France waves discreet goodbye to 75 percent super-tax
By By Hannah Murphy and Mark John | Reuters – Tue, 23 Dec, 201
PARIS (Reuters) – When President Francois Hollande unveiled a “super-tax” on the rich in 2012, some feared an exodus of business, sporting and artistic talent. One adviser warned it was a Socialist step too far that would turn France into “Cuba without sun”.
Two years on, with the tax due to expire at the end of this month, the mass emigration has not happened. But the damage to France’s appeal as a home for top earners has been great, and the pickings from the levy paltry.
“The reform clearly damaged France’s reputation and competitiveness,” said Jorg Stegemann, head of Kennedy Executive, an executive search firm based in France and Germany.
“It clearly has become harder to attract international senior managers to come to France than it was,” he added.
Hollande first floated the 75-percent super-tax on earnings over 1 million euros ($1.2 million) a year in his 2012 campaign to oust his conservative rival Nicolas Sarkozy. It fired up left-wing voters and helped him unseat the incumbent.
Yet ever since, it has been a thorn in his side, helping little in France’s effort to bring its public deficit within European Union limits and mixing the message just as Hollande sought to promote a more pro-business image. The adviser who made the “Cuba” gag was Emmanuel Macron, the ex-banker who is now his economy minister.
The Finance Ministry estimates the proceeds from the tax amounted to 260 million euros in its first year and 160 million in the second. That’s broadly in line with expectations, but tiny compared with a budget deficit which had reached 84.7 billion euros by the end of October.
DECEMBER 21, 2014 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY SCOTT GARRETT
THE RECORD
The code is also unfair, as many of the loopholes target small numbers of high-income individuals, while New Jersey’s middle-class families get stuck with the tab. It should come as no surprise that New Jersey has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation when you figure in the tidal wave of local, state and federal taxes.
Scott Garrett represents the 5th District in the House of Representatives. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee and the House Budget Committee. He is chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises for the House Financial Services Committee, where he oversees the Securities and Exchange Commission and government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
ON MAY 1, 1931, with the push of a button at the White House, President Herbert Hoover officially commenced the opening of the Empire State Building. The 103-story structure was built with a powerful combination of steel girders, rivets and American ingenuity. This engineering feat and cultural icon took more than 7 million hours to complete.
There is another labor-intensive, American-made feat that happens every April 15. Unfortunately, we don’t get the productive equivalent of 192 Empire State Buildings for the 1.35 billion man-hours American workers spend filing tax returns each year. Instead, our outdated and complicated tax code rewards us with sluggish economic growth, wasted resources and a whole lot of frustration around the kitchen table.
We must fix our broken tax code and replace the outdated system with a pro-growth tax system, built upon the tenets of simplicity, fairness and efficiency. This is a tall order, but we have a lot at stake here in New Jersey and across the nation.
Currently, the U.S. tax code is the worst of all worlds. First, the system is notoriously complex, with individuals and families spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year trying to solve a numerical riddle of rules, deductions and tax schedules.
The code is also unfair, as many of the loopholes target small numbers of high-income individuals, while New Jersey’s middle-class families get stuck with the tab. It should come as no surprise that New Jersey has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation when you figure in the tidal wave of local, state and federal taxes.
Inefficient tax structure
According to a recent Monmouth University poll, half of New Jerseyans want to eventually leave the state because of the tax burden.
Moreover, the U.S. tax structure is as inefficient as a horse-and-buggy in the age of the high-efficiency hybrid engine. Considerations such as how to legally game the tax code, rather than business fundamentals, often distort individual decisions to work, save and invest. For example, tax economists Seth Giertz and Jacob Feldman argue that the tax code encourages businesses to switch their investments from productive activities (like hiring more workers) toward unproductive ones (like lobbying for special tax preferences).
As a result, not only is our current tax system unfair, but it also wastes resources, slows economic growth and leads to fewer jobs. We need to eliminate the special exemptions, simplify the rates and create a tax code that encourages savings, investment and job creation.
I remain hopeful that President Obama is willing work with Senate and House Republicans to revamp our tax code. Encouragingly, the White House website states “the tax code has become increasingly complicated and unfair. Under today’s tax laws, those who can afford expert advice can avoid paying their fair share and interests with the most connected lobbyists can get exemptions and special treatment written into our tax code.” Mr. President, I couldn’t agree more — now, it’s time to put meaning behind your words.
It is also important to recognize the political hurdles facing tax reform. While Republicans will control both the Senate and House in the New Year, without cooperation from the president, tax reform is as good as dead on arrival.
Serious about tax reform
The president has not yet demonstrated that he is serious about bringing tax reform across the finish line. Instead, the president views the tax code as a political tool to punish industries he happens to support (green energy) and those that don’t fit the party line, such as the oil and gas industry. Rather than talk about a simplified tax code to encourage job creation, the president remains committed to the theory that increasing the overall tax burden on working families in New Jersey somehow means these families are paying their “fair share.”
Most recently, the president threatened to veto a tax deal between the Senate and the House. Here is an example of both houses of Congress working together in a bipartisan manner, and the president killed the deal. For tax reform to work, the American people need a willing partner in the White House.
The American people gave Republicans the responsibility of controlling both houses of Congress for the next two years. In return, we can repay the American people by advancing solutions that help America’s families. And like President Hoover’s dedication of the Empire State Building, hopefully President Obama can work with Republicans to hit the switch and inaugurate another feat of American achievement: a reformed tax code.
State Republicans oppose increase hotel-tax bill Meadowlands
DECEMBER 20, 2014 LAST UPDATED: SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY DUSTIN RACIOPPI
STATE HO– USE BUREAU |
THE RECORD
Senate Republicans say that when a bill to overhaul the 14-town Meadowlands district comes to a vote Monday, it won’t have their support.
But their opposition to the measure will be merely symbolic unless they can convince a handful of Democrats to align with them in voting it down.
The proposal to restructure the district’s tax-revenue sharing and meld its two authorities had moved quickly since being introduced last week by Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, D-Secaucus. The Assembly passed the bill Thursday night in a late-running session that included lengthy amendment talks and an emergency vote. The Senate halted the pace that night when it would not allow an emergency vote, but instead passed the amendments.
Now the Senate will return Monday for a vote.
Republicans object to the proposal to shift the revenue-sharing burden from some of the district’s well-developed municipalities to its hotels by adding a 3 percent room tax. And although they do not disagree with the idea of consolidating the Meadowlands Commission and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, as of Friday they didn’t know the details of the merger.
When the Senate votes on the bill, Republican leader Tom Kean Jr. said, he doesn’t anticipate any support from the caucus. Because of the last-minute changes made Thursday night requiring an emergency vote, the Senate would not allow a vote on the bill, because, Kean said, it “was literally changing by the minute.”
“They’re still writing it as they’re asking us to vote for it,” said state Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Demarest. “That is not good government.”
Since 1972, the 14-municipality Meadowlands district within Bergen and Hudson counties has operated under a complex formula in which tax revenues generated by development in individual communities is shared.
Each year, communities that have been allowed to more-liberally develop land send tax dollars from those ratables to the communities that are restricted to preserve open space.
In the past several years, though, the formula has become a sore point for local officials, who view it as inequitable and antiquated.
The legislation, sponsored by Prieto, would consolidate the two Meadowlands agencies and add the hotel tax, a move estimated to draw $7 million to $10 million a year. Last year about $7 million was distributed in the district.
Shifting the burden from the municipalities to the hotels would free up tax revenues for local budgets, which have become strained under increased costs and the need to stay within the mandated 2 percent cap on increases in most tax-supported spending. Prieto also said that any money left over would be used for infrastructure improvements, flood control and promoting tourism.
But Cardinale worries about the plan’s long-term sustainability.
“If that 3 percent hotel tax doesn’t produce enough, then what happens? Cardinale said. “If the cash flow doesn’t happen, then the taxpayers in the whole state” will have to make up the difference to fund the district’s costs to operate. For the past two years, Prieto has said, the state budget has either partially or fully funded the district because municipalities could not meet their tax-sharing obligations.
“I am looking forward to a complete and thorough reform of our tax code in the new Congress. America sent a very clear message in November. We desperately need tax reform that promotes fairness for everyone, not just carve-outs for a well-connected few. Unfortunately, though I support some of the measures included in today’s legislation, this bill is far outweighed by special interest tax giveaways, and I cannot support it.” Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
DECEMBER 7, 2014, 11:19 PM LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2014, 11:20 PM
BY HERB JACKSON
RECORD COLUMNIST |
THE RECORD
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. bucked his party last week and joined only 19 other Democrats in opposing the extension of dozens of expired tax breaks, including some he had said a day earlier were important to New Jersey residents.
Rep. Scott Garrett, a Republican with a much longer history of breaking with his party, joined him in the “no” column as one of only 26 Republicans against the tax package.
It’s an understatement to say that Garrett, of Wantage, and Pascrell, of Paterson, do not usually agree. Data compiled at opencongress.org show that the veteran North Jersey representatives voted the opposite way on three out of every four votes during the past two years, and even on this bill, they voted the same way for different reasons.
The vote could also be a sign that Pascrell, who is finishing his ninth term in the House, is starting to act out against his party’s leadership.
After Republicans won their biggest House majority since World War II last month, Pascrell was harshly critical of Democratic strategy, arguing that his party’s candidates were too timid about discussing improvements in the economy.
New Jersey loses jobs in October as it prepares for bond sale
By By Hilary Russ | Reuters – 4 hours ago
(Reuters) – New Jersey’s economy showed more cracks on Thursday as the U.S. state with the second-lowest credit rating in the country reported 4,500 jobs lost in October and an upward tick in its unemployment rate.
The latest bad news broke a streak of much-needed labor market improvement that had been slow but steady for the Garden State, and it came in advance of a planned $525 million state borrowing on Dec. 3.
The unemployment rate rose by 0.1 percentage point to 6.6 percent in October. More than half of the jobs lost were in the private sector, particularly in construction, preliminary data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showed.
A spate of casino closures in Atlantic City, which has suffered from increased competition in nearby states, also weighed on the state in October, as they did in September, said New Jersey labor spokesman Brian Murray.
Accommodation and food service jobs declined by 2,200 jobs in October, due in part to the closure of the Trump Plaza, he said.
The state has now recovered only 48 percent of the jobs it lost during the 2007-2009 recession, far less than New York and nationwide, according to the left-leaning research group New Jersey Policy Perspective.
Wall Street credit rating agencies have downgraded the state eight times because of its poor economic recovery and large public pension shortfalls. Governor Chris Christie, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, took controversial actions – not putting the money into the pension system that the state was supposed to contribute – in the middle of a budget crunch this year.
Raising N.J. gas tax can have financial and political drawbacks
NOVEMBER 17, 2014, 10:45 PM LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2014, 11:06 PM
BY CHRISTOPHER MAAG
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORDGEORGE MCNISH/SPECIAL TO THE RECORD
Editors Note : the real questions remains ,what have they been doing with all the money the last 15 years ?
A Delta gas station on Main Avenue in Passaic advertising regular gasoline this week for $2.55 a gallon. New Jersey’s gas prices are much lower than neighboring states because of its low gas tax.
Even as gas prices nationwide continue to drop, hitting the lowest average tabs Americans have seen since 2010 — New Jersey continues to maintain its advantage. Average prices here hovered around $2.76 a gallon last week, 17 cents lower than the national average and more than 50 cents cheaper than New York’s.
The biggest reason for New Jersey’s resilient price advantage: The motor fuels tax, which at 10.5 cents a gallon, is the nation’s second lowest. The closest nearby price competitor is Delaware, where the gas tax is more than double at 23 cents. New Jersey’s other neighbors — Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York — charge gas taxes that are four or five times higher.
But pressure on New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund, which gets a large portion of its money from the gas tax to fund road repairs, has been growing for years. It reached a crescendo under Governor Christie, who took office to find that virtually no capital was available to fund road projects. Instead, the bulk of the money in the trust fund goes to pay debt, not fix roads.
Christie has relied on a number of tactics to find the cash needed to keep construction vehicles working on New Jersey highways — and avoid raising the tax.
Tolls have been raised on the New Jersey Turnpike, and the money has been used to fund projects throughout the state. For instance, toll increases on the turnpike have been used to pay for road projects and to prop up NJ Transit.
And a train tunnel project under the Hudson River was canceled and part of its funding — $1.8 billion — redirected
Christie has relied on a number of tactics to find the cash needed to keep construction vehicles working on New Jersey highways — and avoid raising the tax.
from the Port Authority to rebuild the Pulaski Skyway and complete several other projects. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office began probing the deal after a report in The Record showed that Port Authority officials were concerned that providing the funding to New Jersey was outside the agency’s mandated mission. The probes are ongoing.
Those moves were one-time gambits that don’t provide a stable source of funding, and the money they generated is slated to run out by the end of 2016.
Ohio’s Unfunded Pension Liability More than $25K per Resident, $10K Above National Average
Maggie Thurber / @Watchdogorg / November 15, 2014
Ohio’s public pension plans have so much debt that paying it off today would cost each resident $25,080.
According to a new report, “Promises Made, Promises Broken 2014,” by the nonprofit State Budget Solutions, the amount of unfunded pension obligations in Ohio has grown to nearly $290 billion, fifth highest in the nation.
That’s despite recent changes in the pension plans that were supposed to address the unfunded liability.
Subscribe to updates and alerts
“That’s a very scary place for Ohio. The national average is $15,000, so $25,000 is just terrible,” said Joe Luppino-Esposito, SBS editor and general counsel and the author of the report.
He said the $25,080 places Ohio third in highest per-capita debt. Alaska, in part because of its low population, was first, and Illinois was second.
Ohio has several individual plans — for teachers, police and fire, state employees, school employees and the state highway patrol. Participants and the public employer contribute to the plans just as non-public workers and employers contribute to Social Security.
The plans are categorized as defined benefits, with the amount of payment upon retirement based on the three highest years of earnings while working.
That’s part of the problem, Luppino-Esposito said.
It’s hard to know the exact amount the plans will have to pay out years in the future when current employees retire because there is no way to know for sure how much will be owed, he said. People are working longer and more likely to have higher earnings. They’re also living longer, so they’re collecting pensions for more years.
The methods states use to project how much money they need to contribute to the funds every year also contributes to the problem because estimates could be off.
Luppino-Esposito warned that the consequences of ignoring the unfunded liabilities could lead to a situation similar to Detroit’s.
“When the money starts running out and you have to pay more for pensions, you start cutting back on essential services,” he said. “The result in Detroit was bankruptcy for the city, and then pensioners had to end up taking a cut in benefits. The sooner the unfunded liabilities get addressed, the better for everyone.”
Which Cities/States Will Be The First To Default When The Economy Rolls Over?
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
What happens to local governments when the economy rolls over?
Though we’re constantly reassured the “recovery” that’s stumbled for five years has years of strong growth ahead, history suggests the “recovery” is due to roll over. Few recoveries last longer than 5 or 6 years, and the business cycle is graying fast: subprime auto loans are not exactly the foundation of “strong growth.” So what might push the economy over the cliff? The strong U.S. dollar is crimping overseas sales and profits, the global economy is already recessionary, mortgage applications have dried up, auto sales are being driven by subprime loans, and the valuation bubbles in stocks and real estate are due for a breather, if not an outright reversal. Retail sales are flat, and with all these headwinds, growing profits by 10% to 20% a year becomes impossible for the vast majority of enterprises. So what happens to local governments when the economy rolls over? Tax revenues decline. The consensus is that local governments are sitting pretty: sales and property values have risen smartly, pushing tax revenues higher, and the cost of borrowing money via tax-free municipal bonds has fallen. Nice, but these are all functions of expansion and rising tax rates. The uneven nature of the “recovery” has left some cities and states more vulnerable to a downturn than others.Let’s catalog the various risk factors that might become consequential as the global and U.S. economies weaken.
1. Those dependent on foreign tourism. The weak dollar made America a bargain destination for the past decade. As the dollar strengthens and other currencies lose purchasing power, America is no longer a bargain–especially as job cuts decimate the number of people who can blow a few thousand dollars on overseas vacations to the U.S. 2. Auto manufacturing-dependent locales. Vehicle sales have been strong, and the cheerleaders claim sales will keep rising for years to come. Really? With what money? As soon as layoffs hit the marginal workforce and the subprime auto loan bubble implodes, vehicle sales will follow suit. 3. Cities and states that depend heavily on capital gains taxes. Once the current housing and stock bubbles deflate–or simply stop expanding–tax revenues from the enormous capital gains reaped in the past five years will wither. 4. Locales dependent on high income taxes. Given that most of the job growth of the past five years has occurred in low-wage sectors, adding jobs hasn’t boosted income taxes much. High income-tax states have jacked up rates on high-income earners, but there is no law of nature that says high-income jobs will survive a global downturn. Rather, enterprises desperate to tighten operating costs will want to jettison high-cost employees first. 5. Local governments with enormous debt burdens. With interest rates low, municipalities and states went to the bond market over the past few years for “free money.” Once tax revenues plummet, the interest on all that “free money” will take a larger percentage of tax revenues, heightening the cost of new bond debt as buyers start adding in the risk of eventual default. 6. Locales with high fixed costs. These include high healthcare costs for homeless, elderly, government employees, etc., interest on all those bonds, government employee pensions, etc. The fixed costs only increase every year, regardless of tax revenues. Every local government with high fixed costs is in a tightening fiscal vice once tax revenues plummet. 7. Local governments with generous employee benefits and pensions. Once the stock market rolls over, the big capital gains that have funded public pension plans dry up, and the annual contribution has to be paid out of declining tax revenues. Should interest rates actually rise, pension fund bond portfolios would plummet in value, too. 8. Local governments dominated by self-serving entrenched interests. That is, all of them: sclerotic, self-serving, entrenched interests resolutely refuse to accept any cuts in their swag. As tax revenues fall off a cliff, government managers will face a dilemma: they can’t cut costs because the self-serving interests have made that politically impossible, and they can’t borrow money for operating expenses.
That leaves defaulting on debt as the only choice left. And since that’s the only choice left, that’s what they’ll do. The vice will close on some cities and states sooner than others, but it will eventually squeeze every city and state with declining revenues and rising fixed costs into default.
Tuesdays Ballot Questions a Yes Vote Means More Taxes
Most often a YES vote means more taxes…… vote NO
Please use this information to inform your friends and family, and tell them it is critical for them to get out to vote! Important Questions on the ballot, Tuesday, November 4 There are two State questions that are proposed constitutional amendments. One relates to your right to bail and pretrial release, and the other is on Open Space. Public question No. 1 – End the Right to Bail !!!! A “yes” vote on this constitutional amendment would END yourcurrent right to release on bail prior to trial. You’re being asked to abolish this Constitutional right, and find out later what will replace it. It could allow a court to order indefinite detention pending trial in a criminal case; it does not require “a speedy trial.” Recommendation: Vote NO!
The question says, in part, “This would change the current constitutional right to bail. The change to the Constitution would mean that a court could order that a person remain in jail prior to trial, even without a chance for the person to post bail, in some situations”. Article I, Sec. 11 of the NJ Constitution presently says, …”All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties.” This amendment would abolish that right.
Public question No. 2 – Divert Corporate Income Tax, then increase it
This would amend the Constitution to “Dedicate State funds for Open Space, Farmland, and Historic Preservation, and change existing dedication for water programs, underground storage tanks, and hazardous site cleanups”. A “Yes” vote would divert 4% of NJ corporate income tax funds, or $150M per year (NO SUNSET CLA– USE!), then increase that dedicated tax to six percent, or $200M in 2019. You will notice that there is NO reference to the cost on your sample ballot. Nor is there mention of how programs currently funded with the 4% that is to be diverted will be funded after this change. A convenient oversight? There are NUMEROUS reasons to vote “No” :
1) it is unconscionable that New Jersey attempts to manage its annual budget by Constitutional amendment, without a sunset clause. Why would we bind the state FOREVER, rather than do this through legislation, that could be changed when necessary? THIS IS LUNACY! (will cause your taxes to rise) 2) NJ already has already protected 31% of its land area, equivalent to the state of Delaware, from development. Approval of this question would take more land off the tax rolls – equivalent to Rhode Island! (will cause your taxes to rise) 3) The precedent for government owning so much (formerly) private property is greatly disturbing. Such land is forever removed from the tax rolls (and from any potential to generate revenue or profit for either the State or for private business), and that cost is shifted to the already over-burdened NJ taxpayer. (will cause your taxes to rise) 4) NJ already ranks dead last in terms of growth and business climate, and #1 in taxation, according to the Tax Foundation. (more taxes) 5) An Allied Van Lines report indicates that, for every one customer they move into NJ, almost two are heading out. NJ is listed as the #1 outbound state for two of the last three years.(more tax for you!) 6) Our state is approaching bankruptcy, with everything from the State’s pension system, to roads and transportation, education, and everything in between scrambling for funds. Our unfunded liabilities for pensions and healthcare benefits is $254B (seven times the annual budget!), according to Americans for Prosperity, and the annual budget shortfall is nearing $1.6B. (even more taxes for your and your family) 7) Even some of the environmentalists are concerned, because of the reallocation of the corporate tax that they fear could negatively impact currently funded programs. (eventually more taxes for you) IF YOU NEED TO READ MORE ABOUT OPEN SPACE QUESTION 2: What Will Question 2 Cost Taxpayers? October 24, 2014 by Richard Miner https://watchdogwire.com/new-jersey/2014/10/24/nj-open-space-ballot-initiative-would-give-govt-control-of-43-3-of-state-land/
7 things the middle class can’t afford anymore
Erika Rawes, The Cheat Sheet 8 a.m. EDT October 25, 2014
During debates and speeches, politicians often bring up the financial burden that’s placed on the middle class. We talk about the middle class as though they are this singular entity, who used to thrive until they underwent persecution by the evil 1%. But, realistically speaking, the middle class and the 99% are not really synonymous. So, who are the middle class?
In its discussion of historical middle class societies, The Economist reports, “Their members are neither rich nor poor but somewhere in-between. . . . ‘Middle-class’ describes an income category but also a set of attitudes . . . An essential characteristic is the possession of a reasonable amount of discretionary income. Middle-class people do not live from hand to mouth, job to job, season to season, as the poor do.”
Some argue that the most sensible income amount to attach to the middle class would be the median household income, of around $54,000. Perhaps, anyone who earns between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is a member of the middle class.
Diana Farrell, once Deputy Director of America’s National Economic Council, told The Economist she thinks a middle class income begins at the point where a person (or family) has one-third of their income left over for discretionary purposes after they’ve provided themselves with food and shelter. In other words, someone who earns $3,000 per month would have $1,000 left after they’ve paid their mortgage or rent, utilities, and grocery bills.
OCTOBER 23, 2014, 3:35 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014, 11:27 PM BY JOHN REITMEYER STATE HO– USE BUREAU | THE RECORD
Frustrated by Governor Christie’s move to take New Jersey out of a multistate program aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Democrats pushed ahead Thursday with their latest plan to challenge the governor on climate change.
Advocates of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which forces power companies to buy credits for every ton of carbon their plants emit, have praised it as an effective way to combat climate change while also boosting the state’s green-energy sector.
But Christie, a Republican who is considering a run for president in 2016, has argued that it does nothing to help the environment while at the same time increasing electricity costs in New Jersey. He announced the state’s withdrawal from the coalition in 2011.
Democrats who control the Legislature in recent years have sent Christie bills to reinstate New Jersey’s membership in the coalition, only to see the governor veto them.
Now, boosted by a recent state appellate court ruling and success they’ve had blocking another Christie initiative this year, lawmakers moved forward with their latest attempt to reverse the governor, one that they say will be successful. Christie’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection said the state is making strides to prevent greenhouse gases on its own.
The Senate on Thursday approved a resolution that declares rules passed by the state DEP to formalize the withdrawal from the coalition to be in violation of the legislative intent of a 2007 law they passed after the state agreed to join the program.
Reader says its looks like Roy Cho was ducking New York Taxes by using Manalapan as his domicile
Manalapan is not in Bergen County.But you are correct, there are plenty of other problems. My specific problem is very unique. The article states he used his Manalapan address for voting and taxes.
Roy Cho said that after he graduated from law school in 2009, he considered his parents’ home in Manalapan his primary residence even as he lived in an apartment in New York City and then rented an apartment in Hackensack. Cho used the Manalapan address for voting and taxes, and it was on his driver’s license, he said. https://www.northjersey.com/news/little-noticed-congressional-race-heats-up-with-accusation-of-voter-fraud-rare-campaign-help-1.1113943
Does that mean he filed a tax return using a NJ address and avoided paying NYC resident taxes? If you rent an apartment in NYC, even if Manalapan is your domicile, you are liable for NYC resident taxes.
Please before we get into the “young guy just made a mistake , he is a lawyer working for the Port Authority of New York New Jersey .
Only in government and on union jobs does a no-show get paid. Now, the Assembly has codified the practice, allowing members to phone in their presence in order to obtain a quorum for the transaction of business.
Caught by The Star-Ledger with their absentee hands in the cookie jar as being “present” when they were nowhere near Trenton, the Assembly unanimously passed a measure to legitimize the shady practice of being recorded as attending a session you didn’t.
Irrespective of what’s on the agenda, voters elect representatives to be physically on the job when there is business to transact, not to not be on the job. If you can’t commit 100 percent, then find a new hobby.
Northeast loses 40% of House seats as people flee high-tax states
BY PAUL BEDARD | SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 | 11:21 AM TOPICS: WASHINGTON SECRETS TAXES HO– USE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONNECTICUT MASSACH– USETTS NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA
The Northeast, once the nation’s political engine that produced presidents, House speakers and Senate giants including the late Edward M. Kennedy, is losing clout in Washington as citizens flee the high-tax region, according to experts worried about the trend.
The Census Bureau reports that population growth has shifted to the South and the result is that the 11 states that make up the Northeast are being bled dry of representation in Washington.
Critics blame rising taxes in states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut for limiting population growth in the Northeast to just 15 percent from 1983 to 2013, while the rest of the nation grew more than 41 percent.
The biggest impact comes in the loss of congressional representation.
N.J. Supreme Court denies motion to block raises for Bergen County sheriff’s officers
SEPTEMBER 29, 2014, 7:24 PM LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014, 7:32 PM BY JEAN RIMBACH STAFF WRITER THE RECORD
Bergen County Executive Kathleen Donovan is facing another defeat in her long-running bid to derail a contract negotiated by Sheriff Michael Saudino for his officers, with the state Supreme Court refusing to allow further delay in paying out raises to the union.
The court decision to deny the motion for a stay is one in a string of losses on the matter for the county executive, who remains hopeful the state’s top court will ultimately hear the case.
“This kind of money is just unconscionable for us as a county to be paying off,” Donovan said Monday during a visit to The Record’s Editorial Board, declaring “the case is not over.”
But sheriffs and corrections officers of PBA Local 134 are expected to soon begin seeing some of the millions of dollars due to them under a four-year-pact Donovan earlier deemed “reckless spending.”
“It’s been a long battle for us and this was the top, this was the Supreme Court making their decision and denying her the stay,” said Marcelo Hagopian, union president.
The administration says more than $8.6 million is now owed under the contract, which covers the time period from January 2011 through end of this year. Donovan said they’ll be paying the officers in stages, perhaps one year every four weeks.
