falcon0159

falcon0159 t1_jdp7jyj wrote

Oh, I'm not the OP that you were initially responding to, I just read the thread and thought it was an interesting, but also a complicated and inherently flawed idea in many aspects and decided to comment on some ideas

I can come up with a ton of additional rules of the top of my head, but you're right in that I'm not a tax "expert" in that I'm not a CPA, but I am personally very knowledgeable about tax and work in a related field. (Obviously I have no idea about OP and what their knowledge on the subject is. Your assumption is generally a very safe one as most redditors don't know much about tax, or even personal finance let alone corporate or institutional finance.

I am not sure what OP's intentions were with this tax idea, but I believe the purpose is to fairly tax each individual property based on it's value on a state wide level, rather than doing it by municipality. This would lead to a much more accurate valuation and tax base, as we wouldn't be relying on town's to do reassessments. We could then set a state wide property tax rate based on revenue needed and adjust it annually based on the total property valuations rather than having each town have it's own semi-arbitrary tax rate. This would lead to people in town's like Alpine and Paramus have a increase in tax as they have very low taxes ($ wise) in relation to property values and other towns like West Orange seeing lower taxes as they have the opposite problem.

1

falcon0159 t1_jdoli45 wrote

It's certainly an interesting idea, but very flawed as you pointed out. I agree that primary residences would have to be exempt somehow (but then why won't people set the value very low?) and maybe instead of being forced to sell if someone offers you the amount you set, they would need to offer more, and they only get one chance to offer more, and you could also choose to raise the valuation to that amount that they offer.

They would of course need to provide valid proof of funds for an offer and be willing to go through with the purchase or else be fined/lose an earnest money deposit of x% of their offer (maybe 10-20%?) which could go 75% to the homeowner and 25% to the state or something.

This would help prevent abuse and allow you to keep your property. We could also limit the frequency of those "takeover" offers to once a year or something like that as well.

We also have the highest property taxes in the country at the moment (and one of the highest income taxes), so we would need to find ways to both raise more money while making it more affordable IMO.

1

falcon0159 t1_jdl3xxl wrote

Ok, the OP also won't tell anyone here where they're going, so their communication probably isn't that great either. 2 Day old reddit account as well.

Does the friend live in Hoboken or in Sparta or in Princeton? That also changes the equation. Why would I drive to pick you up when the cost to do that will be also much as an Uber? Was OP expecting a free ride from the friend? How close is this friend, like best friend, or just an acquaintance? None of us have enough info to make a determination.

I have a bunch of friends and relatives that live in Europe. Most of them just Uber/Taxi to my house if they fly into JFK. I've picked a few of them up, but it depends when they fly in. Again, it's a 3-4 hour round trip depending on traffic, and I live very close to Manhattan. It would be much longer for someone living in West/South Jersey. Tolls and gas also make this trip expensive, to the point where the extra $50 to Uber is probably worth it, but I value my time. If I was OP's friend, I would just pay for the Uber, but I don't know the friend's financial situation.

If OP is that short on money that they can't afford the Uber - maybe traveling to an expensive country/city wasn't the best idea?

And yeah, I know I can be an asshole sometimes.

29

falcon0159 t1_jaevdfd wrote

My taxes went up 4.5%. $600. I live in a town with shitty schools. Why am I paying $14k/yr? I get that it goes to schools, but the schools should be good then, that's the argument I never understood. Obviously there are towns with really good schools, but many towns have bad schools and a majority of towns have mediocre schools. I don't think anyone here can make the argument that Newark, Irvington, Passaic, Paterson, etc. have good schools. But they still have high property taxes.

9

falcon0159 t1_j9xb9rq wrote

Yeah, this is kinda common. I worked for a job that was 9-5:30 or 8:30 to 5 with 30 minute lunch. Some places also don't care. I can take a 2 hour lunch at my current job and no one would say shit.

22

falcon0159 t1_j4nwfyr wrote

This is true, but it actually has to be unconscionable, as in significantly above fair market rental value. If you were under paying for a long time, they can raise to fair market value in a town with no rent control, even if it's a large increase. From there, you'll just be fighting in court with the landlord (or their lawyers) which will suck up enough time and energy that you might as well move. Especially as on a month to month, if you decide to sue for unconscionable increase, they can just terminate your lease and give you the 30-90 days to leave depending on the lease.

10

falcon0159 t1_iuk72fk wrote

Depends what you were making in TX. If you have a significant other you would be living/splitting bills with, etc.

$90k is a good salary, so you'll be fine, but it would probably be a similar to $60k salary in Houston in terms of quality of life. If you move further West/North West in NJ, the money would go a lot further if you're willing to do a 45 minutes commute.

I live less than 10 minutes from Wayne, so feel free to PM me if you have any more questions or want someone to tell you the best food spots when you move!

2