Bernie Sanders Plans to Raise Taxes by A Lot!

We have a hose and a fire extinguisher at home. I'd like to opt out of paying for the fire department too.

terp said:

There are about 12-13K households in the 2 towns.  That means that the burden is more like 9-10K.  

Right, $10K per household, and most households are headed by (and taxed to) two people, so right, it's not $3K, it's $5K per head. You're right that it's by household and not individual. If you're saying that's messed up, I agree. Property taxes suck.

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

There are about 12-13K households in the 2 towns.  That means that the burden is more like 9-10K.  

Right, $10K per household, and most households are headed by (and taxed to) two people, so right, it's not $3K, it's $5K per head. You're right that it's by household and not individual. If you're saying that's messed up, I agree. Property taxes suck.

I'm still not seeing where this $16k property tax, $10k of it for schools, is coming from.  What source are you guys using?

Also, I'm still waiting for terp to give examples of what he thinks are more representative private school tuitions.  At the numbers we have available right now, I don't see how someone who can't afford private school now would be able to afford it even without school taxes - the "savings" from not paying taxes still seem way too small to make private school affordable. But again, part of that argument rests on the actual numbers - please cite sources for yours.

PVW said:

I'm still not seeing where this $16k property tax, $10k of it for schools, is coming from.  What source are you guys using?

According to the Department of Community Affairs, the average residential property taxes in 2015 were $14,251 in Maplewood and $17,155 in South Orange. The school levy percentages were 57.9 in Maplewood and 57.2 in South Orange. Which works out to $8,252 for schools, on average, for Maplewood households and $9,812, on average, for South Orange households.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_docs/15_data/15taxes.xls

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

I'm still not seeing where this $16k property tax, $10k of it for schools, is coming from.  What source are you guys using?

According to the Department of Community Affairs, the average residential property taxes in 2015 were $14,251 in Maplewood and $17,155 in South Orange. The school levy percentages were 57.9 in Maplewood and 57.2 in South Orange. Which works out to $8,252 for schools, on average, for Maplewood households and and $9,812, on average, for South Orange households.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_docs/15_data/15taxes.xls

Thank you. Also, I had only been looking at Maplewood, not SO - maybe people were using the SO numbers when citing $16k?

The second half would be figuring out what representative private school tuitions would be.

I don't know where this site gets its numbers from, and a statewide figure may be of limited use when seeking costs for our area, but there is this, which lists average private school tuition in New Jersey at $12,844 ($18,063 for high school):

http://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state

PVW said:
Thank you. Also, I had only been looking at Maplewood, not SO - maybe people were using the SO numbers when citing $16k?

Can't speak for the others, but I was working from memory, and ballparking the school levy %, rounding it to 60%.  For the sake of argument, I was close, but for the sake of precision I was not.

DaveSchmidt said:

I don't know where this site gets its numbers from, and a statewide figure may be of limited use when seeking costs for our area, but there is this, which lists average private school tuition in New Jersey at $12,844 ($18,063 for high school):

http://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state

Since we are trying to use numbers specific to SOMA (though I guess I was trying to be very specific to Maplewood), I think you're right that statewide figures might not be the best - otherwise we're not comparing apples to apples, since the question is the gap between school taxes and private tuition, and taxes are pretty specific.

If schools in this area are actually close to those statewide figures, though, it would lend strength to terp's argument.  Big "if" there -- it'd be nice to get real numbers.

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

I'm still not seeing where this $16k property tax, $10k of it for schools, is coming from.  What source are you guys using?

According to the Department of Community Affairs, the average residential property taxes in 2015 were $14,251 in Maplewood and $17,155 in South Orange. The school levy percentages were 57.9 in Maplewood and 57.2 in South Orange. Which works out to $8,252 for schools, on average, for Maplewood households and and $9,812, on average, for South Orange households.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_docs/15_data/15taxes.xls

Thank you. Also, I had only been looking at Maplewood, not SO - maybe people were using the SO numbers when citing $16k?

The second half would be figuring out what representative private school tuitions would be.

In Mwd if you take the aggregate $3.066B muni valuation (which is the whole ball of wax that gets you to the $14,251), back out non-residential (vacant, commercial, industrial, business/personal, but still including apartments), you've got a baseline of $2,754,785,100, which leaves you with an average residential property tax bill of $15,869.  I'd say that's pretty close to $16k.  Then, when val adjs are brought into the picture, I'd bet it's even closer.

So the DCA list is incorrect when it specifically labels $14,251 as the residential average? (A question arising from curiosity, not from any desire to quibble over amounts.)

That is, DCA's math works out this way: $395,959 ("average residential property value")  X 3.599 (the tax rate) = $14,251.

I don't think it's quibbling. If we're going to make claims about things like the cost of schooling, trying to get reliable numbers seems very relevant. It's a few days later than I expected, but having people posting sources for their numbers, and showing their math, is the sort of reply I was hoping for when I threw out my hasty back-of-the envelope math.

Here's my conclusion after looking at Maplewood's budget figures themselves: DCA was indeed counting only residential properties but, unlike ctrzaska, excluded apartments.

Including apartments, I still get something close to the DCA amount: $2,754,785,100 divided by 6,893 properties raises the average residential value to $399,650. Multiplying that value by the tax rate gets me $14,383.

ETA caveat and full disclosure: I was an English major.

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:

I don't know where this site gets its numbers from, and a statewide figure may be of limited use when seeking costs for our area, but there is this, which lists average private school tuition in New Jersey at $12,844 ($18,063 for high school):

http://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state

Since we are trying to use numbers specific to SOMA (though I guess I was trying to be very specific to Maplewood), I think you're right that statewide figures might not be the best - otherwise we're not comparing apples to apples, since the question is the gap between school taxes and private tuition, and taxes are pretty specific.

If schools in this area are actually close to those statewide figures, though, it would lend strength to terp's argument.  Big "if" there -- it'd be nice to get real numbers.

In looking over the data, that average of $12,844 likely includes tuition for daycare/preschools/kindergartens.  The 1,000+ such schools are included in their counts, so presumably in their tuition numbers as well (and they do cite a number of $250-400/wk as an average daycare cost)... no reason to think they aren't.  As such, not sure how much you can glean from it.

DaveSchmidt said:

That is, DCA's math works out this way: $395,959 ("average residential property value")  X 3.599 (the tax rate) = $14,251.

They're combining apples and oranges it seems.  The problem as I see it is that the 3.599 includes non-residential properties as a basis for its derivation since it's ultimately based upon the aggregate $3.065B number (total assessment/total tax).  Thus you're taking an all-in rate (3.599) and using it to calc only the residential piece (using $395,959 which is based upon an aggregate valuation of $2.723B).  If you replace the 3B with 2.754B as residential only, your effective tax rate for just residential properties is actually 4.005.  A calc from that figure by your formula still comes in at the $15,869 I cited.

Interesting point though: I believe the town refers to "residential" impact on the budget when they're clearly including non-residential properties, but maybe I'm not recalling it correctly.

DaveSchmidt said:

ETA caveat and full disclosure: I was an English major.

Caveat and full disclosure: I was a double major in English and Philosophy.  So it's clear I could be missing something.

ctrzaska said:

Caveat and full disclosure: I was a double major in English and Philosophy.  So it's clear I could be missing something.

On the contrary, your explanation of the rate discrepancy makes sense to me. But maybe we're just an Eco chamber.

In any case, thanks.

HA!  Well played.

I've had a feeling I might be missing a factor, but I'm trying to do this with one eye on a nasty derivative problem at work and will need to revisit this later.  I think one flaw in my logic is that I'm using the full levy to be raised across all property types ($110.3m), and so should also be multiplying by a figure of .8986 (or thereabouts), which would put me back to about $14,260, underscoring your point.

Granted I think in the overall discussion the $1.5k might not mean much, but still.

You gentlemen are spending much too much time to pin down a number that has no actual relevance to the private school tuition issue, which was the context in which the per-household or per-taxpayer number was raised in the first place.

I like a puzzle. And I might learn something about tax rates to boot.

Plus, I had already waited nearly a week to inflict that pun.

DaveSchmidt said:

Plus, I had already waited nearly a week to inflict that pun.

Now THAT'S a good reason.

And what, exactly, is wrong with my rationale: avoiding work?

ctrzaska said:

And what, exactly, is wrong with my attempt at avoiding work?

Getting distracted occasionally when analyzing derivatives is how it starts, and pretty soon it's "The Big Short" all over again.    

Thanks to those who dug up and parsed those numbers.  With my schedule this week, and a sick house, it was just not going to happen.    

How we got here, which frankly eluded me until I went back through the thread, was a claim I made that the Public School Tax Burden made it more difficult for people to choose Private School.  I think this is true in a number of ways.  We are taking $10K after tax $$ a year per household.  That is definitely a factor.  In addition, it's obvious to me that the market would provide additional private schools if there wasn't this free option.  

Where I really took issue was not even the actual numbers whether they are $10 K a year or $8.5 K per year.  But rather the way the argument is framed.  Comparing an individuals tax burden rather than a households to the annual tuition of a high end private school.  If I didn't know better I'd think it was done on purpose.  

And I'm not saying that people aren't going to pay more for Private school.  Only that the school tax makes it more difficult to make that choice.  I think that's clear.  

Like any "One solution for all" solution, Public schools are going to work well for some and not work for others.  

And in terms of universally providing education I certainly see some gaps.  Just perusing Google News...

Detroit Schools Hit Debt Limit. Risk Being Unable to Pay Bills

Chicago Public Schools Staving Off Collapse For Now

nohero said:

ctrzaska said:

And what, exactly, is wrong with my attempt at avoiding work?

Getting distracted occasionally when analyzing derivatives is how it starts, and pretty soon it's "The Big Short" all over again.   "> 

LOL... well, there IS that.

Like DaveSchmidt and ctrzaska, I also enjoy a puzzle. Also, knowing where to find accurate numbers on things like tax rates is useful, not just for this discussion, but more broadly as well.

As for it's relevance, the reason I even went down this road in the first place is terp's claim "And I'm not saying that people aren't going to pay more for Private school.  Only that the school tax makes it more difficult to make that choice.  I think that's clear."

I don't think that's necessarily clear. If the numbers are that the average household pays $6k in school taxes (the number I originally found in the budget) and a typical private school starts at $18k for kindergarten and $35k for high school, then that extra $6k you'd save in taxes are petty irrelevant. Yes, I guess it's technically true that not having to pay $6k would make it "easier" to afford private school, but the gap between school taxes and private tuition is so great that, in practical terms, it makes no difference.  It's like saying having to pay a toll on the Garden State Parkway makes it harder for me to buy a Porsche. True, in a very narrow sense, but obviously false in any real meaning.

If on the other hand private school tuition is on average $12k and the school tax is on average $10k, then terp's argument is far more plausible. 

I think the big question remaining then is, what is the average private school tuition? Terp has accused me of choosing "a high end private school." I was pretty up front at the start of this exercise that I'm open to better numbers and more representative choices, and that this is not an area of expertise for me. If he wants to effectively counter me, rather than complain about my framing, all he has to do is provide better numbers -- in this case, he could help us find good numbers for average private school tuition near us. 

I think the number we'd want is for K - 12 (since that's what the public schools offer).

Of course it's clear that paying taxes takes private school out of the picture for many families. Is that what this was about? 

RobB said:

Of course it's clear that paying taxes takes private school out of the picture for many families. Is that what this was about? 

That was my understanding of terp's claim, and my initial thought was that this was incorrect -- I expected that, compared to the cost of private schooling, the amount you pay in tax for public schools was so small as to not really be a factor.

After all this diving into the numbers, I'm no longer sure of that. School taxes are higher than I would have guessed, and the average private school tuition is lower than I would have guessed. I'm still not entirely clear on what the best source for real numbers on this is, or the best way to make real comparisons, but it's a lot less clear than I initially thought.

The point of the thread, as far as I can tell, is that Sanders wants to build stuff, and that stuff will cost.

I think society progresses more when it builds public works. Not much greatness comes from an attitude of, "Oh no, we can't do that."

I acknowledge that government programs are often botched, but not always. You can't oppose them categorically unless you're advocating for an everyone-for-himself society which isn't really a society. There truly is a consensus that there should be taxation at some level and public spending at some level. If you don't accept that premise, there isn't anything left to talk about. If you do, then it's a question of what to build and how.

There is a consensus that public schools for anyone and everyone are a good thing overall. They are at least better than a lack of a guarantee of an education. If you disagree with that premise, as in the previous paragraph, we don't have a basis for argument. It is a radical view which will not gain traction among a significant number of people.