southbeach1500 saidAnd that's the difference between us.
You see a chance for the government to give away money to a particular segment of the citizenry, while I see it as a step towards balancing the state's unbalanced budget.
NJ has had taxes raised 115 times in the past 8 years. After 115 tax hikes, do you truly believe giving the Democrats a 116th tax hike would have done any good at all in solving the state's fiscal problems?
Do you really want your beloved New Jersey to start looking like upstate New York where job growing capital has fled due to high taxes and out of control state spending? Because I assure you, had that tax passed, there would not have been 16,000 millionaires waiting around in NJ to have their income squandered by the Democrats... a good number of them would have left the state.
First, New Jersey is not my "beloved" even though my ancestors helped to found it. If that were the case I'd still be there.
Taxing 16,000 millionaires will result in job losses? In what career fields? Estate gardening and housekeeping? Or are you suggesting a significant number of millionaires would abandon their equity investments in real estate to save a relatively small amount? And studies have shown that many rich just spend more on luxuries for themselves when they have more money, that doesn't create new local jobs at all.
And while you're praising the lower tax the very wealthy will pay, what about the tax INCREASE that the loss of a property tax rebate means to the elderly and disabled? Yes, that's means there IS somebody paying higher taxes from this veto, only it'll be those least able to pay, at risk of losing their homes. Nice choice, there, southbeach, let's add to the New Jersey real estate crisis even more.
But the really luscious irony for me is that this same group that are the losers here, senior citizens and the disabled, make up a good part of the teabagger demographic, those opposes all taxes. So they get their wish: lower taxes, but sadly it's only for the wealthy, while they get higher taxes for themselves. Can you say "gullible dupes"?