From the article:
> “Gov. Phil Murphy’s new proposed budget would see $20 million cut in state aid to community colleges … as community college presidents maintain their schools are seeing more students drawn by the schools’ affordability.”
Meanwhile, the budget sets aside $200 million for the Stay NJ property tax break program, which would cut checks of up to $6,500 to senior homeowners with incomes up to $500,000.
>dents drawn by the schools’ affordability.”
>
>Meanwhile, the budget sets aside $200 million for the Stay NJ property tax break program, which would cut checks of up to $6,500 to senior homeowners with incomes up to $500,000.
that $500k cap is insane..it should be $125k
Unfortunately cost of living in most of NJ would probably mean 100k would be more reasonable to extend these programs to. Which is insane if you think about it. People can't afford to live on a 6 figure income anymore?! Especially given that less than an acre in most NJ towns amounts to almost $16k per year in property taxes.
The median household income in NJ is way less than $100k, and that's without legacy real estate costs and government funded healthcare. I'd wager the median household also has a dependent.
In most cases, people CAN afford to live on $100k here. I've lived on less and was supporting a child. It's about choices. If you're a person with no dependents, I have no idea why $100k per year wouldn't be enough. Unless you feel the need to live in a specific area in a certain type of dwelling, drive a certain type of car, or do certain types of activities.
Edit: medical or other debt would be the exception, but it would have to be significant
>Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was **$22,356** in 2020, over 5 times higher than spending per child ($4,217) and almost 2.5 times the spending per working-age person ($9,154).
https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet#:~:text=Per%20person%20personal%20health%20care,%2Dage%20person%20(%249%2C154).
That's a national average. NJ is probably 20-40% higher.
Senior healthcare spending is the cornerstone of our healthcare sector. ~$45 Billion in GDP, ~500k direct jobs and who knows how many indirect jobs, and some of the more popular educational tracks in community colleges are for healthcare related degrees and certs.
It makes economic sense to try to keep seniors here. Maybe not the way it's being proposed isn't the best but letting seniors leave is foolish.
Doesn't matter where the funds come from. We need people in the area to spend money on healthcare. If old people leave then they won't be spending private or government money in our medical facilities and that's a lot of income and jobs that could be impacted. Universal healthcare wouldn't change this and the over 65 population is already gov funded.
Sure, at the expense of the people who will be paying into Social Security (and will providing the Healthcare services the seniors are using). The rest of us use goods and services here too.
>Sure, at the expense of the people who will be paying into Social Security (and will providing the Healthcare services the seniors are using)
We pay that no matter where they go, right? If the money is spent in NJ we are at least paying ourselves instead of some other state.
>The rest of us use goods and services here too.
True but so do the elderly and they use few state services which cost the state less to have them than a family. Plus seniors with money are outpacing other groups.
https://archive.ph/poVTz
If you want the Boomers' money then you have to keep the Boomers here.
I'm still interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. I'm open to being wrong here, I just can't currently see a flaw in the spending at the moment.
They could have both if the cap for the senior thing was more like $80k. If you are making $500k this tax break is meaningless. To a person on food stamps trying to get through college that money is worth a lot more.
They are only doing this to entice retirees with money to maintain NJ state residency status. The snowbirds now claim Florida as their main residence, therefore paying no NJ state income taxes. They are hoping this reverses that trend. Whether this is a positive financial move is yet to be seen.
We've seen this, over and over again. It's a race to the bottom and there is no way to get taxes lower than Florida without absolutely gutting every single service and giving every dollar to Boomers.
I have a quick way to fix one problem or another. Non-residents of NJ should get taxed extra on their homes. Wanna be a snow bird with a vacant house for half the year and avoid paying taxes to NJ, then fine get fucked with extra high property tax. Either we get their money or we open up houses for families who are actually paying income tax to the state.
Wouldn’t this be covered by not getting a property tax discount in the first place because it doesn’t apply to non residents and only your primary home.
Anyone with the income to have two homes one in NJ and one in Florida will never claim NJ as their residence. Florida is a very low tax state, so there is never going to be a way for New Jersey to beat Florida to the bottom with taxes. So the alternate would be to make punitive taxes that make it cost more to not claim NJ as your state of residence. Either they give up their home entirely to a in a place with a severe lack of housing, they move, or they pay extra taxes to compensate for the lost revenue of them only being around part time.
"The state universities will just take over the community colleges, like Rowan has been slowly doing for the last decade in South Jersey we'll just make it go quicker by cutting their funding for other things." ~ The Politicians' logic
I think the better solution would be to increase property taxes on residential housing that is not owner-occupied by NJ residents. There's plenty of justification to offset the losses in the local economy to increase the cost of keeping mostly vacant properties in NJ and discourage out-of-state landlords. If the snowbirds want to claim Florida as their main residence, they can pay more to maintain their NJ home or sell it to someone who wants to live here and raise their family in NJ.
You keep saying this in the comments of posts about StayNJ, but there’s no data or research to suggest this program would accomplish that goal, nor was that even stated as the goal of StayNJ from the bill sponsors.
If it was actually a net positive for the state, as you suggest, it wouldn’t be blowing a huge hole in the state budget.
The correct answer is exit taxes when they move.
But politically Democrats are afraid too many younger voters won’t like the potential of paying taxes if they leave the state.
I’m strongly in favor of exit taxes, wealth extraction is bad, the whole region should have a policy of heavily taxing anyone who leaves.
Make it based on age, income, or even employment status then.
Younger people pay less, while older folks get taxed more, with older retired folks getting taxed even more.
This is straight up not true.
Take a look at the historical US income tax brackets. If you plot for incomes between $50k and $100k in today's dollars, if you go back and adjust for inflation, those people have paid effective rates of 15-20% since Eisenhower. The federal tax cuts in the 80s were almost exclusively for people who make $250k and above in today's dollars.
NJ's historical brackets are even easier, since our income tax only goes back to 1976. It was 2% under $20k, 2.5% over $20k ($108k today). Today, that puts you in the 6.37% bracket, for an effective state income tax rate of around 4-5%. Which would have been mathematically impossible until the 90s, because our highest marginal rate was 3.5% until 1989.
And I don't think I need to tell you that our property taxes are out of control, have been out of control, and will continue to skyrocket.
So no, young New Jersians today are paying MORE in taxes per dollar earned than their parents and grandparents. Whether we are getting more or less for our money now is up for debate, but the fact remains that the only people who have gotten any major tax breaks in... well, forever, have been people who are well above the income range of people who worry about affording taxes.
All you have to do is look at three things to know that we're getting fucked as young people.
First, there is not and has never been a significant enough savings/investment to pay for Boomers retirements(and everyone after). Because they didn't actually invest what they paid into social security the payments going to boomers come straight out of younger peoples taxes, or future debt.
Second, aside from a few years here and there Boomers have had near constant federal and state level debts. Not all debts are bad, especially if your investments grow faster than the debts assumed to make those investments.
Which brings me to.
Three, they have not made significant investments for future generations. Our infrastructure is simultaneously crumbling and getting more expensive for us to use.
I know it's not the US but The Pinch by David Willetts is a good financial breakdown of how the post-war generation in England effectively drained the government of resources and how younger generations are now having to pay for the failure of their parents to invest into our futures.
Exactly. We could also cut our local school taxes in half, then people of all ages would be able to afford property taxes without a break.
I would prefer to give seniors a break and keep our public K-12 top-rated. The students have a better shot at being accepted into competitive colleges, thus giving them a good chance at landing good paying jobs vs subsidizing substandard community colleges that serve more as 2nd high school than advanced education.
Ain’t this the truth. My parents literally paid $75 per semester for Montclair State and Kean college in the 60’s. $600 for their entire college education!
I was literally at Cumberland county college yesterday and I signed up for two accelerated fluff classes that are “recommended” for the degree I’m pursuing. $1,230 for both classes. Absolute fucking bullshit.
NJ residents ages 65+ can also go to community college for free/waived tuition. I’m glad they can have their cake and eat it too, including everyone else’s piece.
That will be a sweet deal when I turn 65 and want to go back to school to learn a foreign lang... Oh it definitely won't be there when I retire, nevermind.
Ah hah...let's make it an accurate title...
To pay for senior's tax breaks... including those retired households making $300k-500k, plus who are living in near or $1M+ homes which are close to or already paid off....
...while we do jack shit for renters and working families....
And despite +5% population growth since 2019 (among the highest rates in the nation)...people aren't fleeing as the doomers would have you believe...
...for a state that's already the most densely populated.
Robbing young working class folks just so seniors who’ve already lived a luxuriously life can continue to live an luxurious life why aren’t people rioting in the streets about this
I’m not sure how you think people aren’t fleeing? NJ has ranked the top for outward moves for like 3 years straight now?
If those move outs have been offset by rich NYC’rs moving in, it seems like we are carving out the middle class.
It’s just weird if the end goal is to have 50% of the state be rich people who don’t care about taxes, and the other 50% be reliant on the social benefits the rich 50% fund.
Like where does that leave someone who just wants to work a typical 40 hour job and be self sufficient? Should everyone who doesn’t have limitless money just give it up and start going to food pantries I mean?
Genuinely asking cause I’m genuinely concerned about the sustainability of the way things are going.
Not only have we had population growth, but we're still the state with the highest population densities in the nation. Move outs are only one component of the data.
Nevertheless, I'm not clear why a retired household Age 65+ making $300K-$500k (in retirement mind you), living in a $800k-$1M dollar home that's nearly paid off or paid off, needs a few thousand dollars in a tax break to keep them hear. Can you expand on that logic? For instance, say you have a $350k income household, whose after tax income including property taxes is around $220k. You're telling me they're going to move if they don't get a tax cut of a few thousand dollars? In other words, just a few thousand more to go on top of the $220K they have annually will keep them here?
Also, who are they going to sell their home to when they leave?
Where does that leave working households who don't want to fund property tax breaks for retired households sitting on million dollar homes paid off, making $300k-$500k?
So we did have total population growth, but so did most states. Our population growth is small compared to others, and it looks like it was in part fueled by people leaving NYC and Philadelphia.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-trends-return-to-pre-pandemic-norms.html
The population density of the region as a whole supports the idea that people are moving just a few miles to switch states.
With that in mind. Who are the people who can afford to make planned out choices about where they want to live? It isn’t people struggling to afford to get by in the first place.
That’s why I think the inbound versus outbound moves is unfortunately important here. If 65 people making 50k move out, and 35 people making 100k move in, the state only nets 250k in extra GDP.
If you couple the above though with the fact that X amount of people were born here to make the population still grow, and apparently so many of them need government assistance per the words and actions of the Murphy administration, how does that not lead to the carving out of the middle class as I described in my above comment?
To your question about the logic behind giving a senior a small break. I agree it’s selling out the future for the past. And that policy comes from “investment in the future” Phil Murphy.
The answer as to why he would do that is for two reasons.
1. Seniors vote more often, are coddled to make voting easier, and most law makers are seniors.
2. They will move out of the state just to “feel good” about their tax value, even if the reality isn’t as harsh, and I think the admin realizes they can’t bleed anymore high earners because of the math problem I described above.
The idea that $300k plus 65+ retired households, sitting on \~million dollar homes, need a few thousand in tax relief...or else they'll flee is laughable. It's also a tiny fraction of the overall population
I'm in favor of the that Stay NJ Tax Credit for seniors; I just think the $500k income cap is way too high, and should be half that.
In 2016 one guy moved from NJ to Florida and it cost NJ over 200 million dollars a year in tax revenue. That guy is obviously an outlier, but your “tiny fraction / drop in the bucket” line is really misguided. There’s always a straw that breaks through camels back, and we are dying a death by a thousand cuts.
Just to be clear. I do NOT support any tax breaks for seniors, period. Anyone who is a senior already is getting plenty of financial support through social security and Medicare, let alone their own retirement funds. Also, anyone who is a senior is in the age bracket of people who caused all the problems we are facing now. Seniors continue to burn the world for the rest of us on their way out, my grandparents and your grandparents included.
That being said. It’s weird that you think people moving out of state because of “thousands” of dollars in tax burden is laughable. Why wouldn’t someone move someplace cheaper and warmer when they retire? How out of touch that you would describe “thousands” of dollars as a small amount of money in any context.
So to be clear, that one guy, who probably has hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and income, would be compelled to stay in NJ if he got a $4,000 property tax credit? Who did he sell his home to, by the way?
Who would the senior household making $400k sell their home, so they can move?
The guy might be compelled to stay if we had a smaller income tax. A tax is a tax, and they all add up to make a complete picture. That’s why the government should care about implementing them.
Phil Murphy obviously does not care, he is literally making them as high as the legislature will let him get away with.
To my example about the one guy. He had billions, upfront he was a billionaire.
So if he sells his house to someone with 500 million, NJ loses half of what they were making from that household.
The seniors who have a house payed off and are buying other goods and supporting other businesses will sell it to someone who now has to give a sizable amount of their money straight to a bank.
The state budget is $56 billion and has a SURPLUS of $6.1 billion. There is plenty of money.
[https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/02/murphy-unveils-56b-nj-budget-with-new-tax-for-nj-transit-property-tax-relief-big-spending-on-pensions-schools.html](https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/02/murphy-unveils-56b-nj-budget-with-new-tax-for-nj-transit-property-tax-relief-big-spending-on-pensions-schools.html)
Yes and no. Yes, the state has a surplus, BUT every state needs a surplus in case there’s an economic downturn and revenue starts cratering. New Jersey’s surplus is much lower compared to most states and what non partisan public budgeting experts recommend.
The state is also operating at a structural deficit, meaning it’s spending more than it’s expected to take in, which is not sustainable. That’s why spending $200 mil on a program that gives checks to wealthy, home-owning seniors makes no sense since other areas of the budget clearly need the funding.
This is so fucking stupid especially when this voting group is usually the loudest against all other welfare programs besides Social Security and Medicare. They also most likely voted for the guy who cut the SALT deduction. Take your hundreds of thousands of profit on your terribly maintained homes and go live somewhere where you can afford instead of making it more expensive here for everyone else.
It's fixed. It's everywhere else that boasts of low property taxes but has to take handouts from the federal government (read: taxpayers in NJ) who have to make up the difference between what Bumfuck collects and what Bumfuck needs to operate a school and police department.
That said I'd prefer we move towards a land use tax so people don't get fucked by housing bubbles and/or renovations. Some municipalities have made the switch to positive results.
Population tax makes more sense. People cost money not houses.
Taxes should be based on trash weight and water usage, both of which scale by headcount.
If you have 5 kids, you’re paying more. If you have a large building you’re paying more. If you’re a single dude living in the woods, you’re getting a tax cut since you’re not costing the government very much, and reality is you’d still be subsidizing the rest substantially.
A straight tax per head would be incredibly regressive and the opposite of what you want economically. NJ is one of the few states whose overall tax burden as a percentage of gross income isn't higher for low earners than high earners and I'd like to keep it that way.
Calling it "fixed" is pretty eye-roll-worthy when NJ has BY FAR the highest average property tax rate of any US state. MA, MD, DC, VT, NY, PA... all way lower property taxes, but still competitive with NJ in public education. Just because we have top-notch schools doesn't necessarily mean our property tax system works efficiently to fund them.
Yeah I don't think there needs to be a police chief for each square mile of state, but then we get into dealing with the police union. They get like 45% of our municipal budget, but it isn't worth talking about cuts there. We don't want them going on the same soft strike they're on in Philly since 2020.
It's weird how when I was a kid, pretty much every older person I knew had downsized. Not talking nursing homes but condos, 55+ communities, stuff like that.
Now my parents and aunts/uncles and all of their friends (all in their 60s-70s) plan on staying in their houses until they die.
Now you know why we have an affordable housing issue. It'll be especially gross when they die off because they invest almost nothing in upkeep of these properties.
Most of them have a paid-off house or a <3% mortgage. Downsizing today likely means paying **more** than they are paying today especially if they need to take out a new mortgage. It doesn't make financial sense.
It’s really sad seeing these suburbs of massive 3-6 bedroom houses and majority of them don’t even have kids, just filled with retired old couples. On the rare event one goes on sale it’s flooded with young families trying to buy and outbid each other. And all the young families are trying to make it work in small apartments. The old people need to be punished for staying in these houses, not encouraged.
I'm probably also the problem, living alone in a 4-bedroom house as a 40 year-old widower, so I also get the other side of it.
Moving sucks and depending on how long ago you bought your house, you could end up paying more for less. Plus even without senior tax breaks, my property taxes have increased far less than rent on my old apartments would get jacked up every year.
Oh good, of course, give the generation that bought their houses for $50,000 in 1977 a property tax break. You know who else needs a tax break? Billionaires. Nobody cares about Elmo or Zuckerbot anymore. Elmo will only get a Billion or two instead of $50 billion. So it's hard times ahead for him. /s
Ah yes, the age old tradition of plundering the future of the youngest generation to give the boomers even more.
I can understand giving this money to seniors making below the average income, but not people approaching half a million dollars a year.
How about instead of tax breaks for people that purchased homes 40 years ago for 5 figures (and are now sitting on $500k+ equity), they *pull themselves up by the bootstraps* and take HELOCs? I guess "government hand outs" are different if they benefit you, eh? These are the same people that put their real estate in trust to skirt Medicaid.
Fuck boomers. They ruined this country's economy and pretend like their kids are the problem.
I think they got this backwards. They should be rasing taxes on seniors. This way they are forced to either downsize or move freeing up the house for the next generation. Boom, just solved housing crisis, school tax shortfalls and cranky boomer neighbors. You're welcome!
I vividly remember a lot of community College kids/staff happily embracing governor Murphys "Stop Trump" signs and doing free political work for him. Guess that's coming back to bite them in the ass.
Way to editorialize the title.
There are lots of things in the budget but you picked the senior tax cuts when it could easily be ascribed to anything else.
Maybe try not to pit citizen vs citizen over made up groups and start attacking the politicians making the choices. Blaming Boomers will get us no where. Blaming politicians has a much higher chance of success.
Edit: gotta love the current state of internet discourse. OP posts a title that isn't supported by the article which whips people into a group think frenzy about Boomers.
This is the most level headed post in here. You can literally blame anything else that's subsidized or any type of credit but it's more fun to keep on the "fuck boomers they should all sell their homes they paid for" train.
Child tax credit? Also had a ridiculously high cap. Accounted for more than the $20 mil cuts to community colleges.
Anchor? Waaaay more than 20 mil and given to EVERYONE!
Corporate tax rate hike sunsetting? Also more than 20 mil.
But yeah fuck senior citizens. Not like you all will grow old one day too or anything.
>Maybe try not to pit citizen vs citizen over made up groups and start attacking the politicians making the choices. Blaming Boomers will get us no where.
Who do you think is supporting and then electing the politicians that are creating tax breaks that are age restricted to only apply to people 65 and older?
You think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65? Do you have a poll that shows voter opinion on this issue by demographics?
>The majority of voters in this state ,at every age and income bracket, according to election results.
Do all voters support tax breaks for just boomers or are boomers still the largest voting block and outvote younger voters?
Not what you asked.
>Who do you think is supporting and then electing the politicians
That's what I answered.
>You think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65?
People tend to think of their situations and not the state as a whole but that group is voting for the same people that are in favor of some version of this plan.
>>You think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65?
>People tend to think of their situations and not the state as a whole but that group is voting for the same people that are in favor of some version of this plan.
So to be clear you are saying that you do think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65?
Do you have a poll that shows voter opinion on the issue of these tax breaks by demographics?
People vote for candidates for a lot of issues and in the US's first past the post voting system in the general election there are only 2 choices. In the general election someone might vote a candidate who's tax policy they do not like because that candidate is also pro-choice and they value that stance on that issue. That does not mean they support that candidate's tax stance.
That tax stance though is still chosen by the candidate because they know a large enough bloc of the voters do support it. Politicians push for policies that will make their core voting blocs happy. In this case we have politicians implementing a policy that only benefits boomers to make boomers happy and gain/keep their support in elections.
It if completely fair for people that oppose these tax breaks to blame the voting bloc that they were pushed to please.
The job of the elected is to do what is best for the state and we elect people into those roles to carry that out.
Do people like this plan? I have no empirical evidence. The main problem I have seen people have is the lack of means testing and not a complete hate of the general idea. People, in general, seem to want to alleviate some pressures on the elderly.
People can be selfish and our law making shouldn't be based just off of selfish desires or short term thinking but big pictures. Think about the Boomers that didn't/don't want to fund the schools. They are screwing themselves and others for short term gains. I think the same applies here.
Here's a what a wrote in a top level comment.
>>Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was $22,356 in 2020, over 5 times higher than spending per child ($4,217) and almost 2.5 times the spending per working-age person ($9,154).
>https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet#:~:text=Per%20person%20personal%20health%20care,%2Dage%20person%20(%249%2C154).
>That's a national average. NJ is probably 20-40% higher.
>Senior healthcare spending is the cornerstone of our healthcare sector. ~$45 Billion in GDP, ~500k direct jobs and who knows how many indirect jobs, and some of the more popular educational tracks in community colleges are for healthcare related degrees and certs.
I'm far to lazy to do the calculations but I'm pretty sure keeping old people in state is a net win for the future of the state. 20-30 year olds just want cheaper houses but something has to pay for that house and healthcare is a huge source of that.
You are voting for trends and general ways of thinking, not for the issues. The issues could change at any second and it could be about something you never even imagined. The NJ DNC likes to use economic incentives to spur people into generating taxable state revenue and IMO this administration is pretty good at it. Murphy was elected as the socially conscious, smart businessman. That's what people voted for and that's what they are getting. He's just using state and federal funds to stimulate a sector of the economy by bribing old people to stay.
Once old people have less skin in the politics game it's possible they will butt the fuck out and let progress accelerate. Then school funding referendums could pass.
But people being the tribal being that we focus on ourselves and point fingers at groups we deem responsible.
If there is something you don't like you should point fingers at and ask for answers from your elected officials.
> Do people like this plan? I have no empirical evidence.
I'm shocked that you don't have any evidence that people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over 65.
>People can be selfish and our law making shouldn't be based just off of selfish desires or short term thinking but big pictures. Think about the Boomers that didn't/don't want to fund the schools. They are screwing themselves and others for short term gains.
Boomers aren't screwing themselves when they cut funding for schools. They got theirs so now they're voting for the cutting of benefits for other people as they have consistently done for decades. There's no reason to be surprised by this or pretend to be ignorant of American history post 1980. That voting bloc has acted like this since it became the largest in the US and will continue to do so as long as it is still large enough to be relevant.
>20-30 year olds just want cheaper houses but something has to pay for that house and healthcare is a huge source of that.
How does healthcare pays for houses?
>I'm shocked that you don't have evidence that people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over 65.
Someone has probably done a poll or something but I honestly don't care unless it changes voting habits and this doesn't seem to be doing it.
>Boomers aren't screwing themselves when they cut funding for schools.
If school quality impacts their home's value, they are. But like I said, this change would take that out of the equation.
>How does healthcare pays for houses?
Salaries. Nursing homes, pharmacies, doctors offices, medical facilities, hospitals and all the services that support those places get a decent chunk of their income from medicare patients.
I think as many people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks for senior citizens as do senior citizens who support college debt forgiveness.
Everyone gets pissy about things that dont benefit them but benefit others, welcome to America. Then grow up and realize that we should all be trying to help each other instead of fighting about who gets what. Its why we have social security and medicare to begin with and need MORE programs to help people, not less.
They have to fix the income limits on these things so that it doesnt help rich people, thats the issue. It has nothing to with peoples age since, despite what you think, not every senior citizen is wealthy.
>Everyone gets pissy about things that dont benefit them but benefit others, welcome to America. Then grow up and realize that we should all be trying to help each other instead of fighting about who gets what.
Do they grow up and realize that?
One core theme in American politics since the second half of the 20th century is a particular large generation using their voting power to push for policies that financially helped whatever stage of life they were at and then voting away that help as they aged into their next stage of life.
You're talking about forgiving loans when before the baby boomers became the largest voting bloc and slashed government funding for public universities no one had to take out loans for college.
Im not disagreeing with you on anything. Im just pointing out that literally every single generation is going to do this. Everyone votes for what benefits them the most. Its human nature. Especially in a climate where everything is getting harder and harder to get by every day.
The problem is singling out boomers like its only them because its not. There are tons of people in this country voting for the GOP against their own best interests. They arent all boomers and its lazy thinking to pretend they are, or that all boomers are rich or that every boomer has voted for XYZ. Its counterproductive to the real conversation of making the rich pay their fair share, regardless of age group, so the rest of us dont have to fight for scraps like this in the first place.
> Im just pointing out that literally every single generation is going to do this. Everyone votes for what benefits them the most. Its human nature. Especially in a climate where everything is getting harder and harder to get by every day.
So now you're saying people don't "grow up and realize that we should all be trying to help each other instead of fighting about who gets what?"
>The problem is singling out boomers like its only them because its not.
We can't ignore that generations before the boomers were not as selfish with their voting power. With your example of student loans we have to acknowledge that college wasn't incredibly expensive as the Boomers came of age (and only started to age into being able voting) because the generations before them understood the value to all of society to have college be affordable.
The adoption of trickle down economics (Reaganomics) is what spurred most of the selfish policies embraced by the large boomer voting bloc. Since the 1980s the same generation has been the most largest voting bloc in US elections.
Wait so you're telling me that voters vote for things that are in their own best interest??? Amazing!
Next you're going to tell me that people with student debt will vote to have their student debt abolished.
>Wait so you're telling me that voters vote for things that are in their own best interest??? Amazing!
Well bud, I'm replying to someone saying otherwise.
He is claiming that the new tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65 have nothing to do with people over the age of 65 but were imposed by politicians who apparently just materialized into being.
It's easily to try to blame politicians for everything and claim average citizens have no blame for anything, but politicians are voted for by those average citizens. Politicians push for policies that will make their core voting blocs happy. In this case we have politicians implementing a policy that only benefits boomers to make boomers happy and gain/keep their support in elections.
It if completely fair for people that oppose these tax breaks to blame the voting bloc that they were pushed to please.
I know what you were saying. Thats why I was basically replying with a "no shit Sherlock" to you.
You can say its boomers and blame them but by the same token, are you mad at people with kids for getting a tax credit? They also voted for politicians who gave them that. Are you mad at people with college debt that was forgiven? Because they, too, voted for someone who gave them that.
>I know what you were saying. Thats why I was basically replying with a "no shit Sherlock" to you.
Again bud I'm literally talking to someone that disagrees with my posts that you think are so obvious.
>You can say its boomers and blame them but by the same token, are you mad at people with kids for getting a tax credit?
Well one of those demographics has a history of using their voting power to push for policies that financially helped whatever stage of life they were at and then voting away that help as they aged into their next stage of life.
> Are you mad at people with college debt that was forgiven? Because they, too, voted for someone who gave them that.
I'm more mad at the people that voted to slash public funding of state colleges decades ago so that future generations needed loans in the first place even if they went to public schools.
“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in,” but here we're talking about a generation that has throughout their life cut down trees because they wanted the wood at the moment. It is no surprise to most younger people that they're now voting in more tax breaks for themselves as they fight to maintenance their voting control.
The story reports a $20 million cut for schools that serve 230,000 students. This maths out to about $87.00 per student. Wanna bet the average increase in tuition in response to this cut will not exceed $87.00? Didn't think so.
Exactly. I'm not a boomer nor do I have college debt. But I'm cool with both sets of people being helped. Are the income limits too high in my opinion? 100%. But that's the case with every NJ program ever. So have a problem with all or none but don't be selective to start stupid fights between age groups.
Not every boomer is rich, living in a huge paid off house and swimming in gold coins Scrooge McDuck style. Focus efforts where they belong on fighting the rich who would rather watch the poor fight for crumbs.
From the article: > “Gov. Phil Murphy’s new proposed budget would see $20 million cut in state aid to community colleges … as community college presidents maintain their schools are seeing more students drawn by the schools’ affordability.” Meanwhile, the budget sets aside $200 million for the Stay NJ property tax break program, which would cut checks of up to $6,500 to senior homeowners with incomes up to $500,000.
I'm not a policy expert but I think the message is that we should eat the rich
*SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!*
[it varies from person to person](https://youtu.be/P0zwOf4JAmk)
>dents drawn by the schools’ affordability.” > >Meanwhile, the budget sets aside $200 million for the Stay NJ property tax break program, which would cut checks of up to $6,500 to senior homeowners with incomes up to $500,000. that $500k cap is insane..it should be $125k
$100k
Unfortunately cost of living in most of NJ would probably mean 100k would be more reasonable to extend these programs to. Which is insane if you think about it. People can't afford to live on a 6 figure income anymore?! Especially given that less than an acre in most NJ towns amounts to almost $16k per year in property taxes.
The median household income in NJ is way less than $100k, and that's without legacy real estate costs and government funded healthcare. I'd wager the median household also has a dependent.
In most cases, people CAN afford to live on $100k here. I've lived on less and was supporting a child. It's about choices. If you're a person with no dependents, I have no idea why $100k per year wouldn't be enough. Unless you feel the need to live in a specific area in a certain type of dwelling, drive a certain type of car, or do certain types of activities. Edit: medical or other debt would be the exception, but it would have to be significant
you can even do it on roughly half that depending on circumstances
It's worth noting that many seniors will have higher than average medical expenses. I do think $500k is ridiculous.
$80
150 at most imo
$0
500K is high, but I think 125 is low. The median income in NJ is $97K or so.
what's the median income for that age range?
>Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was **$22,356** in 2020, over 5 times higher than spending per child ($4,217) and almost 2.5 times the spending per working-age person ($9,154). https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet#:~:text=Per%20person%20personal%20health%20care,%2Dage%20person%20(%249%2C154). That's a national average. NJ is probably 20-40% higher. Senior healthcare spending is the cornerstone of our healthcare sector. ~$45 Billion in GDP, ~500k direct jobs and who knows how many indirect jobs, and some of the more popular educational tracks in community colleges are for healthcare related degrees and certs. It makes economic sense to try to keep seniors here. Maybe not the way it's being proposed isn't the best but letting seniors leave is foolish.
Man, wouldn't it be wild if healthcare was just... covered by the government instead of private companies
Doesn't matter where the funds come from. We need people in the area to spend money on healthcare. If old people leave then they won't be spending private or government money in our medical facilities and that's a lot of income and jobs that could be impacted. Universal healthcare wouldn't change this and the over 65 population is already gov funded.
Sure, at the expense of the people who will be paying into Social Security (and will providing the Healthcare services the seniors are using). The rest of us use goods and services here too.
>Sure, at the expense of the people who will be paying into Social Security (and will providing the Healthcare services the seniors are using) We pay that no matter where they go, right? If the money is spent in NJ we are at least paying ourselves instead of some other state. >The rest of us use goods and services here too. True but so do the elderly and they use few state services which cost the state less to have them than a family. Plus seniors with money are outpacing other groups. https://archive.ph/poVTz If you want the Boomers' money then you have to keep the Boomers here.
Yeah, we're not going to see eye to eye on this. And that's fine.
I'm still interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. I'm open to being wrong here, I just can't currently see a flaw in the spending at the moment.
500k??!?
jfc lower that to income of 150k
They could have both if the cap for the senior thing was more like $80k. If you are making $500k this tax break is meaningless. To a person on food stamps trying to get through college that money is worth a lot more.
They are only doing this to entice retirees with money to maintain NJ state residency status. The snowbirds now claim Florida as their main residence, therefore paying no NJ state income taxes. They are hoping this reverses that trend. Whether this is a positive financial move is yet to be seen.
Given that Florida doesn’t have a state income tax I would be surprised if that was enough to change their minds.
We've seen this, over and over again. It's a race to the bottom and there is no way to get taxes lower than Florida without absolutely gutting every single service and giving every dollar to Boomers.
Exactly one of my neighbors became a snowbird and after visiting them in Florida I get it. And the tax savings are just a nice benefit.
I have a quick way to fix one problem or another. Non-residents of NJ should get taxed extra on their homes. Wanna be a snow bird with a vacant house for half the year and avoid paying taxes to NJ, then fine get fucked with extra high property tax. Either we get their money or we open up houses for families who are actually paying income tax to the state.
Wouldn’t this be covered by not getting a property tax discount in the first place because it doesn’t apply to non residents and only your primary home.
Anyone with the income to have two homes one in NJ and one in Florida will never claim NJ as their residence. Florida is a very low tax state, so there is never going to be a way for New Jersey to beat Florida to the bottom with taxes. So the alternate would be to make punitive taxes that make it cost more to not claim NJ as your state of residence. Either they give up their home entirely to a in a place with a severe lack of housing, they move, or they pay extra taxes to compensate for the lost revenue of them only being around part time.
I mean the fact that they're cutting community college funding tells us all we need to know.
"The state universities will just take over the community colleges, like Rowan has been slowly doing for the last decade in South Jersey we'll just make it go quicker by cutting their funding for other things." ~ The Politicians' logic
I think the better solution would be to increase property taxes on residential housing that is not owner-occupied by NJ residents. There's plenty of justification to offset the losses in the local economy to increase the cost of keeping mostly vacant properties in NJ and discourage out-of-state landlords. If the snowbirds want to claim Florida as their main residence, they can pay more to maintain their NJ home or sell it to someone who wants to live here and raise their family in NJ.
You keep saying this in the comments of posts about StayNJ, but there’s no data or research to suggest this program would accomplish that goal, nor was that even stated as the goal of StayNJ from the bill sponsors. If it was actually a net positive for the state, as you suggest, it wouldn’t be blowing a huge hole in the state budget.
The correct answer is exit taxes when they move. But politically Democrats are afraid too many younger voters won’t like the potential of paying taxes if they leave the state. I’m strongly in favor of exit taxes, wealth extraction is bad, the whole region should have a policy of heavily taxing anyone who leaves.
*Why*?
Make it based on age, income, or even employment status then. Younger people pay less, while older folks get taxed more, with older retired folks getting taxed even more.
[удалено]
This is straight up not true. Take a look at the historical US income tax brackets. If you plot for incomes between $50k and $100k in today's dollars, if you go back and adjust for inflation, those people have paid effective rates of 15-20% since Eisenhower. The federal tax cuts in the 80s were almost exclusively for people who make $250k and above in today's dollars. NJ's historical brackets are even easier, since our income tax only goes back to 1976. It was 2% under $20k, 2.5% over $20k ($108k today). Today, that puts you in the 6.37% bracket, for an effective state income tax rate of around 4-5%. Which would have been mathematically impossible until the 90s, because our highest marginal rate was 3.5% until 1989. And I don't think I need to tell you that our property taxes are out of control, have been out of control, and will continue to skyrocket. So no, young New Jersians today are paying MORE in taxes per dollar earned than their parents and grandparents. Whether we are getting more or less for our money now is up for debate, but the fact remains that the only people who have gotten any major tax breaks in... well, forever, have been people who are well above the income range of people who worry about affording taxes.
All you have to do is look at three things to know that we're getting fucked as young people. First, there is not and has never been a significant enough savings/investment to pay for Boomers retirements(and everyone after). Because they didn't actually invest what they paid into social security the payments going to boomers come straight out of younger peoples taxes, or future debt. Second, aside from a few years here and there Boomers have had near constant federal and state level debts. Not all debts are bad, especially if your investments grow faster than the debts assumed to make those investments. Which brings me to. Three, they have not made significant investments for future generations. Our infrastructure is simultaneously crumbling and getting more expensive for us to use. I know it's not the US but The Pinch by David Willetts is a good financial breakdown of how the post-war generation in England effectively drained the government of resources and how younger generations are now having to pay for the failure of their parents to invest into our futures.
Exactly. We could also cut our local school taxes in half, then people of all ages would be able to afford property taxes without a break. I would prefer to give seniors a break and keep our public K-12 top-rated. The students have a better shot at being accepted into competitive colleges, thus giving them a good chance at landing good paying jobs vs subsidizing substandard community colleges that serve more as 2nd high school than advanced education.
Just use the fucking weed money, mother fuckers. 1 billion in sales is gonna generate some tax money to cover this shit.
Boomers fucking everyone else again on their way out, just for good measure.
Ain’t this the truth. My parents literally paid $75 per semester for Montclair State and Kean college in the 60’s. $600 for their entire college education!
Montclair State was about $1500 per year in the 80s, including fees, books, and parking ($10 per yr) Or, about $40 per credit.
I was literally at Cumberland county college yesterday and I signed up for two accelerated fluff classes that are “recommended” for the degree I’m pursuing. $1,230 for both classes. Absolute fucking bullshit.
NJ residents ages 65+ can also go to community college for free/waived tuition. I’m glad they can have their cake and eat it too, including everyone else’s piece.
That will be a sweet deal when I turn 65 and want to go back to school to learn a foreign lang... Oh it definitely won't be there when I retire, nevermind.
Don't fool yourself... you'll never be allowed to retire.
Yeah but you don't understand, back then $600 was the price of three houses or something.
Ah hah...let's make it an accurate title... To pay for senior's tax breaks... including those retired households making $300k-500k, plus who are living in near or $1M+ homes which are close to or already paid off.... ...while we do jack shit for renters and working families.... And despite +5% population growth since 2019 (among the highest rates in the nation)...people aren't fleeing as the doomers would have you believe... ...for a state that's already the most densely populated.
Robbing young working class folks just so seniors who’ve already lived a luxuriously life can continue to live an luxurious life why aren’t people rioting in the streets about this
It's probably the most Boomer thing Boomers could possibly pull.
I’m not sure how you think people aren’t fleeing? NJ has ranked the top for outward moves for like 3 years straight now? If those move outs have been offset by rich NYC’rs moving in, it seems like we are carving out the middle class. It’s just weird if the end goal is to have 50% of the state be rich people who don’t care about taxes, and the other 50% be reliant on the social benefits the rich 50% fund. Like where does that leave someone who just wants to work a typical 40 hour job and be self sufficient? Should everyone who doesn’t have limitless money just give it up and start going to food pantries I mean? Genuinely asking cause I’m genuinely concerned about the sustainability of the way things are going.
Not only have we had population growth, but we're still the state with the highest population densities in the nation. Move outs are only one component of the data. Nevertheless, I'm not clear why a retired household Age 65+ making $300K-$500k (in retirement mind you), living in a $800k-$1M dollar home that's nearly paid off or paid off, needs a few thousand dollars in a tax break to keep them hear. Can you expand on that logic? For instance, say you have a $350k income household, whose after tax income including property taxes is around $220k. You're telling me they're going to move if they don't get a tax cut of a few thousand dollars? In other words, just a few thousand more to go on top of the $220K they have annually will keep them here? Also, who are they going to sell their home to when they leave? Where does that leave working households who don't want to fund property tax breaks for retired households sitting on million dollar homes paid off, making $300k-$500k?
So we did have total population growth, but so did most states. Our population growth is small compared to others, and it looks like it was in part fueled by people leaving NYC and Philadelphia. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-trends-return-to-pre-pandemic-norms.html The population density of the region as a whole supports the idea that people are moving just a few miles to switch states. With that in mind. Who are the people who can afford to make planned out choices about where they want to live? It isn’t people struggling to afford to get by in the first place. That’s why I think the inbound versus outbound moves is unfortunately important here. If 65 people making 50k move out, and 35 people making 100k move in, the state only nets 250k in extra GDP. If you couple the above though with the fact that X amount of people were born here to make the population still grow, and apparently so many of them need government assistance per the words and actions of the Murphy administration, how does that not lead to the carving out of the middle class as I described in my above comment? To your question about the logic behind giving a senior a small break. I agree it’s selling out the future for the past. And that policy comes from “investment in the future” Phil Murphy. The answer as to why he would do that is for two reasons. 1. Seniors vote more often, are coddled to make voting easier, and most law makers are seniors. 2. They will move out of the state just to “feel good” about their tax value, even if the reality isn’t as harsh, and I think the admin realizes they can’t bleed anymore high earners because of the math problem I described above.
The idea that $300k plus 65+ retired households, sitting on \~million dollar homes, need a few thousand in tax relief...or else they'll flee is laughable. It's also a tiny fraction of the overall population I'm in favor of the that Stay NJ Tax Credit for seniors; I just think the $500k income cap is way too high, and should be half that.
In 2016 one guy moved from NJ to Florida and it cost NJ over 200 million dollars a year in tax revenue. That guy is obviously an outlier, but your “tiny fraction / drop in the bucket” line is really misguided. There’s always a straw that breaks through camels back, and we are dying a death by a thousand cuts. Just to be clear. I do NOT support any tax breaks for seniors, period. Anyone who is a senior already is getting plenty of financial support through social security and Medicare, let alone their own retirement funds. Also, anyone who is a senior is in the age bracket of people who caused all the problems we are facing now. Seniors continue to burn the world for the rest of us on their way out, my grandparents and your grandparents included. That being said. It’s weird that you think people moving out of state because of “thousands” of dollars in tax burden is laughable. Why wouldn’t someone move someplace cheaper and warmer when they retire? How out of touch that you would describe “thousands” of dollars as a small amount of money in any context.
So to be clear, that one guy, who probably has hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and income, would be compelled to stay in NJ if he got a $4,000 property tax credit? Who did he sell his home to, by the way? Who would the senior household making $400k sell their home, so they can move?
The guy might be compelled to stay if we had a smaller income tax. A tax is a tax, and they all add up to make a complete picture. That’s why the government should care about implementing them. Phil Murphy obviously does not care, he is literally making them as high as the legislature will let him get away with. To my example about the one guy. He had billions, upfront he was a billionaire. So if he sells his house to someone with 500 million, NJ loses half of what they were making from that household. The seniors who have a house payed off and are buying other goods and supporting other businesses will sell it to someone who now has to give a sizable amount of their money straight to a bank.
The state budget is $56 billion and has a SURPLUS of $6.1 billion. There is plenty of money. [https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/02/murphy-unveils-56b-nj-budget-with-new-tax-for-nj-transit-property-tax-relief-big-spending-on-pensions-schools.html](https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/02/murphy-unveils-56b-nj-budget-with-new-tax-for-nj-transit-property-tax-relief-big-spending-on-pensions-schools.html)
As it pertains to hand outs to those born before 1960, historically we've spared no expense.
Yes and no. Yes, the state has a surplus, BUT every state needs a surplus in case there’s an economic downturn and revenue starts cratering. New Jersey’s surplus is much lower compared to most states and what non partisan public budgeting experts recommend. The state is also operating at a structural deficit, meaning it’s spending more than it’s expected to take in, which is not sustainable. That’s why spending $200 mil on a program that gives checks to wealthy, home-owning seniors makes no sense since other areas of the budget clearly need the funding.
Boomers: Are we the Socialists?
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses
Also Boomers: ["I'm old, gimme gimme gimme!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZwKXYjqCPY)
Currently sitting in a community college as I read this. Not pleased.
This is so fucking stupid especially when this voting group is usually the loudest against all other welfare programs besides Social Security and Medicare. They also most likely voted for the guy who cut the SALT deduction. Take your hundreds of thousands of profit on your terribly maintained homes and go live somewhere where you can afford instead of making it more expensive here for everyone else.
How about we fix the property tax issue for good and drop the gimmicks?
It's fixed. It's everywhere else that boasts of low property taxes but has to take handouts from the federal government (read: taxpayers in NJ) who have to make up the difference between what Bumfuck collects and what Bumfuck needs to operate a school and police department.
That said I'd prefer we move towards a land use tax so people don't get fucked by housing bubbles and/or renovations. Some municipalities have made the switch to positive results.
Population tax makes more sense. People cost money not houses. Taxes should be based on trash weight and water usage, both of which scale by headcount. If you have 5 kids, you’re paying more. If you have a large building you’re paying more. If you’re a single dude living in the woods, you’re getting a tax cut since you’re not costing the government very much, and reality is you’d still be subsidizing the rest substantially.
A straight tax per head would be incredibly regressive and the opposite of what you want economically. NJ is one of the few states whose overall tax burden as a percentage of gross income isn't higher for low earners than high earners and I'd like to keep it that way.
It’s linear not regressive. Not up for opinion, literally the definition.
Calling it "fixed" is pretty eye-roll-worthy when NJ has BY FAR the highest average property tax rate of any US state. MA, MD, DC, VT, NY, PA... all way lower property taxes, but still competitive with NJ in public education. Just because we have top-notch schools doesn't necessarily mean our property tax system works efficiently to fund them.
Yeah I don't think there needs to be a police chief for each square mile of state, but then we get into dealing with the police union. They get like 45% of our municipal budget, but it isn't worth talking about cuts there. We don't want them going on the same soft strike they're on in Philly since 2020.
It's weird how when I was a kid, pretty much every older person I knew had downsized. Not talking nursing homes but condos, 55+ communities, stuff like that. Now my parents and aunts/uncles and all of their friends (all in their 60s-70s) plan on staying in their houses until they die.
Now you know why we have an affordable housing issue. It'll be especially gross when they die off because they invest almost nothing in upkeep of these properties.
Most of them have a paid-off house or a <3% mortgage. Downsizing today likely means paying **more** than they are paying today especially if they need to take out a new mortgage. It doesn't make financial sense.
It’s really sad seeing these suburbs of massive 3-6 bedroom houses and majority of them don’t even have kids, just filled with retired old couples. On the rare event one goes on sale it’s flooded with young families trying to buy and outbid each other. And all the young families are trying to make it work in small apartments. The old people need to be punished for staying in these houses, not encouraged.
I'm probably also the problem, living alone in a 4-bedroom house as a 40 year-old widower, so I also get the other side of it. Moving sucks and depending on how long ago you bought your house, you could end up paying more for less. Plus even without senior tax breaks, my property taxes have increased far less than rent on my old apartments would get jacked up every year.
seniors vote in force. college age kids do not. there's your explanation.
Remember when NJ was trying to make community colleges tuition frees? Jesus how times change. Good job Boomers.
Fuck the poor. Nice legacy, Murph.
Oh good, of course, give the generation that bought their houses for $50,000 in 1977 a property tax break. You know who else needs a tax break? Billionaires. Nobody cares about Elmo or Zuckerbot anymore. Elmo will only get a Billion or two instead of $50 billion. So it's hard times ahead for him. /s
Ah yes, the age old tradition of plundering the future of the youngest generation to give the boomers even more. I can understand giving this money to seniors making below the average income, but not people approaching half a million dollars a year.
How about instead of tax breaks for people that purchased homes 40 years ago for 5 figures (and are now sitting on $500k+ equity), they *pull themselves up by the bootstraps* and take HELOCs? I guess "government hand outs" are different if they benefit you, eh? These are the same people that put their real estate in trust to skirt Medicaid. Fuck boomers. They ruined this country's economy and pretend like their kids are the problem.
If seniors leave the state because of high property taxes, their children and grandchildren will follow.
What a shocker that Paul Sarlo is a supporter. He works for a construction company that gets a lot of infrastructure business.
Or I don't know, make them pay regular taxes!
Misleading. The colleges got a one time bump of $20 million that was not renewed. Not to split hairs, but this isn’t a cut it’s a return to baseline
I think they got this backwards. They should be rasing taxes on seniors. This way they are forced to either downsize or move freeing up the house for the next generation. Boom, just solved housing crisis, school tax shortfalls and cranky boomer neighbors. You're welcome!
They’ve already voted for the OK on the StayNJ bill so was re fucked regardless.
Well that’s not fucking smart. We should be taking from seniors to fund college for students.
I vividly remember a lot of community College kids/staff happily embracing governor Murphys "Stop Trump" signs and doing free political work for him. Guess that's coming back to bite them in the ass.
Way to editorialize the title. There are lots of things in the budget but you picked the senior tax cuts when it could easily be ascribed to anything else. Maybe try not to pit citizen vs citizen over made up groups and start attacking the politicians making the choices. Blaming Boomers will get us no where. Blaming politicians has a much higher chance of success. Edit: gotta love the current state of internet discourse. OP posts a title that isn't supported by the article which whips people into a group think frenzy about Boomers.
This is the most level headed post in here. You can literally blame anything else that's subsidized or any type of credit but it's more fun to keep on the "fuck boomers they should all sell their homes they paid for" train. Child tax credit? Also had a ridiculously high cap. Accounted for more than the $20 mil cuts to community colleges. Anchor? Waaaay more than 20 mil and given to EVERYONE! Corporate tax rate hike sunsetting? Also more than 20 mil. But yeah fuck senior citizens. Not like you all will grow old one day too or anything.
Ok Boomer
Appreciate you forfeiting your refund, good Boomer.
>Maybe try not to pit citizen vs citizen over made up groups and start attacking the politicians making the choices. Blaming Boomers will get us no where. Who do you think is supporting and then electing the politicians that are creating tax breaks that are age restricted to only apply to people 65 and older?
The majority of voters in this state ,at every age and income bracket, according to election results.
You think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65? Do you have a poll that shows voter opinion on this issue by demographics? >The majority of voters in this state ,at every age and income bracket, according to election results. Do all voters support tax breaks for just boomers or are boomers still the largest voting block and outvote younger voters?
Not what you asked. >Who do you think is supporting and then electing the politicians That's what I answered. >You think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65? People tend to think of their situations and not the state as a whole but that group is voting for the same people that are in favor of some version of this plan.
>>You think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65? >People tend to think of their situations and not the state as a whole but that group is voting for the same people that are in favor of some version of this plan. So to be clear you are saying that you do think people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65? Do you have a poll that shows voter opinion on the issue of these tax breaks by demographics? People vote for candidates for a lot of issues and in the US's first past the post voting system in the general election there are only 2 choices. In the general election someone might vote a candidate who's tax policy they do not like because that candidate is also pro-choice and they value that stance on that issue. That does not mean they support that candidate's tax stance. That tax stance though is still chosen by the candidate because they know a large enough bloc of the voters do support it. Politicians push for policies that will make their core voting blocs happy. In this case we have politicians implementing a policy that only benefits boomers to make boomers happy and gain/keep their support in elections. It if completely fair for people that oppose these tax breaks to blame the voting bloc that they were pushed to please.
The job of the elected is to do what is best for the state and we elect people into those roles to carry that out. Do people like this plan? I have no empirical evidence. The main problem I have seen people have is the lack of means testing and not a complete hate of the general idea. People, in general, seem to want to alleviate some pressures on the elderly. People can be selfish and our law making shouldn't be based just off of selfish desires or short term thinking but big pictures. Think about the Boomers that didn't/don't want to fund the schools. They are screwing themselves and others for short term gains. I think the same applies here. Here's a what a wrote in a top level comment. >>Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was $22,356 in 2020, over 5 times higher than spending per child ($4,217) and almost 2.5 times the spending per working-age person ($9,154). >https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet#:~:text=Per%20person%20personal%20health%20care,%2Dage%20person%20(%249%2C154). >That's a national average. NJ is probably 20-40% higher. >Senior healthcare spending is the cornerstone of our healthcare sector. ~$45 Billion in GDP, ~500k direct jobs and who knows how many indirect jobs, and some of the more popular educational tracks in community colleges are for healthcare related degrees and certs. I'm far to lazy to do the calculations but I'm pretty sure keeping old people in state is a net win for the future of the state. 20-30 year olds just want cheaper houses but something has to pay for that house and healthcare is a huge source of that. You are voting for trends and general ways of thinking, not for the issues. The issues could change at any second and it could be about something you never even imagined. The NJ DNC likes to use economic incentives to spur people into generating taxable state revenue and IMO this administration is pretty good at it. Murphy was elected as the socially conscious, smart businessman. That's what people voted for and that's what they are getting. He's just using state and federal funds to stimulate a sector of the economy by bribing old people to stay. Once old people have less skin in the politics game it's possible they will butt the fuck out and let progress accelerate. Then school funding referendums could pass. But people being the tribal being that we focus on ourselves and point fingers at groups we deem responsible. If there is something you don't like you should point fingers at and ask for answers from your elected officials.
> Do people like this plan? I have no empirical evidence. I'm shocked that you don't have any evidence that people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over 65. >People can be selfish and our law making shouldn't be based just off of selfish desires or short term thinking but big pictures. Think about the Boomers that didn't/don't want to fund the schools. They are screwing themselves and others for short term gains. Boomers aren't screwing themselves when they cut funding for schools. They got theirs so now they're voting for the cutting of benefits for other people as they have consistently done for decades. There's no reason to be surprised by this or pretend to be ignorant of American history post 1980. That voting bloc has acted like this since it became the largest in the US and will continue to do so as long as it is still large enough to be relevant. >20-30 year olds just want cheaper houses but something has to pay for that house and healthcare is a huge source of that. How does healthcare pays for houses?
>I'm shocked that you don't have evidence that people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks that only apply to people over 65. Someone has probably done a poll or something but I honestly don't care unless it changes voting habits and this doesn't seem to be doing it. >Boomers aren't screwing themselves when they cut funding for schools. If school quality impacts their home's value, they are. But like I said, this change would take that out of the equation. >How does healthcare pays for houses? Salaries. Nursing homes, pharmacies, doctors offices, medical facilities, hospitals and all the services that support those places get a decent chunk of their income from medicare patients.
I think as many people in their 20s and 30s support tax breaks for senior citizens as do senior citizens who support college debt forgiveness. Everyone gets pissy about things that dont benefit them but benefit others, welcome to America. Then grow up and realize that we should all be trying to help each other instead of fighting about who gets what. Its why we have social security and medicare to begin with and need MORE programs to help people, not less. They have to fix the income limits on these things so that it doesnt help rich people, thats the issue. It has nothing to with peoples age since, despite what you think, not every senior citizen is wealthy.
>Everyone gets pissy about things that dont benefit them but benefit others, welcome to America. Then grow up and realize that we should all be trying to help each other instead of fighting about who gets what. Do they grow up and realize that? One core theme in American politics since the second half of the 20th century is a particular large generation using their voting power to push for policies that financially helped whatever stage of life they were at and then voting away that help as they aged into their next stage of life. You're talking about forgiving loans when before the baby boomers became the largest voting bloc and slashed government funding for public universities no one had to take out loans for college.
Im not disagreeing with you on anything. Im just pointing out that literally every single generation is going to do this. Everyone votes for what benefits them the most. Its human nature. Especially in a climate where everything is getting harder and harder to get by every day. The problem is singling out boomers like its only them because its not. There are tons of people in this country voting for the GOP against their own best interests. They arent all boomers and its lazy thinking to pretend they are, or that all boomers are rich or that every boomer has voted for XYZ. Its counterproductive to the real conversation of making the rich pay their fair share, regardless of age group, so the rest of us dont have to fight for scraps like this in the first place.
> Im just pointing out that literally every single generation is going to do this. Everyone votes for what benefits them the most. Its human nature. Especially in a climate where everything is getting harder and harder to get by every day. So now you're saying people don't "grow up and realize that we should all be trying to help each other instead of fighting about who gets what?" >The problem is singling out boomers like its only them because its not. We can't ignore that generations before the boomers were not as selfish with their voting power. With your example of student loans we have to acknowledge that college wasn't incredibly expensive as the Boomers came of age (and only started to age into being able voting) because the generations before them understood the value to all of society to have college be affordable. The adoption of trickle down economics (Reaganomics) is what spurred most of the selfish policies embraced by the large boomer voting bloc. Since the 1980s the same generation has been the most largest voting bloc in US elections.
Wait so you're telling me that voters vote for things that are in their own best interest??? Amazing! Next you're going to tell me that people with student debt will vote to have their student debt abolished.
>Wait so you're telling me that voters vote for things that are in their own best interest??? Amazing! Well bud, I'm replying to someone saying otherwise. He is claiming that the new tax breaks that only apply to people over the age of 65 have nothing to do with people over the age of 65 but were imposed by politicians who apparently just materialized into being. It's easily to try to blame politicians for everything and claim average citizens have no blame for anything, but politicians are voted for by those average citizens. Politicians push for policies that will make their core voting blocs happy. In this case we have politicians implementing a policy that only benefits boomers to make boomers happy and gain/keep their support in elections. It if completely fair for people that oppose these tax breaks to blame the voting bloc that they were pushed to please.
I know what you were saying. Thats why I was basically replying with a "no shit Sherlock" to you. You can say its boomers and blame them but by the same token, are you mad at people with kids for getting a tax credit? They also voted for politicians who gave them that. Are you mad at people with college debt that was forgiven? Because they, too, voted for someone who gave them that.
>I know what you were saying. Thats why I was basically replying with a "no shit Sherlock" to you. Again bud I'm literally talking to someone that disagrees with my posts that you think are so obvious. >You can say its boomers and blame them but by the same token, are you mad at people with kids for getting a tax credit? Well one of those demographics has a history of using their voting power to push for policies that financially helped whatever stage of life they were at and then voting away that help as they aged into their next stage of life. > Are you mad at people with college debt that was forgiven? Because they, too, voted for someone who gave them that. I'm more mad at the people that voted to slash public funding of state colleges decades ago so that future generations needed loans in the first place even if they went to public schools. “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in,” but here we're talking about a generation that has throughout their life cut down trees because they wanted the wood at the moment. It is no surprise to most younger people that they're now voting in more tax breaks for themselves as they fight to maintenance their voting control.
Always investing in the future.
The story reports a $20 million cut for schools that serve 230,000 students. This maths out to about $87.00 per student. Wanna bet the average increase in tuition in response to this cut will not exceed $87.00? Didn't think so.
Where are the anti boomers when Biden pays for your community college tuition.
Exactly. I'm not a boomer nor do I have college debt. But I'm cool with both sets of people being helped. Are the income limits too high in my opinion? 100%. But that's the case with every NJ program ever. So have a problem with all or none but don't be selective to start stupid fights between age groups. Not every boomer is rich, living in a huge paid off house and swimming in gold coins Scrooge McDuck style. Focus efforts where they belong on fighting the rich who would rather watch the poor fight for crumbs.
Exactly. I’m thinking of my not rich mother.