View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Money Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Mar 5 2012, 8:15 am EST Post subject: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year. The tax rate is $1.03 per $100 of assessed value. A house assessed at the township average of $605,000 would pay $6,231.50 in school taxes for the 2012-13 school year, about $301 more than this year if the budget is passed April 17.
http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2012/03/05/cranbury_press/news/doc4f4fda0075ebd295618423.txt |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
5% Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Mar 5 2012, 12:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
2%? Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Mar 6 2012, 9:32 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
5% wrote: | Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
I thought the maximum allowed was 2%? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yup Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Mar 6 2012, 10:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
2%? wrote: | 5% wrote: | Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
I thought the maximum allowed was 2%? |
It is. He is missing something. It is a 1% increase. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
citizen Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Mar 7 2012, 8:39 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
yup wrote: | 2%? wrote: | 5% wrote: | Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
I thought the maximum allowed was 2%? |
It is. He is missing something. It is a 1% increase. |
I believe the poster is referring to the still unanswered contradiction in the article between saying the increase was 1% but the math doesn't work if, as also quoted in the article, there was a $0.05 increase to $1.03 per $1,000 assessment. That would be ~5% increase. Someone with specific knowledge of the situation just needs to explain that contradiction or correct the mistake in the article. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ok Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Mar 7 2012, 9:19 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
citizen wrote: | yup wrote: | 2%? wrote: | 5% wrote: | Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
I thought the maximum allowed was 2%? |
It is. He is missing something. It is a 1% increase. |
I believe the poster is referring to the still unanswered contradiction in the article between saying the increase was 1% but the math doesn't work if, as also quoted in the article, there was a $0.05 increase to $1.03 per $1,000 assessment. That would be ~5% increase. Someone with specific knowledge of the situation just needs to explain that contradiction or correct the mistake in the article. |
There is no contradiction. The tax base has again shrunk. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
so Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Mar 7 2012, 12:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
ok wrote: | citizen wrote: | yup wrote: | 2%? wrote: | 5% wrote: | Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
I thought the maximum allowed was 2%? |
It is. He is missing something. It is a 1% increase. |
I believe the poster is referring to the still unanswered contradiction in the article between saying the increase was 1% but the math doesn't work if, as also quoted in the article, there was a $0.05 increase to $1.03 per $1,000 assessment. That would be ~5% increase. Someone with specific knowledge of the situation just needs to explain that contradiction or correct the mistake in the article. |
There is no contradiction. The tax base has again shrunk. |
Sorry, you'll need to explain it better for us idiots please. Yes the tax base has shrunk which is why you need to raise taxes even to support a flat budget year-over-year and why taxes can go up even with a smaller budget, as happened with the municipal budget this year. Therefore, it would be logical to say, for example, that the budget in actual dollars could increase 1% but require a 5% increase in the tax rate to support, depending the the scenario. Because while the tax rate is dependent on the budget (or vice versa depending what you prioritize) they are not the same.
However, that does not answer this question. How does the ratables going down explain how a 5% increase in tax rate is really only a 1% increase in tax rate? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ok Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Mar 7 2012, 1:45 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
so wrote: | ok wrote: | citizen wrote: | yup wrote: | 2%? wrote: | 5% wrote: | Why does the article state a 1% increase, it looks like a 5% increase based on the tax example and a .05 rate increase to 1.03. Am I missing something? |
I thought the maximum allowed was 2%? |
It is. He is missing something. It is a 1% increase. |
I believe the poster is referring to the still unanswered contradiction in the article between saying the increase was 1% but the math doesn't work if, as also quoted in the article, there was a $0.05 increase to $1.03 per $1,000 assessment. That would be ~5% increase. Someone with specific knowledge of the situation just needs to explain that contradiction or correct the mistake in the article. |
There is no contradiction. The tax base has again shrunk. |
Sorry, you'll need to explain it better for us idiots please. Yes the tax base has shrunk which is why you need to raise taxes even to support a flat budget year-over-year and why taxes can go up even with a smaller budget, as happened with the municipal budget this year. Therefore, it would be logical to say, for example, that the budget in actual dollars could increase 1% but require a 5% increase in the tax rate to support, depending the the scenario. Because while the tax rate is dependent on the budget (or vice versa depending what you prioritize) they are not the same.
However, that does not answer this question. How does the ratables going down explain how a 5% increase in tax rate is really only a 1% increase in tax rate? |
Because the ratables on the warehouses are decreasing faster than the homes. As each warehouse gets reassessed at a lower rate it increases the percent of the burden on single family homes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
so Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Mar 8 2012, 11:03 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
Ok wrote: “Because the ratables on the warehouses are decreasing faster than the homes. As each warehouse gets reassessed at a lower rate it increases the percent of the burden on single family homes.”
Sorry, some of us are still too slow so you’ll need to explain it in greater detail.
Yes, the warehouse values are declining faster than residential values. So collectively the residential taxpayers will shoulder a greater percentage of the budget.
But it’s not clear why that explains the ~5% delta in the ratables year-over-year if computed using the figures provided in the article versus the ~1% increase that was quoted as occurring. If the warehouses assessments go down, they will pay less taxes because the tax rate will be applied to their assessment values and result in a lower total taxes. That doesn’t explain why $1.03 this year versus $0.98 equals only a 1% difference in the tax rate itself. The tax rate is determined by the total budget and the total assessment values of properties in Cranbury.
However, what you imply is that the tax rate itself is variable from property to property and that residential properties will be seeing a ~5% tax rate increase and that commercial properties will presumably have a decrease in the tax rate to collectively result in an overall 1% change in the tax rate, as opposed to an overall reduction in total assessed values being used to compute a tax rate. If this is so, then the article is leaving out a few essential figures to be able to compute the 1% tax rate increase. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
agree Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Mar 23 2012, 8:25 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
I agree with "so." They repeated the same illogical statistic in today's article in the Cranbury Press. A $0.05 increase from $0.98 to $1.03 which they are calling 1%. That's not 1%. It's more like 5%. All this other stuff "ok" is saying about the ratable doesn't change the fact that $1.03 from $0.98 is not 1%. They need to explain this better. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mtg Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Mar 24 2012, 7:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
I don't disagree on the school's need to raise taxes. However, I do agree that this is a 5% increase in tax rate. Is it possible the budget went up 1% and the paper mixed up tax rate and budget increases? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
tax increase Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Mar 24 2012, 8:07 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
The article states:
"The average household in Cranbury would pay about $8,712 total in school and municipal taxes, about $391 more than last year, if the budgets pass."
No matter what rationale or how anyone spins it, this is a 4.7% school and municipal tax increase for the average household. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
hoping to help Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Mar 26 2012, 9:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
The Cranbury School's 2012-13 Proposed TAX LEVY is increased 1% over the current year. The tax levy, by state mandate, is allowed to increase to 2%.
As a result of the proposed tax levy, the TAX RATE will increase to $1.03 or .05 per $100 of assessed rate over the current year.
The tax rate is calculated each year as a proportion of the money that is needed to be raised and the overall value of the community. In the last few years, Cranbury, as most communities has declined in aggregate value. So the effect is that even if the amount of money to be raised stayed the same, the tax rate would increase. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thanks Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Mar 27 2012, 7:46 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury 5-cent, increase in property taxes from the school this year |
|
|
hoping to help wrote: | The Cranbury School's 2012-13 Proposed TAX LEVY is increased 1% over the current year. The tax levy, by state mandate, is allowed to increase to 2%.
As a result of the proposed tax levy, the TAX RATE will increase to $1.03 or .05 per $100 of assessed rate over the current year.
The tax rate is calculated each year as a proportion of the money that is needed to be raised and the overall value of the community. In the last few years, Cranbury, as most communities has declined in aggregate value. So the effect is that even if the amount of money to be raised stayed the same, the tax rate would increase. |
Yes, that does help. That's what I suspected but the brain surgeon's at the Cranbury Press should have specified. In other words, inclusive of state and other non-tax sources the total budget is incasing even as the total income from a flat rate would go down. So from a tax payer perspective, school taxes are going up 5%. By comparison, the township taxes increased 1.5% but worked to bring the total levy down or the increase would have been higher. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|