From the Courier Post:
Along with picking New Jersey’s next senator, Tuesday’s election will also give voters a chance to decide how their government should use some of the taxes they pay.
Three ballot questions will let residents determine if the state should:
Use a piece of a recent sales tax hike to cut property taxes.
Dedicate a portion of business taxes to refurbish state parks.
Commit more of the state’s gasoline tax to transportation projects.
Supporters of the three public questions say “yes” votes will rededicate existing taxes to worthy causes.
None of the questions would raise taxes. Instead, each calls for amending the constitution, effectively binding current and future administrations to use set sums of money for specific causes.
But Steve Lonegan, head of the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity Foundation, called the questions “grossly misleading.” He said each item would create a “slush fund” for lawmakers to dole out money for select projects.
The only question that really troubled in that regard was question 2, “To expand uses of dedicated tax revenues to fund improvements and facilities on preserved open space lands.”
Every time I read that I see taxpayer money used to build a stadium or arena for a privately owned sports team. There’s no way I’m voting in favor of that. Right now the money seems to be directed at environmental clean-ups which seems to at least have a chance at being mostly for public benefit.
Oops, I previously replied to the wrong thread:
With regards to questions 2 & 3, what was the money originally earmarked for?
Basically, if a percentage of this money in question 2 goes towards recreation and conservation and in question 3 towards funding of the State transportation system, what was previously funded with this money? Was the money previously funded towards some state or federal mandated expense that may cause future tax increases? Even if it wasn’t mandated, is there a possible tax increase in the future now that some other “area” is under funded?
Personally, I am leading towards yes, no, no unless I read more information which may change my vote. Once again, this is MY view as of RIGHT NOW and I’m not suggesting others do the same.
Rich
I will vote “no” on all 3. Haven’t we learned a lot about politicians using imprecise language? Theres a reason they do that: they’re setting up their loopholes.
I get the feeling that they’re turning “property tax relief” into a code, like “the death tax” and make a big fanfare out of passing a tax cut and we’re all supposed to be fore it and it turns out to have nothing to do with us. Just watch, you’ll have to be over 70 and have an income under $28,000/year to get it.