those who profit by passive ownership in a closely-held (few owners) but capital-intensive business will get the lower tax rate.
3
Duane,
Thanks for clarifying this. That's my understanding too. Lawyers and doctors and accountants (for example) can't transform high-tax-rate earnings into low-tax-rate "pass-through" income. Undoubtedly many will try, but I suspect the IRS will be on the lookout for that.
The IRS doesn’t have the resources or bandwidth to police this. Their budget is cut every year. They needs to process million more each year with less and less headcount and little automation. There is no one left to after the scofflaws.
1
I live in New Jersey and I am opposed to this tax law, but one thing this article did not mention at all is that while tax deductions are going to be reduced for many NJ homeowners tax rates are reduced (at least for eight years) as well. Looking at my own situation, my deductions are reduced by about $34,000, my taxes will rise by only about $2500 - and that's before I get the benefit of the pass-through deduction on a small side business I own, which brings me to about break-even. So, while this bill is certainly not a good thing for a state like New Jersey, it may not be quite as bad as some are making it out to be. At least I hope it's not.
5
You are right and that is the deceiving part. While my tax bill won’t change much the deficit will increase by more than a trillion dollars, there will be steep cuts to Medicare and social security and it will cost all of us more down the line
All for what? To give the Trump family a billion dollar tax cut?
It is just wrong and now there is no money for infrastructure and my husband spend 5 hours a day commuting to nyc
15
President Trump has nothing to do with your husbands' choice to commute 5 hours/day. President Trump had nothing to do with this Tax Bill. The Senate Republicans have crafted this bill because they could. No kidding, they have waited for decades to have the opportunity they have now.
And the voters gave it to them. We failed to form a third party and the Democrats imploded. Too bad, so sad!
The Democratic Party is lumbering dinosaur which will take 20 -30 years to die. We must form a third-party and we must work for the long-term goals!
4
We were talking about this with some neighbors the other night. We live in Connecticut. It really is a wash for some, for others the child tax credit more than makes up for it.
Other were excited about their investments going up.
I don't think it is a good bill, but think the picture for affluent "blue state" taxpayers is a lot more complicated than a lot of media is making it out to be.
2
New Jersey residents pay for more layers of local government than most other states. Maybe this change in the tax code will encourage some consolidation of wasteful duplications of local, town, county and state services. Clearly this is a opportunity for the voters of New Jersey to decide how much government that they wish to pay for. If the majority wants this high a level then a large minority, some quite wealthy like David Tepper will likely continue their migration to lower tax states.
12
These tax changes don't just affect people in NJ or NYC. High-income earners in states with a 5% to 7% state income tax, and real estate and personal property taxes, like Kansas, will also pay more federal income tax. Whereas, those who can't "itemize" now under a married-couple standard deduction of $12,000, which is going up to $24,000, will pay less federal income tax. Isn't that the way it should be?
The big question is whether it was necessary to grant corporations at tax rate of 21% versus the previous 35% rate? And, should the lower "carried-interest", capital-gains rate have been continued for hedge fund managers, versus treating their income as ordinary "earned" income like the rest of us? And, was it necessary to give the passive owners of LLCs a similar lower income rate on the profits earned from their ownership share, previously taxed at ordinary "earned" income rates?
But then, I figure no matter what we taxpayers and voters do the government--Republicans and Democrats alike--will spend, spend, spend on new military equipment and more intelligence analysts and spying equipment for the now 16-years of war we endlessly prosecute, and the next war, and the one after that?
2
Corp's pay an average now of 18.5%, now we'll be paying them to be in this country. For all the corp fat cats and Koch's, to me they're all UNPATRIOTIC.
This country has been wonderful to them, pay your fair share
7
I am going to get hit as hard as possible by this tax bill, literally tens of thousands more in tax next year.
You know what? I've already cut my spending as close to zero as possible. I'd encourage anyone else in a similar situation to do the same.
4
Everyone take a deep breath and think about the astronomical cost of defined benefit pension plans and post-retirement health benefits when trying to understand why the taxes are in towns like Livingston are so high. When you are paying so many people to not work while also paying similar amounts to people who are working, you are heading for trouble. Look at the state of Illinois. It’s on the precipice of default, or at least an extreme haircut on its benefits. Blame the actuaries, who have been fudging the liability calculations for many years, misleading towns into thinking their current assets covered the commitments. Not!
14
To use Illinois as your example is very disingenuous, Ill has had 2 of 3 the past governors convicted on corruption charges.
That state, which I left when I was 17, is so corrupt I don't understand why my relations stayed there.
Al Capone? Ring bells? Still influencing the entire state.
1
Renegade Priest
I grew up in New Jersey. I know a lot about the place. Corruption is the State’s middle name. Any theory why the Sopranos was set in NJ? Real world examples? How about Menendez, who took generous gifts from his largest benefactor? How about Torricelli and his campaign finance scandal that caused him to drop out of his re-election campaign? How about Jim McGreevey, who hired his lover to a security job he was entirely unqualified for?
1
If you are already paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, not being able to deduct SALT will not impact you. I guarantee most in this town are paying the AMT and probably don't even know it.
5
Anyone who itemizes is getting hit, just say it that way. You'll be paying for billionaires to get a tax break, period!
2
The GOP has a great plan to equalize regions of the US. Instead of lifting depressed areas up, they will depress more affluent areas.
11
The latest budget presented on Livingston's website appears to be 2013.
http://livingstontownship.org/goverment/township-budget/
When at nearly the start of 2018 a five year old budget is all that is available that just screams mismanagement - whether because of incompetance or something nefarious. People in places with such high taxes need to start asking why instead bemoaning a change in SALT deductibility.
3
Actually, its here...
http://livingstontownship.org/finance/budget/
Interesting story--- I happen to be familiar with this location as i grew up in Livingston..... not in a $750,000 house, or even close . So once again we argue over who is the "middle class" and who is "rich". Some of these folks will pay more in taxes, but the "middle class" definition i see caps at about $140,000 income (not sure i agree with that number but... ) based on the statistics i found. So yes many people in Livingston and North NJ maybe impacted. However if you have owned a home in the area for 15-20 years i am quite sure you will make big $$ if you sell. Re Taxes in NJ-- yes they are to high, and the local pols and citizens need to reset tax thinking/ policy.
2
I live next door to Livingston in West Caldwell NJ. When this tax bill was clearing the house, the commercials started pouring our airways PERSONALLY endorsed by Rodney Frelinghuysen, our congressman, stating how great this tax bill was going to be for his constituents. Now similar commercials play every morning on the news channels (without the endorsement of Rodney Frelinghuysen)...promising “an average tax cut of $2000”. Unfortunately that is a lie. Our taxes in this area of the country will be going up. But suburban New Jersey is educated and we will be awaiting the chance to vote in 2018.
8
I guess, according to the NYT's, we are supposed to feel sympathy towards Livingston NJ because they are diverse. In this case, diversity means Chinese and Indian Americans, not Hispanics and African Americans.
The real story is how did these once decidedly lower to middle income towns become home to those who can afford 700+k homes and the taxes that go along with them.
3
No we all feel sorry for the wall st bankers who haved been paying too much in tax. Geez
2
I am surprised that the report did not mention "Rodney's ruse'! Frelinghuysen voted FOR the bill and then AGAINST, after the Party leaders made sure that they had enough votes in favor. With the Party leadership's agreement, he CHANGED his vote to avoid the voters's wrath! He voted for the bill when it mattered most. Let's not FORGET that!
7
If you live in NY, NJ, CA, or any other state that will be negatively impacted by this Tax Scam, you must vote all Republican House members out in 2018. It doesn't matter if your rep. voted yes or no on this awful measure. A Republican controlled House of Representatives is a grave danger to your family's well being. They just told you that, believe them! Sweep all the Rs out and we will have a chance to correct this injustice!
9
and replace them with whom? The Democratic Party, the lumbering dinosaur?
4
You're in the Wild West so this doesn't really affect you.
4
So many claiming they are going to move South. If they do, real estate prices will plummet. They will lose more than they will gain by moving. If you own a home in New York, New Jersey or Connecticut, you are stuck. Homebuyers are not stupid. Why would they want to buy a home knowing the reason why people are selling it?
5
George, people are bolting out of Connecticut because the economic model is broken. On the state level 30 percent of state revenue goes to pay pensions and retire healthcare for retired state employees. The state is so broke, they are giving the towns less state aid, forcing already high property taxes higher. Connecticut just negotiated a 10 year labor agreement with the State Employees Union. Some of the provisions include no layoffs for 4 years, no raises for two years but 3 percent in each of the next two, no changes to "Overtime Spiking", no changes to Cadillac Healthcare plans. In Connecticut many State Hospital workers get a 20 year retirement and are earning 250K a year in OT spiked salaries. 250K for LPN's and Social Workers. The system is broke. The pension liabilities can never ever be met.
Yes, it's the same out here in purple Suffolk County, Long Island. We have sky high real estate taxes which are necessary, given the absence of any industry other than the nearby tax-exempt Stony Brook University, to pay (90 percent of our taxes) for a very high-quality public school system. This tax bill is going to make all that nearly impossible. We have an aging population (I'm 77) who will now rush to sell their homes, if they even can, and relocate to a low-tax state, as many already do. My wife, a baby boomer, just retired last year from the University, but now we're worried that no one will want to buy a middle-class home with a $24,000 real estate tax. [ And no, we're not rich; we're in the 24 percent tax bracket.] Aging in place, unfortunately, is not an option now that we're on a fixed income and taxes continue to increase relentlessly. It's an awful feeling to have one political party create a tax giveaway for their wealthy benefactors and to do it by squeezing the middle- and lower-classes. And, if memory serves me right, they were the ones always screaming at Democrats to stop saying, "Class warfare!"
15
Lotta bellyaching here.
Wanna smoke pot go to Colorado
Wanna live cheep go to Florida
Wanna great job go to New York
Wanna live on the wild side go to California
They all have their pros and cons and nobody automatically gets dealt a fair hand. We’ve got planes and trains. No need for a wagon train.
Don’t like where you live, move !
6
It's amazing to me how easily any dolt will roll over to give tax cuts to billionaires, unless of course they're sitting on a farm in St Petersburg
3
"Don’t like where you live, move !"
Really?
Most of us have important community ties and lead extraordinarily depthful lives in the places we reside. Telling us to quit bellyaching and move like we're refugees just because plutocrats gave themselves a gazillion dollars in obscene tax breaks reminiscent of what preceded The Great Depression seems like poetic injustice in the extreme. Wow.
4
I'd like to point out that if I am a landlord, my property taxes are still deductible. And I get to take depreciation to avoid paying taxes on my profits while I own a house... and when I sell it if I buy another property in a 1031 exchange I don't have to pay taxes then. This bill makes it a rigged system in favor of landlords over homeowners.
7
Statistics from the IRS show that only about 29% of tax returns itemize and only about 22.5% take the mortgage deduction.
So, too bad, so sad, the rules change. Weep for the affected!
cites: https://www.cchgroup.com/news-and-insights/wbot2017/average-itemized-ded...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/01/heads-up-homeowners-mortgage-interest-de...
I recommend that taxpayers who itemize look at the revised tax brackets to get the true, full impact of the reduced deductions for property and state/local income taxes - and the elimination of the personal exemptions. The changes in bracket limits and tax rates are likely to offset much of negative impact of the lost deductions/exemptions. For example, a married couple with $150,000 of taxable income under the current tax law could "lose" $18K of deductions/exemptions under the GOP bill and still not pay more federal tax (than under the current law). If that couple lost $30K of deductions, their tax bill would climb about $2,900. Not happy, but probably less than one might fear based on the anecdotal reporting.
I'm not a CPA or tax expert (and I'm not making any political judgments), just a guy who wanted the facts and built a crude tax calculator spreadsheet to do my own tax planning. It calmed me. I suggest others speak with their tax person asap.
5
Agreed, for us it ended up being mostly a wash (though someone in a low-tax state who earns the same walks away with much bigger benefits). What galls me about this tax bill, though, is that it is making complicated, huge changes to the tax code in a rushed manner and so is likely extremely prone to loopholes and abuse. My fear is that tax receipts in 2018 and beyond are going to be far lower even than predicted as a result. It also is transferring even more wealth to the top 1%, while handing out temporary peanuts to American workers, at a time when we need less inequality and more infrastructure investment. Basically, while the bill itself doesn't hurt me much personally, I am terrified of the macro consequences and where we as a country end up in 10 years. I truly don't get the mentality of the megarich that short-term tax benefits are worth it when it puts our entire economic health at risk.
8
And realize that this is not a "Trump" tax bill. This is a Republican "we are doing this because we have the votes right now" tax bill.
3
Thanks for this important article about the unfair treatment of New Jersey in the current GOP Tax Plan, as well as for highlighting our wonderful Livingston community. The same article could be written about towns in New York, Connecticut, Illinois, California, etc. In other words, "blue" states that a Republican Congress feels they can abuse in deference to their donors.
Your inclusion of the Rep Frelinghuysen quote referencing his opposition to the tax bill is completely out of context. He supported the tax bill at its earliest stage, when he might have instead had some clout to impact the final outcome. Only when the GOP secured the necessary votes for the final passage did he speak up against the bill. Unfortunately, this is the way Rep Frelinghuysen fails to represent the interests of his district.
Thank you for mentioning that high property and other state taxes ensure high quality schools and services. One reason that NJ local taxes are higher than average is that we don't get a fair return from Congress from the money we send to the federal government. While other states are subsidized by the federal government, NJ almost always comes out as number 49 or 50 in return of federal funding, relative to the amount of federal taxes we pay. Perhaps you could get a quote from Rep. Frelinghuysen about that inequity.
Janet; Livingston, NJ
10
What's the surprise. They vote for Republicans in congress so why are they expecting something different. Republicans very clearly and vocally don't care about the middle class as the tax bill makes perfectly clear. You get what you vote for or don't show to vote against.
6
Someone who pays $30K or $40K per year in property taxes is not middle class. Or maybe they are but are living way beyond their means.
2
You need to look at our district 11 before you make such an erroneous statement. We are the Easternmost and the most liberal portion of Mr. Frelinghuysen's district. Much of the 11th is the more rural and Republican parts of the next county west of us, Morris County, where he gets most of his votes. In fact many in Livingston and our area are doing OUR part in the rising surge of voters who shocked the nation this November in our state, in Virginia, and now in Alabama. Livingston voted nearly 60% for Clinton, and only 36% for Trump.
But it's SO easy to make assumptions, isn't it?
6
As the Eagles song says We get the government we deserve
Month of Sundays
Not QUITE:
"...we have adopted a mindset that paying high taxes is a virtuous end unto itself."
What we're learning from articles like this one is that "paying high taxes is a virtuous end unto itself" if someone else has to pay those high taxes, but is not quite so virtuous if it means WE will have to pay those high taxes.
It's simple arithmetic. If someone who lives in Livingston NJ deducts his high property taxes from his federal taxable income, his federal taxes go down. If we want to keep federal tax revenues the same, we have only two choices: (1) increase the taxes paid by other taxpayers; or (2) borrow the shortfall (thus sticking future generations with the bill).
Is that fair to people in Nebraska, on whom none of that property tax revenue will be spent? Is it fair to future generations, on whom none of that property tax revenue will be spent (unless, of course, he or she happens to live in Livingston NJ)?
7
Several commenters argue we should lay off NJ because its residents pay much more to the federal government than they get back. By contrast, they argue, states like Mississippi get much more from the federal government than they pay.
Two problems with that argument.
First, a dollar paid to, say, a woman with two small children who's married to a serviceman based in MS "counts" as a dollar paid to MS, even though that serviceman's efforts (one hopes) will benefit ALL Americans, including those who live in NJ.
Second, the question isn't whether that hypothetical woman with two small children who's married to a serviceman based in MS should get that dollar or not. The question is who should PAY that dollar into the US treasury. Under current law, two taxpayers – one in Nebraska, the other in Livingston NJ -- who make exactly the same amount may pay much different federal income taxes. Both will be allowed to deduct property taxes, but the Livingston NJ resident probably will pay higher property taxes and so his deduction will be bigger and so his federal income tax will be smaller. None of those high property taxes he pays will be spent in Nebraska, of course, but the Nebraska resident -- who makes exactly the same amount of money -- will effectively pay some of those high NJ property taxes because his federal income taxes will be higher than those of the Livingston NJ resident.
Is that fair?
3
First. Federal salaries are not included in that formula. If they were, the District of Columbia would have a highly favorable ratio, when, in fact it is about 1 to 1.
Second. The person in NJ is only getting a fraction (their bracket margin) of their NJ taxes offset by a Federal tax reduction. The person in Nebraska, while paying more in Federal taxes still did not pay the original full local tax, as did the NJ resident, in the first place. That is, it is not one dollar less Federal tax for one dollar paid locally. These are taxes, by the way, their local government chose not to or did not need to collect or spend locally on services and infrastructure. The laws of supply and demand and the necessity of services in a highly populated area makes some parts of the country naturally more expensive. Unless the people in Nebraska want everyone moving their way and bringing those costs with them, I suspect they would settle for slightly higher Federal taxes in exchange for far lower local taxes.
1
Last reported Alabama gets $4.30 for every fed dollar paid in, NJ .30 CENTS, give me a break
8
The only good news with the federal tax bill is that the NJ governor-elect’s plan to raise NJ taxes $700 million will have to be reconsidered.
5
And why is that? If the taxes are needed, and knowing NJ most of the increased taxes will go to the MOB, or Mikhail Prokhorov which is practically the same ilk, the increase should be pushed through by the mob in charge.
But I heard the new Mob leader, Phil Murphy, wants $1.3 billion!
1
A few clarifying facts:
1. Those decrying the new limits on SALT deduction as an example of dreaded double taxation (such as our governor-elect) need reminding that NJ has the same nasty habit, i.e., it only allows a deduction of up to $10,000 in property taxes for purposes of arriving at total income subject to state income tax.
2. For those who earn in the six figures, there is the little matter of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which, for many, ends up eating away most or all of the benefits of the present deductibility of SALT. The new bill limits deductibility but also limits the baleful or salutary (depends on your point of view) reach of the AMT. For many, this may turn out to be a wash; for some it may turn out to be advantageous.
3. People are right to point out the exclusionary effect of high property taxes, aka public school tuition. Indeed, Senator Warren supported a voucher system in K-12 because she recognized that school funding based on local property levy inflated the cost of housing. As a Democrat United State Senator, who has found common cause with her friends in the AFT and NEA, she has reversed course.
4. While NJ’s tax system for funding school may in general be regressive, it actually has some startlingly progressive elements thanks to the New Jersey Supreme Court. NJ uses income taxes to boost district per pupil expenditures in cities like Camden and Newark high above that in suburban school districts.
5
NJ's tax system is a mess from years of playing games with various interest groups.
The State Court has mandated most income tax dollars be sent to Abbott districts. Wealthier districts get a fraction (sometimes literally pennies on the dollar) kicked back for education from the general state income tax. Local property taxes are therefore high because it is the only way in which money can be kept for local schools in affluent districts. Mortgage interest deductions helped pump up house prices. These plus high taxes set a high bar that prevented inner-city problems from being imported to these communities, without any overt nastiness that could discomfort easy liberal attitudes. The remaining income tax plus extensive borrowing was used for rewarding various political constituencies.
The SALT deduction plus the rising home prices plus private school@public prices papered over this mess for most, and only those higher earners who lost more and more deductions on their state and Fed tax forms each yr, or those unlucky to trigger AMT really saw the full bill for their government (and who cared about them anyway, as this thread shows).
This shell game that supported the deal is now crumbling, and a lot of the upper middle class are now learning just how much the tax code actually benefited them - of course, they don't want to face it.
2
I was brought up near Livingston and know the town. Once I graduated from college in 1979 I boogie out of NJ and went west. High taxes and congestion then which I assume is worst now. Not knowing the value of the house mention in the article I guess it is about the same or less value than my west coast house. But my property tax is only about 1/3 of what was quoted. The voters have a choice of not electing politicians that tax and spend. I made an early life choice to leave the high tax NJ and the money we saved allow us to retire at age 56.
8
The only recourse for NJ is to try to elect a Congress that will repeal the tax scam. That means removing all Republican Congressmen from the state.
I would urge Gov Murphy to take back the last minute 2.6% tax cut for the wealthiest using the state income tax, and use it to fund a real property tax rebate.
5
I live in a high tax state, but I am happy about the elimination of the SALT exemption. It is a subsidy from the Federal government and distorts the economy. It allows certain states to not be accountable for how tax dollars are spent.
6
Making employer subsidized health insurance not part of ones taxable income also distorts the cost and usage of health care services. Agricultural subsidies distort the pricing of food and renewable energy subsidies distort the cost of power. Not having enough local taxes and waiting for a hand-out from the federal government for welfare subsidies or allowing a large proportion of your citizens go without health care distorts the economics of caring for the poor. Subsidies to rail transit (which is profitable along the coasts but loses money elsewhere) distorts the cost of rail transportation. And so it goes. Accountability?
8
Not really...
"People establish their lives based on reasonable assumptions, and now the rug is being pulled out from under them..."
Many commenters argue that any tax-law changes should be "phased in." But that's happening. For example, the mortgage-interest deduction is presently limited to mortgages under $1 million; that's being lowered to $750,000, not $0. That's called "gradual." And the SALT deduction isn't being eliminated. It's just being capped -- at $10,000 a year.
Yes, those changes will depress house prices, no question about that. But the changes are gradual -- and long overdue.
5
Move to Canada! In addition to our universal government-funded health care, our property values are soaring. I moved here from NJ in the 1970's ... and feel like I'd bought Microsoft or FaceBook at IPO prices. In Toronto, a typical house has tripled in value of the last ten years. However, our property taxes remain relatively low – we rely in income tax and a Federal Sales Tax for much of our government funding. Best of all, the increase of value of a principal residence is exempt from capital gains taxes. Much of the real estate value increase is based on Toronto's desirability as a destination for immigration. So PLEASE keep driving highly-productive and highly-highly educated immigrants away from the US. We welcome them in Canada ... and immigration is dramatically increasing the value of my house.
3
I tried. You are no longer accepting anyone who stays longer than 6 months.
2
The average Canadian family spent 42.5 per cent of their income on taxes last year, more than they spent on housing and other expenses combined...
Yeah - that sounds just about perfect.
And - despite paying those outrageous taxes - you're not guaranteed a Dr. nor timely access to modest technology like an MRI or actual surgery.
2
I should have said "immigrate to Canada". Canadian immigration is a process based on a point system that assesses age, ability to speak one or both official languages, education and professional credentials, employability, health, etc. It can be complicated but Canada has increased its immigration targets to almost 300,000 per year. Skilled workers and professionals have the best odds.
Our taxes are going up tens of thousands of dollars next year if this plan passes. Of course we will be moving. We are just waiting for our kids to graduate HS but we are going South.
Do I want to do this? Eh. NO.
Do we need to this? Without kids in the school system, living here is like standing still and allowing yourself to be robbed. It makes zero sense.
15
"Do we need to this? Without kids in the school system, living here is like standing still and allowing yourself to be robbed. It makes zero sense."
It made zero sense before the Republicans limited the SALT deduction. Everyone I know on Long Island leaves as soon as they retire. Now, more and more young people are leaving because without a healthy six figure salary, you cannot afford to live here.
The blame lies with our state and local elected officials who gave away too much to the teacher and police unions.
6
Sure blame the teachers and cops not billionaires who need tax cuts without the limitation of the pass throughs, or any of the loopholes being amended. Sorry, sad and dumb
2
Key words are "without kids in the school system."
My children's public schools in Connecticut are worth every penny of property taxes we pay.
I grew up in "Flyover Country". You can't even find a private school - if you can find one that is non-sectarian at all - that can hold a candle to many suburban districts in the Northeast.
2
Good article . According to a number of newspapers Mr . Tepper told the New Jersey officials if they raised NJ income taxes he would leave and take his hedge fund with him NJ taxes were raised . He left before the present tax bill was mentioned in Congress .According to the same papers his tax bill, employees and the hedge fund bills amounted to 150 million dollars
3
The Trump people and other zillionaires in the Cabinet and Congressional Republicans are probably clueless that millions of Baby Boomers have planned by necessity to use their now soon-to-be diminished home equity to survive during retirement. Let them eat cake...as long as it's not for a same-sex wedding.
9
Planning one's retirement on an illiquid, undiversified, high transaction cost asset is poor planning no matter who is president.
5
I have ZERO sympathy for you people from Livingston. The majority of you voted for Trump, so this is what you get. Of course Hillary handily won the state thus didn't need your vote, but it's your mentality which is why you have to pay way more taxes via a limit on tax deductions and why I will never patronize your town. I don't visit towns who support Trump and their own demise due to cognitive dissonance, hatred, fear, and partisan tribalism.
Hillary would've let you continue to deduct local, state, and property taxes with no limits - it wasn't even an issue with her - but she's a liar and a crook and her emails and her husband raped women and blah blah blah, right?
Real simple: VOTE AGAINST TRUMP IN THE 2020 NEW JERSEY REPUBLICAN PRIMARY to be held on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020. This primary is winner take all which means someone else besides Trump wins the most votes, Trump would lose all 51 delegates in NJ he won in 2016. This primary is also semi-open (or semi-closed depending on how you look at it) which means an independent can vote in it, too, so you know what to do...
13
That’s not true...Hillary won livingston
1
This is pure GARBAGE! The vote totals for Livingston, NJ in the 2016 Presidential election were
8,943 for Clinton, or 59.4% of the town's vote
vs
5,425 for Trump for 36% of the town's vote.
Source: NJ.com.
This is actually a very liberal town and we all await your apology.
2
That is why the rest of America did not vote for tax and spend Hillary who would have been Obama III. We deplorables do not have sympathy to you also. You want to tax and spend locally, that is your decision but why should the rest of America who live within our means have to support your tax and spend attitude. You want your high taxes, fine but we don't make us subsidize your high taxes.
Commenters who sympathize with the poor taxpayers in Livingston NJ are missing the point.
100% (or close to it) of property tax revenues collected in Livingston NJ are SPENT in Livingston NJ. 0% are spent in Nebraska. Yet when a Livingston NJ taxpayer's federal income taxes are reduced because he's allowed to deduct property taxes he paid to the town of Livingston NJ, the cost of that federal income tax reduction is borne by ALL taxpayers in ALL states, including Nebraska.
Why should people in Nebraska help to pay property taxes that are spent only in New Jersey? The unfairness of this seems so obvious that I'm surprised it's even being debated.
14
People in California actually subsidize Nebraska, one thinks as a Californian you would know that. We also have less representation than Nebraska, whose population is a fraction of ours, but we only have two senators.
5
because we pay MORE in fed tax then Nebraska. And FYI: about 1/3 of the property taxes go to Essex County to subsidize overly expenses schools in the East side of the county.
Yeah, don’t give money to people inNJ. Give it to corporations. Red staters have a lot to feel good about there
1
This notion among many that they are somehow subsidizing NJ is not only without merit, but completely backwards. New Jersey's per capita federal tax is over $17,000, double that of over half the states. Only DC, Delaware, and Minnesota are higher. This stat is from 2015, when SALT deductions were in place. The imbalance will be even worse without the SALT deductions in place. To be blunt: New Jersey is subsidizing you.
30
Nonsense. The only reason New Jersey’s tax payment to the feds is higher is because average salaries are higher. That has nothing to do with our collective need to find the federal government through the federal income tax, which is what it’s for. Why should someone in Nebraska lay more in federal tax for the same income that someone in NJ does?
1
Making $100k in Nebraska is not the same as making $100k in Livingston NJ. These dollars do NOT have the same buying power locally, but when aggregated in the federal pot they do, and to that pot NJ quite simply already contributes more: more people individually paying more money, for which they get a lot less back. I am all for progressive taxation, but this is already the case. And are we that far from 2008 that we no longer worry about a major real estate crisis?
3
I see a lot of comments where people are saying that other parts of the country are subsidizing rich, high tax (blue) states when the opposite is true.
These blue states already send more money to the Federal government than they get in return. Rich states are subsidizing rural, poorer (red) states.
See list of States in the attached article. For each dollar states like NJ, NY, MA, CA send to the Federal government they get less than a dollar back.
States like SC, WV, ND, FL, LA get multiple dollars for each dollar they send to the Feds.
A few examples:
South Carolina gets $8 for each dollar they send to the Feds.
North Dakota $6
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, $3
"It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
35
Nobody disagree with this, but it misses the point:
"What if New Jersey reduces property taxes and income taxes to make up for the loss of the SALT deduction? Who gets hurt? The poor..."
Nobody's saying Livingston NJ, or the state of NJ, can't charge its residents whatever taxes it feels like charging them, or that the revenues from those taxes can't be spent on the poor or whatever else Livingston NJ or the state of NJ wants to spend them on.
All people are saying is that Livingston NJ and the state of NJ shouldn't expect people in Nebraska to help pay those taxes. None of it is being spent in Nebraska, after all, and so why should people in Nebraska help to pay those taxes?
But that's exactly what happens when people who live in expensive homes in Livingston NJ are allowed to deduct their high property taxes. Their federal income taxes go down as a result, which means that OTHER taxpayers' taxes have to go up to make up the shortfall (unless, of course, the US government finances the shortfall by borrowing more, in which case unborn generations will be stuck with the bill).
I recognize we've had this subsidy for many decades, and I've taken advantage of it personally, year after year after year. But it's never struck me as fair.
2
If you continue believing the Republican nonsense, you will not do well. The money spent in Livingston results in educated workers who create the prosperity in this country. A nation of subsistence farmers or mineral extractors is not a prosperous nation. Is Mississippi a nice place to live?
4
"All people are saying is that Livingston NJ and the state of NJ shouldn't expect people in Nebraska to help pay those taxes."
which "people" are saying this? You and...?
1
I lived in CA, OH, NYC before, and now I have lived in NJ about 9-10 years. With a sincere heart and no doubt in my mind I can say this - There are serious problems with NJ and NJ local governments.
8
NYT, articles like these misleadingly portray the debate over this tax bill as whether tax cuts should go more to upper middle class or lower middle-class workers, to blue states or red states. This is exactly what the GOP wants -- to pit working Americans against one another so they don't notice that the lion's share of the bill's benefits go to the megawealthy living off of passive income and/or inherited wealth.
As someone who supports progressive taxation, I'd be more than happy with my tax burden going up if it were actually going into the pockets of the Americans who need it, or toward infrastructure spending in red states (which need it), or to some good. But it's going to fund a permanent tax cut for corporations, a huge easing of the estate tax, and certain targeted benefits for specific industries (by sheer coincidence, one of which is the exact industry Trump and Kushner are in). Hence the outrage.
Now we're seeing blue-state salary earners say "well if you don't let me deduct my state and local taxes, let's get rid of your agricultural subsidies." Are some of these wasteful? Sure. But let's stay focused on the truly egregious transfer of wealth happening, which benefits virtually 0 people commenting on this article.
14
As a Oregonian, I have benefited for years in itemizing and writing "off" my income and property taxes on my federal returns. To a degree, though, I understand the frustration "red" state residents may have: large, metropolitan areas in blue states pass high local taxes and then pass the cost on to the federal government by itemizing. And the mortgage interest reduction indirectly spurs inflation in home prices, ultimately benefiting the residents.
But my sympathy with the red state crowd ceases quickly. For one, the way income tax works, these high-tax states on the Coasts pay a disproportionate amount of tax relative to the benefit they receive from the federal government. Ironically, the low tax, less well-off states, in the South for example, routinely elect representatives and senators who bemoan the federal government but then take a disproportionate benefit from it in the form of Medicate, Medicaid etc. It is only sensible that these high tax states should get some benefit. Also, this bill manipulated these realities by using reconciliation; the GOP leaders knew they had only a few blue state senators in their caucus who might oppose such a one-sided bill and they did not need all the Republicans in House who hail from the Northeast. The bill is wildly unpopular, as people see it benefits the wealthy primarily. If and when the Republicans get their political comeuppance, I will rest easy knowing that it could not have happened to a more deserving crew.
14
I am here too, 80% of my taxes go to Beaverton schools, I have no kids or grandkids, but we all pay into the schools for a stronger society. Giving tax cuts to billionaires only makes me very angry, it does nothing for our country or society as a whole.
2
Many good stories and examples presented in this list. There is a rational theory on taxation that is rarely discussed - it is called land value capture and for financial real estate securities it's called economic rent capture. It's totally fair to extract wealth going to those who skim the cream of society's successful progress (excellent public services, such as schools, security, roads, transit). This "rentier class" tries to hide among capitalists and entrepreneurs who create real wealth and they do a good job of hiding - the left and right battle it out while they sit back and laugh at the non-sense.
I agree with Dr. B. Many thousands of citizens will be paying more in Federal Taxes, when we can no longer deduct property tax over $10,000.00 as well as State/City Income Taxes not to mention medical expenses. Add up the numbers and ask one question. What will the new tax percentage reality be when you include sales tax on most living expenses such as gas, clothing, food, meds, tolls etc on top of state & local income tax? 38% or even more. How inconsiderate and mean spirited the government has become.
4
Hasn't it been the mantra of the NYT and democrats to raise taxes on the rich for many years now? Now that it's being done, all of the sudden they aren't in favor. What gives?
I agree:
"Now let's apply the same logic to his or her farm subsidy."
Congress votes periodically on whether to continue "subsidies" to farmers -- often labeled more favorably as "price supports" or something like that – anything other than what it is: "subsidy." Many critics have argued recently that corn farmers, in particular, no longer need price subsidies since they now have plenty of customers (especially since ethanol became popular).
But farm-state Reps and Senators collect IOUs from other Reps and Senators, and they call in those IOUs when the time comes to vote on continued farm subsidies. As a result, those subsidies are continued, usually with the approval of Reps and Senators from urban states.
And so on.
3
Clearly this town has been wasting money like a drunken sailor and the republican tax bill will simply force them to cut wasteful social programs. It is not the federal governments job to enable these wasteful social programs with federal tax cuts. The Republican federal government will soon lead the way in cutting wasteful social programs at the federal level and everyone else needs to fall in line. The people voted in a republican president and Congress and they are simply carrying out the will of the voters. God bless
7
It's not social programs it Police Officers and Fireman making 150K a year and retiring after 20 years with Overtime spiked pensions. It's retired teachers, city workers and Police/Fire retiring with pensions at 80 percent of their final salary with retiree healthcare.
1
Good to know. Livingston, NJ is in Essex County. Essex was in the top 5 NJ counties receiving FEDERAL FUNDS. Essex County received over $2.3B in Federal Funds. Why on earth are your Local taxes, let alone State taxes so high? You want to be a sanctuary State pay for the services and welfare programs out of your bloated state and local taxes, don't send a refund bill to the rest of us. Vote better in 2018/2020.
7
I'm paying more from my high-tax location in upstate NY. I already pay a breathtaking amount of taxes for mediocre but extremely well-funded schools, high crime and crumbling infrastructure. I can afford it, but given the lame value proposition, I feel like a sucker. I wish we knew what the right amount of taxes is. Do we pay more than what they pay in Ontario, where services are abundant and competently delivered? It's a fair question. I've lived in other high-service states and the taxes were still lower. Why don't we NYers ever question whether with all that we pay, are we getting a good bargain? It's not even part of the political conversation. Instead, if you ask, you're labeled a Neanderthal and you get ignored or lambasted. As if we have adopted a mindset that paying high taxes is a virtuous end unto itself.
8
I feel your pain but, to be honest, there are a few options. You can run for your local school board and work to improve what you perceive as "mediocre schools", you can get involved in local government, or move, as I did with my family (twice through fixer-uppers at considerable effort) to where the taxes are lower and the schools are better. In the meantime, we have the best government "money can buy" and, you're right, there's no virtue in that. Now, at the Federal level we will have to see if the effect of lower taxes for most will net our state additional money or, will we become even more of a "donor" state to the those low tax "takers" you speak of. I'm not optimistic.
Vote all the Republicans out of office in 2018.
20
Why?
3
Per NJ.com, Livingston has a median household income of $143,000. Per this article, median home sale price in Livingston is $743,000.
These are all rich people! Complaining that their taxes may increase. Boo Hoo.
8
Those numbers basically make someone working class in desirable areas such as this.
3
List of Winners and losers in the tax bill (from yesterdays' article in the Times which explained the reasons why they are winners/losers).
In a fair country the lists would be almost reversed. Not in GOP-land.
Goodies $$$ in the stocking for the winners. Coal for the losers.
Winners:
1) President Trump and his family
2)Big Corporations
3)Multi-Millioanires
4)Private Equity Managers
5) Private Schools and the people that can afford them
6)The liquor business
7)Architects and Engineers
8)Tax accountant and lawyers
Losers:
1)People buying health Insurance
2)Individual taxpayers in the future
3)The elderly
4)Low income families
5)Owners of high-end homes
6)People in high property tax, high income states
7)Puerto Rico
8)The IRS
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/business/the-winners-and-losers-in-th...
11
The NY Time has often written about how the tax plan favors the rich. Now they rail about how much losing the property tax deduction will hurt. Those who get hurt the most are.................THE RICH. The tax plan has in a small way addressed their original concern but they are still not satisfied.
11
This is just not true. Look at the changes to the estate tax, to the pass-through rate, and at the overall corporate tax cut -- which is permanent, by the way, unlike the tax cuts for individuals. What this tax bill is doing is targeting blue-state high salary earners (who, yes, are doing relatively well, but actually WORK for their income) to pay for major benefits for corporations who don't need them and the mega-wealthy living off of capital gains and inherited wealth. I would be much, much happier with this plan if my taxes were going up in order to actually benefit the hard-working Americans who need more support. But my taxes are going up to benefit people like Trump. It's absurd.
3
Shouldn't they be addressing this issue with those who have made New Jersey such a high tax state? Why should the rest of us be subsidizing them?
8
So what? Even if home prices go down 10.5%, nearly every homeowner in Livingston will still be well ahead of the financial game. It's not like these people are living in Flint or Youngstown.
9
What if New Jersey reduces property taxes and income taxes to make up for the loss of the SALT deduction? Who gets hurt? The poor, who will have their services and benefits reduced.
People who think that the SALT deduction subsidizes taxpayers in New York and New Jersey should remember that taxes are high in New York and New Jersey because benefits and services to the poor are higher than in the South and Midwest and other parts of the country. If New York and New Jersey reduce their taxes (reduce the subsidized rich), the poor will be the first to feel the pain. It is ironic, but the biggest impact from the loss of the SALT deduction will be on the poor, who may see their benefits and services cut.
8
I have friends that live on $10,000/year in the mountains. No TV, no WIFI, rattle trap cars, and heat their homes with wood. They could care less about New Jersey and the politicians care even less about them.
5
What makes you think that we care about what your friends think?
4
I have no sympathy for these citizens or towns. Minimum wage workers in the US have my support. These income earners take home > $100,000 a year! Time for these people to budget. Maybe even try public schools.
5
Why do you think these people's property and local taxes are so high? Do you realize that property and local taxes are the primary revenue sources for public schools in America? Many of these people chose to live there and pay the high local taxes precisely because they want to send their kids to well-funded and high quality public school!
5
The state curriculum is the same throughout the state.
They live where their kids don't have to go to schools with poor kids. Period. Paragraph.
"Try public schools." Are you kidding???? That is why people MOVE to Livingston and Millburn/Shorthills, and pay the premium in housing and property taxes! Because our public schools are BETTER than most private schools and among the best in the nation.
Livingston High even had a Noble Laureate in Chemistry, the late, brilliant Roger Tsien who won it in 2008. Chelsea Handler, Jason Alexander, as well as the departing governor all came through our public schools.
3
I grew up in the next town to Livingston. Very white, mostly well-off NYC bedroom communities. Great schools -- where there was money. I now live in California. Diverse, expensive, mediocre schools -- except where there's money. Nothing changes. If you make 200% of the national average for your state, you can afford to pay more. Stop whining. Buy a cheaper car. It's the folks below that line who will feel a real pinch and it will affect their kids and retirement. This is nothing. Take a look at the $15T global bubble of quantitative easing. The hyperinflation from this pop will make 2008 look like party. So, of course, the 1% want their take now.
3
Might want to re-check your demographics on Livingston--pretty diverse population.
Why should a Nebraska taxpayer share the cost of property tax paid in New Jersey?
Livingston, NJ is not spending any property-tax revenue in Nebraska. It's spending all of that revenue in Livingston, NJ. So why shouldn't people who live in Livingston, NJ pay all of that property tax?
Maybe I'm missing something, but this change seems like a no-brainer.
5
Because NJ is a massive net contributor state, and NE is a massive net beneficiary state. Why should NJ pay for ethanol subsidies in NE?
Of course there are parts of the tax code that benefit different state typologies, but it's crazy to say that it's "unfair" that NJ has some current tax benefits, when it's 49th or 50th in tax dollars spent relative to tax dollars paid.
3
I agree that a farmer in Kansas should not pay higher taxes because of my state and local tax deductions and my mortgage interest deduction. The same also applies to my charity deduction but no politician is ready to go there. Now let's apply the same logic to his or her farm subsidy.
16
By the same token why should we, in NJ, pay for Kansans' giant tax cuts and subsequent collapse of public services and the flood of school teachers to other states? They voted for this, let THEM pay for this, too!
5
It's not just New Jersey that will be hit hard..so will California. I pay $10,000 in property taxes alone..never mind my state income tax. That along with the loss of the exemption means I will definitely being paying more next year. Did I mention I work three jobs to try and make $80K a year? No millionaire here, but it's where I was born and raised, now where do I go?
19
Californians vote for high state and local taxes. This does not excuse them for paying their share of federal taxes.
Maybe in the next election, CA residents will vote out the politicians who keep raising state and local taxes.
No need to move
5
I hear that Mexico is encouraging motivated, educated legal immigrants to relocate. Don't walk across the border, Mexico has very serious laws against illegal immigrants which they've turned into THEIR principal export.
Why aren't you complaining about Gov. Moonbeam and your General Assembly turning CA into a sanctuary State? Where do you think the $$'s will come from to support all your new undocumented guests? Not the rest of us.
4
You could get a job as a firefighter or police officer -- $200k+ in pay and a six-figure pension when you retire at age 50.
Or move to Santa Monica and become a life guard. $200k+ and a public safety pension.
Or vote for a Republican to reduce your local and state taxes.
3
I don't get the anger about people have about businsses getting tax cuts. Don't people realize business taxes are an expense that get added to every gallon of gas, loaf of bread, or pair of shoes and the consumers ultimatey pay business taxes.
6
The anger is that those tax cuts will, for many big corporations, not get passed through to the consumer. Large corporations have been sitting on huge piles of cash for the last decade. They don't need more. Nor will it trickle down to wages or to lower the cost of goods and services unless there is a compelling economic reason for businesses to do that, and to date there just hasn't been. Instead, they sit on the cash and/or hand it out to shareholders in the form of dividends. A better use of that money would be to put it into the pockets of hard-working lower and middle class Americans, who would immediately spend it --- boosting the economy and helping us all. Instead, those Americans are getting a temporary tax cut (if at all), likely a big reduction in social services, and then are going to see their taxes hiked back up in 2025.
6
I think many people don't buy into the trickle down theory anymore and don't believe a tax break for business is going to trickle down to lower prices for them. What business is going to pass down the savings they receive in this tax bill to customers. Are shoes and bread going to be cheaper if we give a shoe store and supermarket a tax break?
And, they will hire more people with the money, well that theory needs an increased demand for shoes and bread not a tax break.
8
If you think you're going to see even a dime of savings on the consumer end as the result of this tax hike, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
4
Illustrious Gov. Chris Christie grew up in Livingston and as a a close friend of the President perhaps he could exert some influence to spare his hometown folks such a quagmire. I wonder what impact "tax reform" will have on Mr. Christie's taxes in affluent Mendham where he lives in nearby Morris County where unlike Blue Livingston, Mendham and much of Morris County is mostly Red.
3
You need to stop voting Republican no matter how your representative may have voted. The reason why is Paul Ryan who is dead set on ripping apart Medicare, Social Security and the ACA. Meanwhile, our infrastructure is crumbling all around us while Paul Ryan, Trump, McConnell, and the GOP turning the USA into a third-world-ish playground for the super wealthy. And allowing the deficits to escalate. If you want to stop this transfer of wealth from the middle and upper middle class to the super wealthy donor class, you must have Democratic majorities by 2018.
32
Homes for sale in the suburbs will continue to be attractive to wealthy people from China seeking to protect their money.
14
For many our homes ARE our primary investment. When it comes time to move into assisted living it is primary means of being able to do so. Depreciate the values of the homes and it is just that sooner we end up on Medicaid.
So they want to attack people on both ends - decreasing their SS, medicare, (after a lifetime of paying in), and medicaid AND they want to take away the means for being somewhat self supportive. You'd think that the Republicans WANT to kill off a reliable voting block.
14
The truly wealthy will recoup their losses with their investment income, but those of us in the upper middle class will not only see our taxes jump, but our home values decrease all so we can subsidize the rich and people living in the red states even more.
Punish the Republicans in 2018. They don't care a whit about fairness, they only care about power. Show them the door come November!
14
i lived in livingston from 91-98 and the my last property tax bill in round numbers was for $4400.
- $2500 - schools
- $900 municipal - including garbage, police, street maintenance, water and sewer
- $1000 county
here's the problem - the county of essex provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the township - NOTHING AT ALL.
2
I also lived there---with similar #'s --and similar comment
1
The question is never asked "why are their taxes so high?" For decades Liberals have been screaming to tax the wealthy and the wealthy must pay their fair share. Then here we are reading an article in the NYT about how we should feel sorry for rich people that live in expensive home. In addition the personal deduction of $12,000 per couple was doubled to $24,000 to help offset the property tax deduction loss.
12
Another question that should be asked, if we're being fair, is how much of the owners' property value in Livingston is attributable to the good schools, infrastructure, and general appeal of living there -- all funded by state and local taxes. So, maybe their taxes are high, but maybe also they've seen a return from it.
4
The loss of exemptions completely offsets the increase in personal deductions for any couple with one child.
Actually, our good schools ARE due to our property taxes, but not from any help from the State or DC since Christie became governor 8 years ago--and he's an LHS grad ('80)! Our schools have not suffered as much as other communities in the state, nor have our kids. But this new tax bill is going to end that. But will Mississippi or Louisiana see THEIR schools benefit? No. Because the money's not going to go to them either. Remember? It's all going to corporations and billionaires, like Donald Trump.
Do try to pay attention!
2
Jarad Kushner lives in Livingston, N.J. and will benefit from his father in laws tax plan. This country will experience rampant inflation and in fact the state that many retire to because of low property prices, Florida, will see a rise in housing prices. A recent trip to DC we witnessed homeless people, middle class homeless people, living in tents within sight of the White House. America brace yourself for Trumps newest assault on the American people.
10
As a Republican, I can tell you that, if this so-called tax reform goes into effect without full SALT, I will never vote for the GOP again. And, that includes our illustrious congressman Rodney Fleyhingsen (sp?) who has put the needs of the national party ahead of his constituents. Whatever the Democrats cost me in higher taxes pales in comparison to this gigantic ripoff by Trump and his cronies.
26
So you're happy to pay higher Democrat taxes but not Republican taxes?
Makes sense. Not!
2
Ok well the 2020 New Jersey Republican presidential primary is on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020, so vote against Trump in it.
After that you could switch to independent if you want the option to vote in either next primary ("after" because NJ automatically makes you a member of the party whose primary you vote in and you have to switch to indy again, so no sense for you to switch to indy before the primary only to become Repub then have to switch back to indy again.)
Really? Democrats use taxes to fix things. Republicans use taxes to subsidize billionaires and corporations solely for campaign donations. Do try to pay attention!
2
When gas prices go up, we adapt by simply driving less, if at all possible. We do this with many things in our lives - we "pull in our horns".
When we decide to buy a house, we carefully evaluate the price of the house, our property taxes, our insurance, and when choosing which state in which to buy in the TriState area of NYC, state income taxes. THEN we buy a house.
Just selling and moving is not something done easily when the tax deduction for state and local taxes is changed. If a lot of people realize they cannot afford an additional $15,000 a year in income tax, and all put their houses on the market at the same time, prices will drop. Demand for such houses in NJ will plummet as there it makes no sense to live in such a high tax area. Their owners will not have much money to buy elsewhere.
The mortgage interest, property tax and state income tax deductions have been an integral part of our economy since the end of WWII. For the federal government to decide that they will no longer "underwrite" home ownership as it has for the past 70 years, is such an enormous change in our country's philosophy about home ownership, that it is nothing short of mind boggling that it is being discarded in such a rapid and cavalier fashion.
I don't live in NJ and this will have only a minimum impact on my finances, but when the economy is hurt in one part of the US, the ripple effect is felt eventually by everyone. I just can't imagine what Congress is thinking...
19
Hear that? No? It’s just the world’s tiniest violin playing a sad, sad tune for people who live in 700K homes, and who make six figures, bellyaching because they’re going to have to start putting their money where their mouths have been when it comes to their progressive tax and spend policies.
Watching this isn’t nearly as satisfying as watching heads explode after Trump won, but it comes close. And this is the sole reason why I subscribe. The real news is over at the WSJ. Thank you, NYT, for the laughs!
14
I have family in Livingston, and exactly 0 of them votes Democrat or would consider a "progressive tax and spend" policy their kind of policy. I think that's kind of the point of this article -- reliably Republican voters in certain areas are getting hit big time.
Also, what's true for these homeowners will be true for plenty of others who live in less valuable homes and make much less. Real estate prices are going to go down across the board in states like this.
5
The voters in those towns are going to have to do the unthinkable -- cut the salaries and benefits (finally) for their public sector workers.
2
Um, it's not Dems bellyaching over the increase in taxes, it's Republicans, Mr. Pulp Fiction Username Guy, and this tax bill hurts way more people with houses valued well below 700K.
Progressivism includes allowing people to deduct mortgage interest, property, state, and local income tax with no limits.
1
Although in principle I agree state and local taxes should not be taxable, I suspect inaccurate reporting in this article.
I doubt Mr. Levine actually faces $14,000 in higher taxes next year. Assuming a 33% tax bracket, generously, that implies his state and local taxes are $42,000 in excess of the $10,000 deductible. Or, if he really pays that -- somewhere north of $4000/month -- well, I'm having difficulty feeling sorry for him. Cry me a river.
The New York Times should remember that the same wealthy suburbs that are being socked with new taxes have, for decades, benefited from federal and local policies at the expense of the cities the surround. Federal highway, housing, and carbon policies created the suburbs. Suburbs benefit from city services without paying for them, and have fought in court for decades for zoning rules that exclude high-density, low-income housing. In New Jersey specifically, they have fought -- successfully, for decades -- against school funding that would meet their Supreme Court's interpretation of their constitution, that requires a "fair and efficient" education.
Yes, these wealthy suburbanites are being hurt by a stupid, outrageous tax plan. Yes, they had reason to believe, as they organized their lives, that the rules they were planning under would continue. But, at the same time, they have sent no few Republicans to congress, and have enacted and defended laws and taxes that selfishly benefit themselves at the expense of their cities.
4
I found the $14,000 claim hard to believe also. My guess is that's how much more he won't be able to deduct. Most reporters are terrible at understanding basic things about personal taxes. They should all have to calculate their own; then they might understand better.
it surprises you that someone might pay $52,000 in state and local taxes? Do you really live in NYC?
My husband and I make high 5-figures each. We own a co-op apartment in the Bronx. Our SALT tax bill is about 30k a year.
By my calculation, assuming a property tax of 25k (not unusual in NJ suburbs) and a 16% tax rate, Mr. Levine has an AGI of about 170,000 a year.
That could be two mid-career schoolteachers.
2
Sorry, I see my error. He makes about 400,000.
Oh well. Start electing officials who will stare down the unions, root out waste and corruption, and have a zeal for running an efficient low tax government. Stop expecting the federal government to underwrite your wasteful ways.
6
Stare down the union? You mean people who have secured liveable wages, the eight-hour work day, overtime, sick/vacation/annuity pay, pensions etc. I know you have at least one of. So pipe down about unions.
There is no such thing as a low tax government. Stop with the 17XX or 18XX stuff.
3
In the '90s, when NAFTA was under consideration, the NYT did a feature on Timken workers in Canton, Ohio, who were concerned that their lifestyles would be decimated by the legislation.
Lo and behold, they were correct.
They and many others formerly in manufacturing across the country now form Trump's base, so those of you in Livingston and other blue-state enclaves should view the new tax structure as payback for ramming NAFTA down our throats.
What's good for the goose.....
5
revenge is a dish best served cold- Humm legislation based on gottcha?
1
Glad the "United" States is so united. You're a fool if you think the Republicans care about you or any of their other constituents, aside from the 1%.
1
Payback? Canton is a shell of its '90s self and will be further ravaged by this tax plan. But you do have the National Football Hall of Fame (shrine to a dying sport.)
True payback is when North Carolina and Arizona turn blue in 2020 and stay blue for another 26 automatic electoral votes and the end of the Dem having to court the 25 electoral votes in Ohio (18) or Iowa (6.) Your state is trending blue, too, so deal with it.
1
Remember these GOP scammers and corrupt officials well is one way of fighting back and at the polls in 2018 is another. Another way would be for every city not to abide by any tax plan laws. What are they going to do sue them? Enforcement of this tax bill would be ridiculous and expensive. When we stand together we have more power and have victory as well. We have the power not the President nor Congress.
Its hard to by sympathetic to people making top 10% family incomes.
If doubling the standard deduction doesn't cover the change, plus lowering your bracket, you're just whining, wait, you are whining.
Yes, the tax bill still favors the cheaper states, but you're New Jersey, you've elected a number of GOP governors over the decades. You reap what you sow.
PS - if Mr Levine is getting a $14K increase, he's making far too much money to complain.
7
I live in Virginia where real estate taxes are a fraction of New Jersey's. We have world class schools and institutions of higher education. We welcome all LEGAL immigrants including those from New Jersey. But hurry up, we've just been saddled with a Lib Dem Gov. Hopefully our General Assembly, still in R's hands will be able to counterbalance extreme left initiatives. If you're a republican come quickly since we're being overrun with illegal, whoops undocumented, residents.
Seriously, you're taxes have been high because you live in a State that taxes you to death for social welfare programs that have failed to produce results. And now you have a Gov who seems enchanted with Sanctuary State Status. If Jerseyites want to use their bloated state taxes to support illegal, whoops undocumented, new arrivals that's their right. The other 45 or so non sanctuary states have a right to say NOT WITH OUR MONEY. Jersey went for Clinton by 55%, rest assured that had she been elected your taxes would be higher. Choose better in 2/4 years.
7
A liberal VA governor...hmmmm...you mean like the one before him who did such a good job your state is now a solid blue one as no way Trump is winning it in 2020 after the thumping Northam gave your right wing extremist Trump lapdog boy Ed Gillespie.
You must not travel north of Roanoke (a solid blue city and nicest one below Richmond) because north, north-central, and eastern VA is liberal and (its no coincidence that) that's where people move for work and school as well as vacation.
You're not being overrun by anyone, your party stole the Dem majority in the General Assembly with the usual election day shenanigans (which might still be in court), and you will most certainly not only lose the Repub majority in the GA next election, but the Dems will win a supermajority. You could always move to West Virginia LOL.
2
I don't see any comments pointing out that Chris Christie grew up in Livingston.
5
So what?????
2
Hey NJ - pay your fair share!!!
And demand lower state taxes... why is America subsidizing high-tax states like NJ?
6
Facts: New Jersey contributed the third-highest federal tax revenue based on gross state product in 2015. New Jersey received 48 cents back for every dollar they sent the federal government, the fourth lowest rate in the country. Federal spending contributed about 29% to New Jersey's total revenue, 10th lowest in the country.
NJ is one example of the 'blue' states overall net losses when considering contributions to federal tax revenue vs. federal spending in those states.
Blue states are taxed more, red states receive more when considering our federal government's redistribution of wealth.
13
Why is America subsidizing generally low-tax state industries like agriculture?
2
Excuse me? Try the other way around. NJ and blue states in general subsidize red states.
2
This is not good. I am against anything that incentivizes people from CA, NJ, NY, IL or Conn to leave their country and move to mine.
6
Rich, you don’t need to worry, that won’t be happening on my end or anyone else I know.
4
Your "country"? 1861-65 is over. You couldn't pay most people from CA, NJ, NY, and CT to move to NC.
6
Mr. Power I wish that was true, but the census data and population growth statistics sadly tells a much different story.
The whole world is watching. And waiting. And laughing. As America gets its "just desserts".
Bye-bye New Jersey.
1
".... high property taxes in exchange for good schools .... they could deduct their local levies and reduce their federal taxes."
You forget the increase in the AMT exemption amount. Most of these taxpayers likely pay AMT and hence don't get the state/local tax deduction anyway. They will get a tax cut from the reduction in AMT
1
Not clear at all even as of today how high the AMT threshold will be- soem say phased out starting at 100k, others starting at 500k- if its the former, their will be no relief for >>95% of Livingston residents
1
I really don't want to hear about how much residents of Livingston and Short Hills are going to be "hurting." Short Hills? Are you kidding me? Do you know how wealthy you need to be to live in Short Hills? The median income in that town is $230,000. These towns will be fine. How about doing a story where working class and lower middle class people are going to feel the devastation that the tax bill will create? I'm talking about people who earn less than $100,000. That's most of the rest of New Jersey.
29
Yes, boo hoo. They are really going to suffer. This country is lost.
2
Federally fund local schools at an equal level for student success. The best public schools are in towns where peoplw vote to support them with high local taxes — it shows in their high property values. Rich schools in rich zip codes continue to be rich schools and poor schools continue to be poor schools
2
To say (in the fifth paragraph) that Rodney Frelinghuysen opposes the tax bill is disingenuous. He votes no on the actual bill in an attempt to save his next election, knowing it will pass anyway. When the underlying budget enabling simple majority in the Senate was approved by his Appropriations subcommittee he voted for when it counted. He knew or at least has no excuse for not knowing what would come of it.
Time to put Rodney out to pasture. He is working for the folks in Washington not those in NJ.
16
The fact that this tax bill does not address carried interest, 1031 real estate exchanges, pass through income and estate taxes for higher net worth estates is proof positive that this bill has been engineered to benefit the wealthy and those that live off of assets and their cash flow at the expense of those who work and everyone but the 1%.
As a fiscal conservative (someone who is supposed be be on the side of certain Republicans that state they are such) I will surely be one of those whose votes you have lost.
100
For years now homeowners in high tax areas have had their lifestyles subsidized by the rest of the nation. SALT deductions, mortgage interest deductions. This has led increased property values and declining affordability. It has also led to higher and higher taxes in these area since they knew they would not pay the full bill. So yes this is a good thing. Sorry New Jersey and other rich, high tax areas but its time for you to pay your full share.
5
None of this is true. New Jerseyans subsidize other states. NJ currently gets only .48 back for every dollar paid in federal taxes.
1
The most recent numbers I've found have it at .61. And if you were to add in the SALT deductions that number would increase dramatically since some fifty percent of all NJ residents take SALT deductions.
I'm sure that a number of Livingstonians are about to feel trapped. While the idea of moving somewhere else makes some sense, to whom will they be able to sell their homes, especially if many are trying to unload properties in a town with high taxes and rising cost of living (that challah won't be the only thing more expensive)?
1
Let me preface by saying that this bill is a horror with the transparent purpose of serving the plutocracy. But as a full time professional tax preparer for over thirty years, I believe that the effect on the rest of us will be negligible for the vast majority. Livingston in his particular situation is an exception, he is definitely going to be hurt. But his math is off. If he has two kids and pays $30k in SALT - which is a lot - his taxable income will increase by $20k in SALT and $16k in lost exemptions, a significant detail which has been mainly ignored by the media. In the 28% marginal bracket his tax liability increases by $10, but he gets $2k more in the new child tax credit. So he is either in a higher marginal bracket (which means he will gain $4k in Child Tax Credit or his SALT is a whopping $48k. In any case with an income in the multiple six figures he has my slight sympathy.
1
While the tax bill is a travesty and the dampening effect on home prices may tank the economy, it is also time to think about addressing the cost of running New Jersey's many towns, overlaid with county government. There are just too many municipalities, generating inefficiencies and corruption. Do we need so many senior administrators in each town to run police, fire, finance, courts, and schools? It is time to consider a rationalization of New Jersey's local government structure.
19
I live on Long Island and my sister in Summit NJ. We both voted for HRC. Over the years, our biggest complaint is the crushing property taxes we pay each year. Most of our friends with young adult children either live with their families or in rentals with multiple roommates. Our elderly parents can no longer afford to be in the home they bought many decades ago. This story repeats across most every middle class household in the metro NY area.
Instead of using the SALT deduction to beat up the Republicans, how about doing a series on why our property taxes are so high. It isn't because of the amazing public schools our politicians want to be the reason. It is because there is governmental waste across the board from the state to local level. The sad joke on Long Island that the only people left will be the rich, poor, teachers, cops and LIRR conductors.
11
I can only assume that the reason why the upper middle class in suburban areas of New Jersey, New York, and California vote Republican is because they've been told time and again that Democrats would raise their taxes. How ironic that it is Republicans who have done it to them instead. These folks need to do a rethink and vote out their Republican representatives in 2018. Flipping the House is well within reach. This alone won't be enough to change the tax law, of course, but it's a start to blocking any further legislative mischeif from the Trump administration before the 2020 election.
5
Don't assume. 59.4% voted for Clinton and only 36% voted for Trump in Livingston.
3
Many of the towns of New Jersey and the people who lived in them, enjoyed a comfortable suburban life based on the previous federal income tax rules that allowed for deduction of local property tax had a built in plan for a better life while excluding potential incoming families that would take away from their standard of living. Towns charged higher property taxes knowing that those local taxes would be deductible from individuals federal property taxes, resulting in a large proportion of total community federal income taxes being diverted from the federal government to local use. This served in having individuals who could afford a more hefty mortgage downpayment for a nicer home, to live in a community with better local services including schools and excluding lower income families who could not afford to pay a that hefty downpayment. The price of the homes would increase without the potential of decreasing home values, as the communities would be insulated from crime and perceived stigma associated with lower income families.
With these new tax rules, individuals paying higher property taxes will no longer be able to deduct same totally, and will be less willing to continue to pay higher property taxes forcing towns to rethink their spending with decreased funds in their coffers. And with these lower property taxes bringing lower property values, lower income individuals will be able to move into these previously insulated neighborhoods.
13
Livingston residents who dotn have kids is school will have to move....and they should- there will always be plenty of families who find that towns schools highly attractive. Seems Times readers no longer have kids in school ...thy would be shocked to learned how expensive private school is these days,a Nd tuition is not deductible currently ! I highly doubt anyone in Livingston with 2, and certainly , 3 ,kids is paying more in property tax than they are/would in private school tuition ! Livingston is still going to be a great deal for taxpayers with kids in school.
I am puzzled by the assertion "... with these lower property taxes bringing lower property values, lower income individual s will be able to move into" towns like Livingston. That's nonsense. Except for some small, temporary drop in taxes, under the Republican plan, "lower income" individuals will be paying MORE in taxes. I know I will.
2
I don’t think lower income people will be able to afford 5,000 square foot houses even with slightly diminished values.
1
Residents of rich states should pay more in taxes. That's how progressive taxation is supposed to work.
The SALT deduction is unjust. Taxes provide services, so a high-tax state is also a high-service state. Why should someone residing in a low-tax/low-service state subsidize someone in a high-tax/high-service state?
Once again it seems people want higher taxes not on the rich but on the richer - those richer than they are.
25
Rich states already send more money to the Federal government than they get in return. Rich states are subsidizing rural, poorer states.
See list of States in the attached article. For each dollar states like NJ, NY, MA, CA send to the Federal government they get less than a dollar back.
States like SC, WV, ND, FL, LA get multiple dollars for each dollar they send to the Feds.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
23
Except the subsidy works in the exact opposite way. There is an enormous transfer of tax dollars from blue states to red states already. The elimination of SALT will make this situation much more severe. Recently, Texas legislators have declined to tap into their emergency state fund to pay for damage from Hurricane Harvey insisting the Federal government pay instead. Again, they're demanding I subsidize them.
20
Your vision from Paris of the American tax money flow may be a bit impaired. It's the people in places like Livingston NJ who are subsidizing the low-tax/low-service states. Many or most of the people in these high tax states don't really mind that, but they do mind the lack of appreciation of the good deals the poor states are getting.
10
It is good that housing prices will go down; they are to high and these people have had a windfall. This decrease in deductions is good but not enough; no property taxes or mortgage interest deduction should be allowed. These two deductions create a permanent underclass--renters, who are 45% of American households. They actually pay their landlords property taxes in the form of increased rent, at a much higher rate than homeowners.
Matthew Desmond has shown the extreme effects of these deductions in his book "Eviction."
I have no sympathy for these rich people. Let's talk about the tax increases that really hurt--those on the poor. And they are affected by taxes on commercial property, which they should be able to deduct to save for a house. This is one thing the Republicans got right.
4
Funding education does make a difference.
So maybe a real-world example may help to explain why towns live Livingston are willing to fund a quality education. My daughter, a graduate of Livingston HS, was an average student in high school. In college many of her class mates, from Florida and other red states were on the high school honor roll. Despite this the demanding education she received at LHS more then prepared her for the rigors of college while the so-called honor roll students struggled.
31
Many affluent households who claim high SALT deductions face the AMT anyway, so the benefit is somewhat of a mirage (as it is in my case).
You also have to look at the entire tax package. Lowering marginal rates, boosting eligibility for the child tax credit, raising the AMT exemption threshold...by my accounting I will make out better overall even while drastically cutting my SALT deductions.
Many of these tax expenditures - mortgage interest, SALT, 401k, FSAs, employer provided health care, and so on - benefit the upper middle class the most. I would actually be fine with many of these changes, provided the tax increases enabled a reduction in taxes for lower and middle class wage earners. The problem is that this tax bill does precisely the opposite.
9
I am a resident of the next town over from Livingston and my husband and I are also among the big losers- although we are not affluent per northeast standards. Our children are grown, yet we are still paying the college expenses of the youngest, a mortgage, SALT (including property tax) of approximately 20K a year. Two years ago my husband was laid off and as a 64-year old has been able to obtain only short, low paying contract work. People do not hire older workers when they can hire younger workers for half the salary and do not want to feel they are supervising their father. Thus, at 64, we are depending on my salary and had hoped to make it to 66 without raiding the 401K, and at least be able to pay off the mortgage. We are now facing the likelihood of a reduced home value. We are facing a Catch-22. If I retire and we sell, we will not net much because of lowered home values, yet where would we go? Our mortgage payment is equivalent to apartment rentals in our neighborhood. If we stay, we risk our 401K. Residents of areas of the country with low property and state taxes will make out well or at least not lose, while we, on the west and east coasts stand to lose substantially.
18
That's hard to get laid off. But everyone should have 6 months to a year or more of living expenses. It's hard to see how you would have to raid a 401K. At 64 you should have easily have about 5 years' worth of liviing expense saved rather than having a house expensive enough that it has $20K in property taxes. And while property and taxes on it are expensive in the northeast sometimes renting is a better option and saving money. Well you can't turn back time. The country is full of very nice places to live that are more afforadable than metro NY. Sounds like you might have to relocate to live comfortably.
2
unfortunately most of those places are in conservative-minded red states where many from this area do not want to relocate. one of the best aspects of these communities (e.g., South Orange, Maplewood, Montclair) is their emphasis on diversity and acceptance of residents and families of all persuasions and makeups (gay families, multi-racial families, etc) the reality is that in this political climate there is no place for them in many of the communities that have lower tax thresholds.
2
How dare you make judgments on other's finances/lives? Do you know Robin from NJ? Do you have any idea of what their finances are and how they spend their money? Do you know if there are health care issues, which can cause bankruptcy to a working family?
Smug, smug. Where's the compassion?
6
I live in Essex County and expect higher taxes. What INFURIATES me is that my taxes will be higher so that corporations and the top 1% will get tax breaks. Were this being done to say, fund universal health care or make the system more progressive, I wouldn't complain about increased taxes, although it will be a hardship on many, although not all, in my down.
I would have preferred to eliminate mortgage interest and kept all SALT taxes. I understand that mortgage interest is generally not a great policy, preferring homeowners to renters. But why should my salary be taxed once by the feds, then the same amount be taxed by the state, with property taxes on top? Given the amount NJ sends to Washington, I don't think one can claim those who have chosen to live in low-tax states are subsidizing us.....
74
I live in a high property tax town in Westchester, and with the AMT(alternative minimum tax), I never got the full benefits of the SALT deductions anyway. I could deduct until I was blue in the face, but at the end of the day, I was paying a minimum of about 28% no matter what.
1
"... (NJ) property taxes are the highest in the nation and it also has a high state income tax."
A solution suggests itself.
Which government has the first claim on a share of our income? The feds do the one thing government absolutely must do: defend the country. People making the same income should pay the same, no matter where they live. Put differently, what's more important: defending the nation, or subsidizing the teachers' union?
We have hundreds of police departments, and cops make, on average, about $100K per annum. Perhaps, just maybe, this will persuade NJ to cut taxes, cut spending, share services, etc.
Because it's not the loss of the deduction which creates the problem; it's the obscene underlying taxes, which Phil Murphy expressly promises to bloat even further, in obedience to his public employee union supporters.
For years, leftists have been telling us that tax rates don't matter, that people will continue flocking to NJ despite high taxes because of the wonderful thing government does with the money. Now, they contend that the few pennies on the dollars herein involved will produce catastrophe, when the high underlying taxes were just fine?
Being a "rich" state, NJ is best served by low, flat federal taxes, and low federal spending. And, yet, NJ progressives advocate for high, progressive taxes and massive spending, the benefits of which flow to MS.
If NJ gets the short end of the stick, we have no one to blame but our own progressives.
14
If police and firemen and teachers and public servants don't want to work for low wages without benefits, they can always get jobs picking seasonal crops. Being good anti-progressive regressives, we don't need no education or public servants.
3
This is sheer insanity.
Every progressive you so despise has voted against the tax bill. Your very own Congressman, the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, has been a leader of House Republicans for a very long time. They are the ones to whom you should address your grievances.
I suggest you vote against Mr. Frelinghuysen next year. He may vote against the bill this week but he is the root cause of your own problems.
7
We like to educate our kids.
4
Just to put some context around this for out-of-staters who don't seem to grasp what people in NJ mean when we talk about how high our property taxes are:
- About 7.5% of our household income is allocated to property taxes.
- The monthly amount we allocate for property taxes is about 60% of the amount of our monthly principal and interest on our mortgage
All of this is in addition to state taxes that are about 5-6% of our household income and sales taxes that are over 6% as well.
I'm not asking to pay LESS in federal taxes. But we already pay enough. NJ residents get back in federal program spending just about 50% of what we pay in taxes -- how much of our money does the rest of the country really expect from us?
60
And yet, the brain impaired Faux News crowd claims that they are sick of wealthy north easterners squirming out of paying their "fair share" by using these state tax dodges. Naturally, there is no one over there correcting them.
2
I lived in NJ for 23 years. One of the happiest days of my life was when I signed the closing papers on my co-op and moved out of the state. In my particular case, my property taxes were high but not crippling. But it gave me a lump in the pit of my stomach as I saw the state continue to decline through mismanagement, cronyism and greed.
In my humble opinion, NJ needs to start merging towns and eliminating redundant services, thereby economizing and relieving taxpayers. It may already be too late. I think you'd have to be crazy to buy property in New Jersey now, and I imagine a lot more people are going to flee the state.
I live in Woodbury, a highly taxed but great town, in South Jersey. We're an old suburb where people can walk around town. We've got nice parks and there's a real feeling of inclusion and community.
However, the last Republican inspired recession was not kind to Woodbury. We were hit hard by the foreclosure crisis. As property values fell, the city lost over $5,000,000 in revenue.
Chris Christie has also not been kind to Woodbury. The state does not properly fund school districts as per the formula set by state law. Nor does the state work with communities to share services. Yet, the state mandates that localities provide services.
The result has been that Woodbury has a shockingly high tax rate. While the town had started to recover by attracting new residents and new businesses, we still have vacant houses in even the most desirable areas and empty storefronts along main street.
This tax bill will likely undo all the hard work and forward gains made by the city. We are not a wealthy town. We will have residents who will not be able to pay their property tax bill once the SALT deduction is capped. We will see home prices fall.
So, I'm not a fan of this tax bill. It will hurt my personal finances. And, it will mean further hard times for my community.
But, it's also time to shake the NJ legislature out of its property tax complacency. Not one of my state representatives has a plan for property tax relief.
You'd better believe I'm going to start demanding one.
51
"As property values fell, the city lost over $5,000,000 in revenue."
This is thing that many commenters here do not understand. Property taxes don't magically go down when property values go down. The city/town still needs to meet its budget. Town budgets can be adjusted but not as easily as some seem to think.
8
I live in Haddon Heights - and I agree with you.
This analysis seems to be more fear then fact. If someone loses $30000 in deductions from $300,000 income and they are at the top level, they would pay about $10,000 in taxes more. But, with the larger personal deduction, it would likely be around $6000 more is taxes. No great, but very doable to live next to one of the worlds great cities.
The other side of the coin is that right now NJ pays more to the feds then gets back. So if the Republican's cut, they are likely to cut to states like KY and Alabama. So more money stays in NJ. As Fed support is cut in those states, companies are less likely to expand there and stay on the coasts where there are good services, like mass transit. This move may end up bankrupting many smaller red states, or at least make the less desirable to those who have a choice.
I can also see population moving around. As folks retire in the Northeast, they are moving to population centers down south. This tax plan may further that with the result being the bluing of states like Georgia and SC. People may also leave many states for jobs and better schools, shifting population and increasing the coastal blue states numbers in congress after the next census in 2020.
The Republicans have been mentioning what their donors want. This tax bill shows its at the expense of their constituents. While the system will correct these actions, its unfortunate that many will be badly hurt.
8
"So if the Republican's cut, they are likely to cut to states like KY and Alabama. So more money stays in NJ."
That is a giant assumption. You lost me there.
6
Unless Democrats decide to reduce federal spending and federa tax rates that specifically drain the income of their residents, no rebalancing of this situation will happen.
The high cost/high tax states are in that situation because of the progressive federal tax system that does not factor in the cost of living and cost of generating income. Since the higher income states qualify for less federal help with their budgets, they are paying for their own people and for the people of other states that have neglected their schools, infrastructure, and social problems. The only solution left is to pull back support for federal help so we in the blue states can concentrate on our own problems.
1
As a former 25 year home owner in Bernards Township, NJ, I can tell you that it is much cheaper to Iive in the Reno-Tahoe area of Nevada. However, with low SALT, we also have fewer services and mixed school results. For example, in my county school district Incline Village schools do better than Sparks schools for the usual socio-economic reasons.
With its 600 self-segregated municipalities each with is own governing board, police department, school district, fire company, etc., some NJ home buyers have the choice to pay for where they want to live and be with their own kind...economically and ethnically. Owning a home in Livingston or Bernards is a choice that most upper middle income people can easily make.
15
Separate from the issue of deductibility of SALT in calculations for federal income tax is the wisdom of 180 degree changes in long-running policy in a large economy.
Another example is draconian policies to deal with illegal immigration after 50 or so years of letting that occur relatively unscathed.
It's more damaging or even devastating for those directly involved of course but, it also causes negative ripple effects due to deliberately-induced instability.
8
So the tex bill will force these folks to move to places like Florida. where they will then vote. And it won't be Republican.
21
Where has the NYT's been on the issue of the high property taxes that surround the suburbs of NYC? All of a sudden, there is article after article because the Republican tax bill is limiting the SALT deduction.
In this case, the problem is not the Republicans in Congress, it is our local elected leaders from the governor on down who have done little to nothing to deal with the crushing local tax burden. Most every local school district has a superintendent who make over 400k per year and police making over 100k per year who can retire after 20 years on a six figure salary for life.
I do not support the Republicans in Congress, but I thank them for shining a light on our property taxes which are chasing away the young and elderly alike.
32
Aaaaaaaaand that is exactly the response the creators of this tax bill are hoping for.
5
Has anyone figure out if the $10K limit on SALT deductions if per person? Is it $5K for singles and $10K for couples, or $10K per person and $20K per married, filing jointly. Or is it just $10K per tax return.
It is rare to have a deduction cap like be the same amount for singles and married filing jointly.
And the fact that this is tax plan hasn't specified this is an example of what a Mickey Mouse piece of nothing this is.
77
According to The Washington Post, the 10K is per household. That is 10k for an individual, and 10k total per couple.
The tax bill has not been passed as of this posting, 4:18 pm, 18 December 2017.
No, it’s the media that haven’t correctly reported it.
They may worry but they are not worried enough.
Republicans work for Plutocrats. They are mean and greedy.
First you will pay more to benefit the rich and foreign investors in the stock market.
Next the Republicans are coming after your Social Security and Medicare.
They have already started.
Then they will drive up the dept and saddle your kids with even higher taxes.
58
I grew up in Livingston. (Wish it had been more diverse then.) My 89 year old mother has lived there for over 60 years. She is devoted to the town and it is in her nature to be a good citizen; she has never complained about her tax responsibilities. But, as P. McGeehan says, the tax bill vastly changes the equation. It doubles the weight of ones responsibilities. Knowing clearly that the plutocrats (Kochs, Adelsons, etc.) do not care how good our schools or libraries or local transportation or policing systems are, we can see how important it was for them to have their way. It is shameful that the GOP has become their machine.
89
If this bill passes, maybe there will be incentive for Livingston to become more blue.
14
Those sanctuary cities cost a lot when you support large numbers of people who pay no state or federal income tax.
18
First of all, M, Livingston isn't a "sanctuary city" and immigration really wasn't the point of this article. But since you raised the issue - there was a report done in March this year by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that showed that undocumented immigrants collectively pay $11.7 billion/year in state and local taxes. That includes over half a billion dollars ($587,415,000, to be precise) just in the state of New Jersey.
5
No, - thats a foxnews tale. The facts are that most undocumented folks work hard and pay lots of taxes, like sales tax. Their employers also pay taxes on income they can't deduct as employee costs.
Once again, facts "trump" fakefoxnews!
6
Whoever said that all the New Jersey cities are sanctuary cities? Not mine. Probably not Livingston - do you think that having a large Asian population makes it a sanctuary city?
The limited tax deductions will cause a YUGE ripple effect across the USA. It will impact the demand for goods and services both locally and nationally. New refrigerators, cars, clothes, home improvements, airline tickets, hotels, restaurants etc. won’t be purchased. Where’s that money going to come from? Red States stop being angry with Blue States. Enough. We contribute a lot to this country and pay more than our fair share of taxes. Enough devisiveness. This tax bill is coming after all of us one way or another.
12
This tax plan upends decades of law, relied upon by millions of people to establish their lives. With a president who lost the popular vote and a 51-49 vote in the Senate, Republicans are taking a radical step that will undoubtedly be reversed the next time Democrats control the Presidency, the House and the Senate. How can whipsawing the public this way help the country? This is irresponsible governance to the extreme.
42
I don't see why it is that two Americans, living in different states, should end up paying less than their "fair share" in federal income tax just because one chooses to live in a state with high taxes. What a state does with its tax rate is for its people to decide, but an American living in Iowa earning $100K should be on the hook for the same federal tax burden to pay for federal services as does a NJ resident earning $100K.
15
Despite the high SALT deductions, most of the states with the highest state and local taxes are net "donors" to the federal government, receiving less in federal program money than their residents pay in federal income taxes.
I'm not looking for my taxes to be cut. But I'm getting pretty tired of paying for everything for everyone else.
24
OK, but then let's not transfer money from blue states to red states. And let's not give deductions for charity, if you want to write a check to your church, great, but don't make me subsidize it. Or high medical deductions. Or student loan interest. Or carried interest. Or lower tax rates on investment income. Why do we need to keep all these things, but are happy to pull the SALT deductions out from under us. Is it to punish Blue states?
6
am I missing something? don't workers in Iowa and New York (and every other state) who make $100K a year pay the same FEDERAL IRS tax ?
That said, the state and local taxes are killing us.
1
Does anyone think that Trump, who claims to be an expert in taxes, ought to finally show is his regime before changing tax laws? Where is the outrage from the people on his hypocrisy? Show us your return before you mess with ours! This should be a rallying cry!!! WHERE are our leaders??? Wake up!!!
65
Leaders? We have no stinking leaders!!
They were replaced by stooges.
Republicans are in the majority and they are ok with it. Vote Blue every election, every office.
But the corporations are allowed to deduct SALT and any other expenses they have. And they get a lower tax rate to boot. "Corporations are people my friend" says the GOP and they are worth more to the GOP than real people.
51
My husband and I considered moving to "flyover country" from Connecticut at one time, thinking it would be cheaper.
The fact is that the NICE parts of America - suburbs with good schools, educated residents, and a modern, upper middle class lifestyle - are expensive everywhere, from Atlanta to Austin to Ann Arbor. To live in a community with the same quality of life - schools, culture, education level of residents, etc - we would have been spending the same money.
And we would have, in many cases, found ourselves locked into a little island of upscale civilization surrounded by rural poverty, intense religious social conservatism, and a state government at war with modernity, education, and women's and GLBT rights.
I grew up in the Ann Arbor area - drive 1/2 hour each way and you are in redneck and bible church land. The staff / student ratio in even "good school districts" is twice what it is in our district in Connecticut. Comparable jobs to those in the Northeast pay less.
Also, perhaps people in NJ and NY who like the lifestyle of the northeast should consider Connecticut. Our taxes aren't low, but both income and property taxes are generally lower than in NY and NJ, and there are many nice communities in Fairfield and Litchfield County with good schools where you can get a house -
not a mansion, but a nice middle class home - for under 500K.
60
The Farmington Valley region in CT (Avon, Simsbury, Farmington, West Hartford) also have top notch public schools and a high quality of life.
2
I suggest you look at Columbus Ohio. Its a well kept secret. Good airport, good schools, good restaurants, 21st century job market, OSU football, nice ring of suburbs, affordable housing, and its not Tax, Tax, Tax like NJ, NY, CA, CT, MA, ...
People in New Jersey need to ask what their money is being spent on.
The Republican tax bill?
Just wait till Phil Murphy gets done with you!
4
Frankly, I’m almost happy to pay the extra taxes just to see the Republican voters in the metro area get what they deserve, especially all the ones who thought that Trump was going to give them each a shiny, new job. For all their chanting about “crooked Hillary” and “lock her up,” she never would have let this happen.
85
Please don't think that all New Jersey Republicans voted for Trump.
1
Despite this odious GOP tax bill, property taxes will not significantly reduced. It might even increased. With its excellent public school system and vast public transportation system including three rail lines with midtown direct to Manhattan with the proposed construction of the Gateway Tunnel in addition to the existing Lincoln and Holland Tunnels as well as George Washington Bridge, demand is present because of human capital to provide workforce in ever increasing high skilled professional services in New Jersey and Manhattan.
4
Rich towns, poor towns, same effect. No harm to the wealthy, pain to everyone else. Worst effect, I think, is on the suburban schools, often the primary motivation for living far from the city. The tax and real estate hits, plus the malignant deVoss program,will hurt the children the most as states like mine cannot afford to take up the slack. Two kids in school costs more than twice local taxes, so subtracting real estate appreciation and deductibles from the household calculation is, moral or not, a big deal.
If, however, a poorly educated citizenry is the objective, it's a start.
61
Not all of Essex county is Livingston or Short Hills. There are towns like Caldwell, Verona and Newark. The NYT should look at the impact of falling home prices and the loss of SALT for families in those areas.
New Jersey residents have paid for their schools and services through property and personal income taxes and does not run to the Federal Government for a handout like Florida
79
Rodney Frelinghuysen is given credit for voting NO on a House bill but I will repeat, with emphasis, what others have noted here. He first voted YES on a budget resolution that paved the way for this bill to be passed. He had the power to block this bill before it progressed further. He did not use his power to help the citizens of the 11th CD which includes Essex County, named by Moody's Analytics to be one of the hardest hit counties in the entire country due to this bill. It is widely known that he was given "permission" to vote NO because the House had the votes. We will not forget and we will vote him out in November 2018. I would respectfully request that the author of this article follow up and write the accurate story of our Congressman's actions.
128
You live in a district that has been inherited by Frelinghuysens for many decades. Peter Frelinghuysen was a moderate Republican who would not have punished his constituents in this way. In legislative lingo Rodney Frelinghuysen was "let off the hook" by his Republican leadership and donors. They knew he had to vote NO on a final version of this bill. They had enough votes without his vote. His constituents should not let him off the hook. Same for Leonard Lance in NJ & Peter King and Lee Zeldin in NY.
4
Your Republican representative, and mine as well (John Faso) need to do MORE than vote against this bill. They need to yell and scream against it non stop and lobby other members of their party to do the same. A simple "No" vote is nonsense. Otherwise, they should prepare to lose their jobs in November.
4
The anxiety is being felt in Montclair NJ as well. In Montclair, I home assessed at around $750,000 pays around $27,000 in Property Taxes!
21
I live a few miles from Livingston, in a town that is at least "affluent." That doesn't mean that everyone here is wealthy - far from it! I am retired on a very modest income, and the new tax plan will probably double my federal taxes. My state already contributes more taxes to Washington than it receives. Now it will be worse. I'm in my 80s and have lived in N.J. most of my live. I've lived in this town for nearly 40 years, and I would like to spend the rest of my life here. As a registered Republican (but not a Trump supporter), I am being betrayed.
37
I hope you are enjoying your retirement and applaud your loyalty to your town; Chatham is lovely. But perhaps you should reconsider your loyalty to the Republican party.
3
I wish this article had addressed the overall picture - with the the net effect of tax rate reductions taken into account. Deductions like property taxes don't tell the whole story.
2
Maybe there needs to be a little bursting of the housing bubble in this perfect little town.
7
"Bursting the housing bubble" means at least some degree of hardship. As an octogenarian, I am relying on the value of my house, near Livingston, to assist me if I need a nursing home or whatever help I may need - and these services are pretty expensive here. Would it be better if I were a public charge?
10
Because it's not your perfect little town but somebody else's?
Have you heard of Sidney, Nebraska? It's another perfect little town with NOTHING in common with Livingston, but it's in far more danger than we are.
Sidney is the HQ of Cabela's, which has just been sold to Bass Pro Shops, and, in that company town, the layoffs have already begun, albeit slowly...for now.
To the powers that be, both towns are nothing but grapes to be squeezed of every drop of juice.
2
Wait a minute: Mr. Levine's *taxes* would rise by $14,000, or his *taxable* income? If his tax bill were going up by $14,000, he must be paying a gigantic amount in state and local taxes over the $10,000 he can deduct.
Anyway, maybe these high-tax localities should finally have the federal government and other taxpayers subsidize their high tax rates.
2
correction: NOT subsidize their high tax rates
Despite that "subsidy," NJ taxpayers get about the lowest return on their federal tax payments of any state in the country. That situation will be even worse after this change.
1
Nothing if it's relative. Everything if it's prejudicial.
"With one child in middle school and one at Livingston High School, where nearly one-quarter of the student body is of Asian descent, Mr. Agarwal said his family was unlikely to decamp for a place with a lower cost of living. “The school district and the town and the quality of life will probably rule the day,” he said.
Punam Bhargava, a real estate agent with Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices who said she had sold 180 homes in Livingston to Indian couples, including the Agarwals, was holding out hope that the proposed tax changes would not come to pass."
I am sorry but what the heck does the GOP Tax scam have to do with the racial make-up of the community. What exactly are you trying to impute? Let us leave the dog-whistling to Roger Stone, Karl Rove, etc...not from a NYTimes reporter.
6
What's wrong with stating a fact?
6
and they are replacing the Long time Jews who fled Newark.
what is your point?
dont be so PC and hyper sensitive.
it is what it is
1
Because that fact is irrelevant to the article.
Let's just say that it is a day of reckoning for these residents. For years they have enjoyed a subsidy from localities that have not taxed so highly. An adjustment will be necessary but it does not mean it has to be dire circumstances from now on for Livingston. A little belt tightening may be welcomed in the whole State of New Jersey and New York. Surely, all the articles we read of corruption at many levels of governments in both States may be attacked more fervently by citizens to make lesser revenues more efficient governing.
10
"For years they have enjoyed a subsidy from localities that have not taxed so highly."
WSF, That sentence makes no sense. That's not how property taxes work in NJ. Maybe they work like that in Michigan where you are from.
12
The localities that I am thinking of are in low tax States. In a sense they pay more to the Federal Government as a result. New Jersey and New York keep more money from going to the Federal Government because of the tax deduction for real estate that is taxed so highly that residents keep the money that would normally go to the Feds. Thus the subsidy to New York and New Jersey. Makes a lot of sense to me.
You seem not to be aware that New York, New Jersey and California all send more in taxes to the federal government than they get back. These states aren't "enjoying a subsidy" from the government. They are subsidizing the government and lower tax states. And will be even more so if this tax bill passes.
8
For anyone in the middle classes/working classes of NJ, yes this is a big deal.
NJ property taxes are already so high (highest in the USA) that effectively raising property taxes another 10% or more would make many citizens re-think living in NJ. Or others moving to NJ may decide otherwise. We were recently paying 10k taxes on a small condo townhome in Summit (which is crazy) and then 10k taxes on a small house in working-class Northern NJ. That area (andover) is still grappling with foreclosures and never recovered from the recession.
Bottomline: NJ cannot sustain the property taxes it already makes working people pay to live there. But he very very wealthy dont care about property taxes and simply live whereever they want to. Govt inflicted Class warfare via property taxes.
26
People are already reconsidering living in NJ. Property taxes and the Christie administration (with them almost deciding to takeaway the NJ/PA tax forgiveness) kept us away from NJ when we were looking to buy a house last year. With this I predict more NJ folks moving to PA and other states where it makes sense. Take a look at the PA counties that border NJ - those towns are booming right now.
1
Interesting, as a Canadian I didn't realize the astronomical local property taxes of certain suburbs were deductible at a state/ federal level. None of our schools in Ontario are majority funded at the town level, but at the provincial level, taking the affluence of the suburb out of the equation when creating good public schools.
64
Thanks Sally for that Canadian perspective. I think the system is broken here because it was made for a time when local industry helped pay for schools, roads, library, and police. Not long ago Livingston was a major bedroom community for the industrial cities of Newark and the Oranges, not just NYC (actually it has no direct train service into NYC). After the collapse of local industry in our "post-industrial" economy the burden to keep up has shifted to property taxes. Essex County, NJ suffered from this decades ago. I bet these deductions saved these towns from an economic depression long ago.
Problem I see is that American politics is too corrupt today and detached from any public good. Even worse history and common sense seems to have been lost.
New Jersey is a somewhat special case in extreme balkanization when it comes to local authorities and schools. The "system" a sham and a disgrace because it is a) extremely expensive and b) extremely unequal. It's possible to drive only a few miles and cross the borders of several small towns and townships, each with its own police and fire department, and you can see which are prosperous and which aren't and, if you don't know, you can guess which have the good schools and which don't. The entire structure of NJ government is in need of overhaul. It won't happen though because there are too many entrenched interests.
Not sure but more than likely majority of the Livingston residents
voted for Trump and the Republicans.
5
Yes, and they probably appreciate the huge increase in their stock portfolios/401k's. Whatever they lose in property tax deductions that aren't compensated for with tax rate reductions, they almost certainly have made up in increased wealth attributable to Trump's election.
3
This is absolutely not true. Livingston went for Hillary in the most recent election. Maybe check your facts before you post.
12
Almost twice as many residents of Livingston voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. 9K+ to 5k+. It's not hard to look it up, which is what you should have done before disparaging this town and its residents.
5
It is a mistake to consider only the current change in money people get from a tax bill, as they should consider the "starve the beast" methodology of the republicans as with the great debt comes a cut in government services to people. So you may save 100 dollars, but when your car gets a 1000 dollar bill when it breaks in a pothole, you will really be out 900 dollars with this tax bill. This is a simple example of what to really care about, not the up front money.
6
Go on zillow dot com type website ... shacks that would cost under $150,00 in greater Worcester are over $500,000 in this town ...
that value is up because of the tax code ...
VERY hard to feel sorry for these POOR people ... their home values might drop by ..gasp $100,000 ... so now a $150,000 home in central mass is worth only ...$400,000+ ...
I'm happy for the people that can afford this ...good for them working hard ...just don't expect me to pay higher taxes to support you ...
7
Actually, Ron, your federal tax dollars don't go to "support" people in NJ or NY fo that matter. They do, along with NJ and NY'ers fed tax dollars, go to support many red states in the south and midwest.
25
Hey Ron -- how about we have the Federal government reduce the value of your largest asset by 20%, and see how much you like it?
5
Doesn't the ability to deduct state and local taxes increase inequality? Rich places with high taxes create above-average schools and towns for their residents, who then deduct those taxes and so pay less to help more-struggling people and places. I'm sorry for folks who made plans based on assumptions that this would last forever, but if we are to lessen inequality in America, doing away with some of these deductions seems necessary.
13
"Rich places with high taxes create above-average schools and towns for their residents,"
Unfortunately it doesnt work like that in NJ, and hasnt for decades. Union and Essex counties in NJ are surrounded by very poor crime-ridden towns and cities. So those high property taxes in wealthy towns are 80% claimed by the county and then are directed into the poor communities. This is all documented in the town budgets -- not new information to residents.
The other part of that is that wealthy NJ communities send their kids to private schools. So the public schools in NJ wealthy communities are fine enough, but anyone with wealth does not care about sending their kids to local public schools.
3
Keep in mind that these high-tax areas pay more into the federal government than they get back, and this is part of the reasoning for this federal treatment of local taxes. Simply put, the vast majority of red states take more from the federal government than they put back in. Very ironic given their rhetoric.
These high tax areas have decided that they want highly educated children, good community programs, science based on science and not religion, etc. As a result, they and their children are getting ahead. The new tax plan is not meant to lift others to a similar way of living, it's just meant to be spiteful and hopes to dumb our schools down to deep red state level.
14
Maybe places with below average schools should consider raising taxes to improve the schools and the quality of life. Then those folks can deduct their local taxes, too. Why make it a race to the bottom? Why compromise this NJ suburb's "above average" schools just because average is good enough for you? Sorry, but that's not how we make America Great again. A great America is not an America with "average" schools.
7
I am a resident of Livingston, and I am not affluent, despite how the NYT has characterized our town. I am a single mom and homeowner who works hard to cover my high property taxes, SALT and other taxes. I moved here solely for our excellent public schools. It's a pleasant town with friendly people of many ethnic backgrounds, with the common thread being we all care about education. My kids are almost through Livingston HS, and I'd hoped to remain here in town so they could return here on college breaks and be in familiar surroundings, and also be near their dad, who lives in a nearby town, while visiting their mom. Sadly, this bill will surely drive me out...yet my house will surely be worth less than it is today. Thanks for nothing, you non-representative, anti-democratic, greedy, craven, corrupt GOP. I will remember you (and yes, you, Rodney Frelinghuysen) in November '18.
505
Sing it, sister !
D to go forward; R for reverse.
2018, 2020, 2022, 2024 and beyond.
No one does nation-destroying - hear at home and overseas - better than Greed-Guns-God-Over People.
57
Single people who itemize are especially hard hit. That being said, the lower tax rates do go a long way towards ameliorating the damages. I was quite upset until I plugged in the new tax rates and brackets. We are losing the exemption and some amount of the SALT.
That being said though, since your kids are almost turning 17, you will lose their exemptions and their expanded child tax credit. Quite literally, when you kid turns 17, your taxes owed go up $2K. I don't think it is going to be a popular feature of the new tax plan. (They go up $1k currently, but you kept the exemption, which is worth $1K at the 25% marginal income tax rate.)
1
When you are forced out may I suggest relocating to a red state where your vote can help flip it? It’s going to be one of our best options for retaking the country. Seriously. I am right behind you.
22
The limitation of state/local income and property tax deductions is despicable. These deductions are not "loopholes" or special entitlements; they are features of our tax system that ordinary people use to determine how much they can afford to buy, and they matter a great deal to ordinary people. The tax bill leaves in place real loopholes, like the carried interest loophole, that generate NO jobs or wage/benefits increases and that could be used instead to fund tax cuts that may be constructive (unlike the cuts to the estate tax and many others). Every penny of these lost deductions that finds its way into the pockets of the super rich and the donors to Republican politicians will be tainted with the stain of greed, cynicism, dishonesty, selfishness and dishonor.
132
Not to mention that the SALT deductions have been in place for more than a century! To wipe them out in an instant, with no discussion and no bipartisan support is simply unjust.
104
" .... they are features of our tax system that ordinary people use to determine how much they can afford to buy, and they matter a great deal to ordinary people ..."
I am an "ordinary" person. When my spouse and I bought our house on Long Island 24 years ago we didn't look at the SALT deduction as a determining factor in what we could afford. In fact, we did not look at it at all. What has happened in the years since we bought our house is that home prices and property taxes have escalated to the point that only the wealthiest of the middle class can live here.
The problem is not the Republicans in Congress, this time, but our local officials who never say no to raising our taxes. The cost of living here is not sustainable with or without the SALT deduction.
4
I'm an ordinary person, too. When I bought my apartment in NYC also 24 years ago, I did take the state/local property tax deduction into account directly in determining how much my mortgage and tax payments would cost after taxes, and I took the state/local income tax deduction into account indirectly in determining how much take-home pay I would have each year. It's true that the cost of living in the areas we both live in have risen too high for most people to afford, but is that a reason for the federal government to make it worse in order to fund tax cuts for people who REALLY do not need them and do not have to rely on them to afford their homes?
5
Don't forget that Rodney Frelinghuysen was for the tax bill before he was against it. He voted to move it forward at the time when his "no" vote actually could have blocked it. While campaigning, Trump asked "What do you have to lose?" Once again we have the answer. EVERYTHING!
151
Why is their Representative a Republican? These are exactly the type of upper-middle-class people who bemoan food stamps going to the “inner city” all the while living beyond their means by a government handout of another name. The tax bill is an egregious heist, but I have no sympathy for them. Stop voting Republican. Stop voting Republican. Stop voting Republican.
221
Beautifully written - the residents of Livingston NJ bemoan what the Republican tax bill will do to their finances while on Election Day they go to the polls and elect a REPUBLICAN Representative and despite his now low approval rating, elected Chris Christie TWICE. The bigger issue is the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE of even these so-called educated and affluent and how they vote AGAINST their interests.
27
Hi HH,
Frelinghuysen's 11th district encompasses a lot of territory (see map: https://frelinghuysen.house.gov/11th-district/). Livingston is in Essex County. He's their "representative" (word used loosely). I live in Passaic County. He's my rep. He's also the rep for Morris County.
Many of us revile him. He's not held a public meeting in 3 or 4 years (sure, he does those fake phone-in town halls). He's had his seat forever. I predict he's on borrowed time and will finally, belatedly, be voted out next fall.
12
The only reason why I remain a Republican is because I want to influence my local government. All the action is in the Republican primary (Democrats often offer no candidates), and New Jersey does not permit crossing party lines in primaries. In the general elections, I consider the candidate, not the party.
2
They should push to lower their local and state taxes instead of sending the bill to other taxpayers.
14
NJ is a net giver state, not a net taker. They pay for good schools, have a decent economy, and in turn support the places that don't pay for good schools.
45
Please keep in mind that these states are net exporters of tax revenue. It is, in fact, the rest of the country that is sending the tax bill to us. And now even more so.
I have no problem paying more taxes, but not so that corporations and the 0.1% can pay less. We are not selfish, there is just something fundamentally unfair about where the money is going
5
Calling Chris Christie.... Calling Chris Christie.... Over and out.
C'est la vie!
7
After all that posturing and preening about equity and social justice, it turns out that blue state liberals don't actually want to pay their "fair share."
Priceless!
16
In fact is the Red state rabble that don't pay their fair share. Just look at how much gets transferred to Red states by the Federal Gubiment.
96
We pay more than our fair share. We support most Red Welfare states....
35
Our taxes are going up so that the top 1% and corporations can get a tax break. It's not about more money going into federal coffers -- the deficit will skyrocket.
11
It's astonishing how the travails of a wealthy suburb can be turned into a "progressive" cause
44
Wealthy suburb thought it may be, these are people who work for a living and who live off the wages they earn, not people living off unproductive assets. They want to send their kids to good schools. Why do they deserve your scorn?
35
The politics of envy is cheap. I'll take the public schools in New Jersey over those of Mississippi, Alabama and the like; or Texas with its myriad military basis and oil depletion allowances propping up the economy . . .
23
As awful as this is, the reason our state and local income/property taxes are so high needs to be addressed. While I appreciate the array of social services our communities provide, there is a lot of waste. The only bright spot about this is at least we won't be hearing deBlasio touting the need for additional income taxes to fund any more pet projects that suit his corrupt donors.
15
No doubt there is massive waste at the state and local levels that should be addressed. But is it appropriate for the Republican party (or the Democratic party if they were the ones doing it) to force that in this way? People establish their lives based on reasonable assumptions, and now the rug is being pulled out from under them to fund tax cuts that are not necessary and that will not benefit the economy in any meaningful way (there may be some tax cuts in this bill that are constructive, but not reducing the estate tax and many others, and there are other targets for raising taxes, like the carried interest loophole, that would hurt no one if applied prospectively).
Also, there is also waste at the federal level that this bill does nothing to address, and every additional penny that goes into the hands of the super rich and to political donors as a result of limiting the state/local tax deductions is an additional penny of waste. There is no question the legitimate aims of this bill could have been achieved without hurting ordinary people. This bill is despicable.
139
"There is a lot of waste"
If you are going to throw that out as a reason please cite specific examples. Throwing that out as a reason with no backup is just a smoke screen.
23
So instead we should collect more federal tax dollars from these taxpayers to pay for corporate tax cuts? Talk about waste...
8
Livingston needs to throw out Rodney Frelinghuysen, who let this bill come to the floor and only voted no when given permission to do so by Trump and Paul Ryan. Tom Moran explains this well in the Star Ledger.
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/rodneys_ruse_frelinghuysen_h...
174
It high time to dramatically lower the local property taxes get in line to close what the national average is
16
But that would also put the educational quality and quality of life "in line" with the national average.
Have you been to "flyover country"? I grew up and went to school there. There were 30 kids in my half day kindergarten class and no aids. We had two AP classes at the high school and no honors courses. One of the high school Science teachers was a Creationist who cut out all pages about evolution from the text books and showed Ken Ham videos at the local church on the weekends.
The town was full of bible thumpers, science deniers, and general ignorance. Petty crime, teenage pregnancy, and opioid abuse was a problem.
You could count the number of local police on your fingers. Good luck with response times for fire and EMT.
And this was in a relatively "upper middle class" community and "good" school district for my home state.
No thanks; I'll pay my property taxes to my Connecticut town, SALT or no SALT, and enjoy the benefits for my own children and broader quality of life.
20
What I understand is that Levingston's high home prices and school expenses are subsidized by others (by being fully deductible), but once they are no longer fully subsidized (a portion not being deductible), the market (the buying public) says the houses and school system are not worth the additional cost they will now require. If Livingston and other NJ towns have a true value proposition, people should be willing to pay for it. Ultimately, the market will decide.
13
Mark it doesnt work like that: Let's say houses now selling for 550k start selling for 225k as you suggest (which will never happen unless the whole USA economy tailspins at the same time). You forget that there is STILL a town AND county budget that has to be met out of yearly property taxes collected. Otherwise the towns go belly up because the town has no money to pay its bills (which wont happen as a few USA towns tried that and federal and state funds bailed them out)
Your notion how property taxes is simplistic.
2
Mr. Henderson, you are correct, the total taxes collected may need to stay the same, but the mil rate will have to change. People will need to decide if they wish to pay the amount of taxes the town says they need or if there needs to be cuts. When people are not fully paying for something (subsidized by being deductible), they don't care as much as they will when they have to foot the entire bill. My thought is waste will soon diminish and productivity will climb or people will move out.
"People will need to decide if they wish to pay the amount of taxes the town says they need or if there needs to be cuts."
This is simplistic. For anyone who works for a living in an area, one simply cannot simply sell one's house and move somewhere else while still being near one's job that pays the bills. And your kids and taking them from one school to another? All of that directly COSTS the person selling and buying. The banks profit from all of that selling and buying. The typical home owner will do the math and often sadly it makes more sense to stay put.
This notion that "market forces" will simply make people happily move to some other nearby town that is magically unicorns and rainbows and low taxes is simply not realistic or true.
1
Tell me how the folks there voted and I will tell you either, I am sorry or, too bad, you should have thought about that in November.
30
As a resident of Livingston, I can tell you our town voted for Obama twice, and for Hillary Clinton this past election.
71
Twice for Obama and then for HRC... your response works for anyone living anywhere.
3
This is all part of the strategy to MAGA?
24
These suburbs are getting exactly what they deserve. Union contracts and police officers making $200k were never going to be sustainable, period.
53
I don't know ... Maybe a new tax bill that supports people in these $800,000 homes is needed ...
I mean only allowing mortgage interest reduction on the first $750,00 of your mortgage ...!!!!
Doubling the standard deduction ...how would THAT help the working poor ...those in shacks only worth $500,000 or so ...???
7
What do union contracts and high police officer salaries have to do with deductibility of state/local income and property taxes? However one wants to characterize the motivation for this limitation on deductions, the effect of it will be to take money out of the hands of ordinary people and to put it into the pockets of super rich people (including rich donors to Republican politicians). On what basis can that possibly be reasonable, honorable or economically sensible in any way?
Do you mean that the tax bill is meant as some kind of punishment of union workers and highly paid police officers (and what makes you think Livingston police officers are paid 200K? A simple Google search shows salaries in the $70K-$80K range.)? Or maybe you're implying that making home ownership in these suburbs unaffordable will somehow lead to lowering the salaries of union workers and police officers? Really? You sure that's logical?
10
Amen Josh,
We had a proposition on Novembers ballot to convene a constitutional convention in NY. Around my town I saw nothing but vote No stickers on cars and posters at supermarkets. All manner of horror stories were promoted about how disastrous a convention of this type would be.
The biggest advocates for the NO campaign were public employees who feared losing the constitutional protections of their pensions, why this exists I've never heard a rational explanation for.
I stand to lose significantly but maybe it will cause a revolt over the bloated state and local budgets. Of course it might be an easier pill to swallow if the revenue from the tax overhaul was being used productively and not even more resources going to the wealthy, especially our wretched president.
3
Rep Frelinghuysen voted NO because he knew the tax bill would pass without his vote! He is a con artist and a true Repub who WANT the bill to pass and squeeze his constituents! Time to vote HIM OUT! He is part of the orovkem‼️‼️
212
Spot-on. The same is true for Reps. Peter King and Lee Zeldin on Long Island.
10
And John Faso, NY 19. I'm rounding up a posse to volunteer for whatever Dem runs him out of office.
4
Ruth
What do you propose your representative should have done, instead of voting against the bill?
1
Hmm. If only there were some process by which bills could be discussed and understood before voting on them.
171
So many people in the NYC metropolitan area will see their taxes go up dramatically, and it is clear that some will be forced to sell their homes (you can't eat your house). The resulting increase in supply will drive values down even further, on top of the increased cost of home ownership. This damage to families and local economies is being brought to us by the Republican party, in conference with their wealthy donors. The benefits will flow to the 1% and the rest of us be damned. Vote them out in 2018.
228
This is all by design. Get the blue states to fund the red states. And gut the blue states in the process. Punishment of liberals.
10
Geez, get a grip! It's a shame that some will pay more than they expected, but isn't this what the dems run on? You know, the rich should pay more to help the poor, etc? FWIW, I'm an independent, so not pointing any fingers.
3
I have a few friends who live in your well-to-do town of Larchmont NY and in nearby Mamaroneck. I'm sorry to inform you, but most of them are the 1% and even .1%, and they are also going to be very negatively affected by all of these tax changes.
4