NJ hands it's Governorship over to a Tax and Spend Progresive Liberal with ZERO Political Experience
« prev   random   next »

20
16

NJ hands it's Governorship over to a Tax and Spend Progresive Liberal with ZERO Political Experience

By Sniper following x   2018 Jan 15, 8:33am 805 views   48 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Phil Murphy will become New Jersey's 56th governor — and the first Democrat to hold the position in eight years.

He's a former Wall Street executive. Murphy, 60, spent more than two decades as an executive at Wall Street investment banking firm Goldman Sachs.

He has never held elected office before Tuesday, when he will assume what is arguably the most powerful governorship in America, with the ability to appoint significant positions like state attorney general and to line-item veto the state's $35 billion budget.

Yes, he's a multimillionaire (and yes, his money played a big role in the race).

Murphy and his wife made $4.6 million and paid about $1.5 million in taxes in 2016, their tax returns show. The couple made a combined $35.8 million from 2010 to 2016.

His views are much different than Christie's.

While Christie governed with (relatively moderate) Republican views, Murphy campaigned as a progressive liberal.

He has vowed to strengthen New Jersey's gun-control laws, to fully fund the state's school formula and public-worker pension systems, to eliminate PARCC testing in schools, to raise the state's minimum wage to $15, to install universal pre-K and free community college, to institute a state bank, to raise taxes on millionaires and corporations, and legalize recreational marijuana. And he believes New Jersey should look to deep-blue California as a model.

Murphy wants to increase funding for public-worker pensions, education, and transportation. And to do so, he plans to raise taxes by $1.3 billion — which includes hiking taxes on millionaires, closing corporate tax loopholes, and legalizing and taxing marijuana. He says the hikes would spare the middle class.

For example, Murphy has vowed to protect immigrants from Trump's policies, saying he'd even be willing to make New Jersey a "sanctuary state"

Murphy has also been accused of being too cozy with unions.

"I'm proudly progressive, but we're gonna grow this economy," Murphy told NJ Advance Media in a recent interview.


http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/01/17_things_to_know_about_phil_murphy_as_he_becomes.html
#politics

Bend over NJ, you're about to be Cornholed without any lube!!

« First    « Previous     Comments 9 - 48 of 48     Last »

9   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 16, 8:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

OK, so in the future, NJ will be just like CA, except with shitty weather, correct?
10   errc   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 16, 8:49am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says
@Patrick

Why aren't my comments showing up after posting, seems to be a long delay?


We’re trying to Make Patnet Great Again! So some people who have a history of personal attacks are having their posts moderated prior to approval.
12   anon_d33c7   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 16, 6:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

If they wanted someone with no political experience and a history of being liberal they could have used the Bone Spur Dotard. Missed opportunity.
13   anon_48828   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 10:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to sue federal government over state and local taxes.

New York, New Jersey and Connecticut on Friday announced they had launched a coalition to sue the federal government to challenge the recently passed tax bill and its reduction in state and local tax deductibility. Governors of the three states said in a statement that the tax-law changes "unfairly target" states whose residents have come to rely on being able to deduct big local tax burdens from their federal tax returns.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy called the changes "a clear and politically motivated punishment of blue states - like New Jersey and our neighbors - who already pay far more to the federal government than we receive." In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, like Murphy a Democrat, has also pledged to "launch a repeal-and-replace strategy," and to "explore the feasibility of a major shift in the structure of state tax policy."

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/us-economy/201801261243MRKTWTCHNEWS_SVC000452
Yep, the curtain has been pulled back, and the residents of NJ, NY, CT are seeing how they've been fucked over by the Blue team all these years. So now it's Trump's fault for exposing these dickheads to the citizens of the extremely high tax rates of these states.
14   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 10:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_48828 says
Yep, the curtain has been pulled back, and the residents of NJ, NY, CT are seeing how they've been fucked over by the Blue team all these years. So now it's Trump's fault for exposing these dickheads to the citizens of the extremely high tax rates of these states.


Let me get this straight. You are saying that states which don't tax their citizens and get their money to run government by sucking on the tit of the federal government which is the same as sucking on the tit of states who contribut more to federal government than they receive like CA, NY, CT and NJ. You are saying those socialist tit sucking states are a better example of the way to make America great again?
15   anon_d624b   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 12:06pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
Let me get this straight.


I wish you would.

These cry babies are complaining about not being able to deduct the HIGH property taxes and STATE income taxes. Guess what, those HIGH taxes have NOTHING to do with the federal government. It all the fault of the STATE legislators the past years/decades.
16   anon_d624b   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 2:17pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
states who contribut more to federal government than they receive like CA, NY, CT and NJ.


You have that backwards. Residents of NY, NJ and CT are able to take LARGER SALT deductions, which lets them pay LOWER federal taxes than other states. It's the Blue states of NY, NJ, and CT who aren't paying their fair share, due to lower federal tax rates due to these deductions. THEY are the ones sucking on the tit of the the other states paying the larger federal tax bill. Now, the playing field is leveled with the $10K cap, and these Socialist Liberals are crying, big time.
17   anon_d624b   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 2:18pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_48828 says
Governors of the three states said in a statement that the tax-law changes "unfairly target" states whose residents have come to rely on being able to deduct big local tax burdens from their federal tax returns.


Ha Ha

Another point, the Dems are all about taxing the RICH and making them pay MORE, which is why they complained about the new tax bill lowering tax rates and lowering corp. taxes.

Fast forward, the whiny governors are crying now because, get this..... wait for it...... the RICH people in their states will pay HIGHER taxes with the new tax bill.... Oh, the Hypocrisy....

You can't make this shit up!
18   Booger   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 6:41pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_d624b says
Fast forward, the whiny governors are crying now because, get this..... wait for it...... the RICH people in their states will pay HIGHER taxes with the new tax bill.... Oh, the Hypocrisy....


The governors are crying because they know that this new tax law will cause people with the means (I.E. - taxpayers) to depart for lower taxed states.
19   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 26, 7:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
Let me get this straight. You are saying that states which don't tax their citizens and get their money to run government by sucking on the tit of the federal government which is the same as sucking on the tit of states who contribut more to federal government than they receive like CA, NY, CT and NJ. You are saying those socialist tit sucking states are a better example of the way to make America great again?


anon_d624b says
You have that backwards. Residents of NY, NJ and CT are able to take LARGER SALT deductions, which lets them pay LOWER federal taxes than other states. It's the Blue states of NY, NJ, and CT who aren't paying their fair share, due to lower federal tax rates due to these deductions. THEY are the ones sucking on the tit of the the other states paying the larger federal tax bill. Now, the playing field is leveled with the $10K cap, and these Socialist Liberals are crying, big time.


Interesting points being made here. If state taxes are used to only benefit the residents of that state, why should the federal government pay part of it through tax breaks?
It sounds fair that no state taxes, wether income, property, sales, local, or any other tax should be partially paid by the feds. It might make the rotten socialist states like California, NY, Illinois, and New Jersey think twice before they decide to raise taxes again.
20   anon_e142a   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 9:39pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_48828 says
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to sue federal government over state and local taxes.


Sorry, Blue States: You Can't Fix the Tax Bill

In the end, federal deductibility changes maybe simply force New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to cut their rates to compete with red states.

It’s an unhappy time to be a high-income professional in a blue state -- or their governor. The new tax law, which caps the deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000, amounts to a roughly one-third increase in their effective state-and-local tax rate. That will be an ugly hit to the pocketbook.

They will fiercely resist any attempt to raise taxes further, bad news for mayors and governors who are often facing big pension holes that are eventually going to need to be filled with taxpayer money. Worse still, they will probably put pressure on said politicians to lower taxes. And some of them may start shopping for residences in lower-tax locales, taking their valuable, taxable incomes with them if they go.

Small wonder that officials in high-tax states are desperate to find some way to undo what congressional Republicans have wrought. A number of proposals have been floated in the last month, all of them interesting, none of them likely to work very well.

Option 1: Convert state and local taxes into a charitable deduction

Option 2: Get rid of the income and property taxes, and convert them to a payroll tax

Option 3: Make the federal government give it back

Jonathan Adler, who teaches law at Case Western, was even more pungent, and succinct. While we don’t know what form the complaint will eventually take, since the states haven’t yet drafted it, “What we have seen [so far] would suggest that there is some sort of constitutional right to a SALT deduction. To state the claim is to refute it.”

Given the problems with all of these strategies, it is a measure of state desperation that these are the ideas on the table -- and that they are being seriously considered.

In the end, these places may even be forced to consider the truly audacious Option 4: cut their taxes and learn to live within a new, tighter budget.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/sorry-blue-states-you-can-t-fix-the-tax-bill
21   anon_e142a   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 26, 9:39pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Strategist says
If state taxes are used to only benefit the residents of that state, why should the federal government pay part of it through tax breaks?
It sounds fair that no state taxes, wether income, property, sales, local, or any other tax should be partially paid by the feds. It might make the rotten socialist states like California, NY, Illinois, and New Jersey think twice before they decide to raise taxes again.


Great point.

In the end, these governors won't be successful, and if they don't do something to lower taxes, they'll see a mass exodus of the rich people leaving those states.
22   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 7:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_d624b says
You have that backwards. Residents of NY, NJ and CT are able to take LARGER SALT deductions, which lets them pay LOWER federal taxes than other states. It's the Blue states of NY, NJ, and CT who aren't paying their fair share, due to lower federal tax rates due to these deductions. THEY are the ones sucking on the tit of the the other states paying the larger federal tax bill. Now, the playing field is leveled with the $10K cap, and these Socialist Liberals are crying, big time.


Actually, no i don't have it backwards, theses states are some of the most independent states. This means they contribute more to the federal govegovernment than they receive. They are the tit that is being sucked on. They are paying MORE than their fair share and now will be stuck having their tit sucked on harder. Is that mmag? It sounds vindictive and petty and stupid to harm the states that are contributing the most to the federal coffers. If these states are socialist then apperently they are doing something right because they are some of the most independent states in the nation.
23   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 7:12am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

It sure will be funny when the $10,000 cap startes to affect those tit sucking red states.
24   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 7:39am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_e142a says
Option 1: Convert state and local taxes into a charitable deduction

Option 2: Get rid of the income and property taxes, and convert them to a payroll tax

Option 3: Make the federal government give it back
anon_e142a says
4: cut their taxes and learn to live within a new, tighter budget.


You left out option 5 and 6

#5 secede from the union. That would really fuck those tit sucking red states.

#6 split up. If say California became three states then the state taxes paid would be less.

No matter how you slice it penalizing the most productive statrs is not the road to make america great.
25   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 8:16am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says

#6 split up. If say California became three states then the state taxes paid would be less.


Now that i think about it this would be the best way forward for CA and now easier to sell to Californians, thanks dotard. More than likely not thought of by the dumb ass republicans who came up with $10k limit. Upper lower and central California. 4 new senators! And lower state taxes to boot. A major win for democrats and a slap in the face to those who crafted the tax legislation.
26   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 27, 8:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I love when Libbies self-heal...
Hutch says
Let me get this straight.
27   anon_872e4   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 9:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
It sure will be funny when the $10,000 cap startes to affect those tit sucking red states.


So sorry, for many it won't. The median family income in the US is like $60K a year, so they have a long way to go for it to hurt them.

It must suck to be a CA resident though, you can thank the Blue team in Sacramento for fucking everyone over with the high tax rates!
28   anon_8c5b2   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 9:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says
Gonna be a long, painful 4 years.....


I literally dreamt that the office went Republican and we NJ homeowners got relief from the effects of the horrible federal tax changes. No such luck.

I still can't believe this is happening to us. How can the gov be so blind to the suffering of homeowners?
29   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 9:47am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_8c5b2 says
Sniper says
Gonna be a long, painful 4 years.....


I literally dreamt that the office went Republican and we NJ homeowners got relief from the effects of the horrible federal tax changes. No such luck.

I still can't believe this is happening to us. How can the gov be so blind to the suffering of homeowners?


Not really understanding this comment. NJ just had a republican governor. What would another republican do differently than Christy did to give relief from the effects of the horrible federal tax changes?
30   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 10:00am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_872e4 says
Hutch says
It sure will be funny when the $10,000 cap startes to affect those tit sucking red states.


So sorry, for many it won't. The median family income in the US is like $60K a year, so they have a long way to go for it to hurt them.

It must suck to be a CA resident though, you can thank the Blue team in Sacramento for fucking everyone over with the high tax rates!


CA is the biggest state in the union, it contributes the most to the US gdp and to federal taxes, of course its going to have a high tax rate.

The obvious answer is for california to split into more than 1 state. I think the federal government has just given it a shove in that direction.

Funny thing is that what this republicans are telling you is that you are better off not to aspire to making over $60k. They are telling you if you make too much money you will be penalized. Almost sounds like communism to me.
31   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 27, 11:33am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

When libs say "grow the economy", the translation is "grow the tax sucking bureaucracy".
32   anon_3b28c   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 27, 12:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Ceffer says
When libs say "grow the economy", the translation is "grow the tax sucking bureaucracy


Its ironic that job growth is the lowest in 7 years with a Republican President then, huh?
33   anon_888bb   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 12:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
What would another republican do differently than Christy did to give relief from the effects of the horrible federal tax changes?


Blow up Trenton and get rid of all the Dem state legislators.
34   anon_94000   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 3:03pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
CA is the biggest state in the union, it contributes the most to the US gdp and to federal taxes, of course its going to have a high tax rate.


Oh goodie, CA also has the highest homeless rate, too. That's a great contribution.


In 2017, over 553,000 Americans were homeless with one out of every five of them living in New York City or Los Angeles. 65 percent of the country's homeless population was provided with emergency shelter, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.The largest number of homeless people was recorded in New York City (76,501), with Los Angeles in second place (55,188).

https://www.statista.com/chart/6949/the-us-cities-with-the-most-homeless-people/
Yep, those wealthy Blue states really take care of the citizens well!!
35   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 5:46pm   ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
Funny thing is that what this republicans are telling you is that you are better off not to aspire to making over $60k. They are telling you if you make too much money you will be penalized. Almost sounds like communism to me.

California has some of the most regressive, anti-productivity laws in the USA.

Raise the property taxes, CUT the earned income and sales taxes. California lets wealthy landowners skate, but socks it to commerce and industry.

A state wide pied-a-tierre tax might be good too, to encourage full-time inhabitation and less AirBNB and foreign owners.
36   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 27, 7:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I would call those homeless statistics grossly underestimated. In the first place, how does one go about counting the homeless in a reliable manner? Counting tents from space?
37   anon_08049   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 7:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Hutch says
Funny thing is that what this republicans are telling you is that you are better off not to aspire to making over $60k. They are telling you if you make too much money you will be penalized. Almost sounds like communism to me.

California has some of the most regressive, anti-productivity laws in the USA.



Yet it's the 6th largest economy in the world. Go figure.
38   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 8:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Raise the property taxes


Really all it would take is to eliminate Prop 13. That would ensure the wealthy landowners who are busy raping people on rents that they raise every year pay their fair share of land use tax.

Oh and because people will bitch about “Granny getting taxes out of her house,” add an addendum that lets senior citizens pay 25% normal tax on their primary residence. Alaska has that and it’s worked quite well. Second and third and income property should all pay the going rate of property tax as the rest of the schmucks who bought in the last decade.
39   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 8:34pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Hutch says
Funny thing is that what this republicans are telling you is that you are better off not to aspire to making over $60k


Actually, the new tax law has raised the amount considerably that I can make before being penalized by excessive tax! Under Obama’s era tax plan, I had to ensure that my joint income fell below 188k or I’d be hit with 33% tax. I made that happen with write offs and exemptions, but it was close. Under the Trump tax plan, the gloves are off and i can make up to 266k before leaving the (lower(28% under Obama)) 24% tax rate!
40   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 9:22pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Quigley says
Hutch says
Funny thing is that what this republicans are telling you is that you are better off not to aspire to making over $60k


Actually, the new tax law has raised the amount considerably that I can make before being penalized by excessive tax! Under Obama’s era tax plan, I had to ensure that my joint income fell below 188k or I’d be hit with 33% tax. I made that happen with write offs and exemptions, but it was close. Under the Trump tax plan, the gloves are off and i can make up to 266k before leaving the (lower(28% under Obama)) 24% tax rate!


Its interesting how many people don't understand how our tax system works. @Quigley you realize that under obama up to $9,325 and under trump up to $9,525 we are all taxed at 10%. This means that before when you feared making over $188k you really shouldn't have because the only part that is taxed at 33% would have been the amount over $188k.

Here it is explained better.

https://www.fivecentnickel.com/how-do-federal-income-tax-brackets-work/
For a married couple filing jointly in 2008, the 10% tax bracket covers income from $0 to $16, 050. From $16, 050 to $65, 100 the tax rate is 15%. And from $65, 100 to $131, 450 the tax rate is 25%. A couple with a taxable income of $100k will be in the 25% tax bracket, but they won’t have to pay 25% in federal income taxes on the full amount. Rather, they’ll pay just 10% on the first $16, 050, 15% on the next $49, 050, and 25% on the last $34, 900. This works out to $17, 687.50, or an effective rate of just under 18%.

One last time. If you had made over $188k you would not have been charged 33% on all your income. Only the part over $188k.
41   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 27, 9:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Quigley says
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Raise the property taxes


Really all it would take is to eliminate Prop 13. That would ensure the wealthy landowners who are busy raping people on rents that they raise every year pay their fair share of land use tax.

Oh and because people will bitch about “Granny getting taxes out of her house,” add an addendum that lets senior citizens pay 25% normal tax on their primary residence. Alaska has that and it’s worked quite well. Second and third and income property should all pay the going rate of property tax as the rest of the schmucks who bought in the last decade.


Totally agree about prop 13 it is just another republican sceam to get out of paying taxes.
42   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 28, 8:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Oh ok, thanks for clueing me in then. That actually does sound pretty fair, whereas the idea that making a few more bucks would incur a huge tax penalty didn’t.
43   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 28, 8:42am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

at least he lacks experience in screwing people, so he might not screw America too much.
44   anon_c0b38   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 28, 9:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_94000 says
Yep those wealthy blue states take care of their citizens well


That's actually true. Over the years I've got to know a few homeless who panhandle outside my big smoked glass building. Mental illness is why they choose to be homeless but nearly all of them came from American heartland areas like Des Moines. Apparently panhandling & their quality of life isn't good in these poorer areas so they go to the wealthy areas where the rich folk are more likely to hand over the pocket change or random sandwich.
45   errc   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 28, 11:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Hutch says
Quigley says
Hutch says
Funny thing is that what this republicans are telling you is that you are better off not to aspire to making over $60k


Actually, the new tax law has raised the amount considerably that I can make before being penalized by excessive tax! Under Obama’s era tax plan, I had to ensure that my joint income fell below 188k or I’d be hit with 33% tax. I made that happen with write offs and exemptions, but it was close. Under the Trump tax plan, the gloves are off and i can make up to 266k before leaving the (lower(28% under Obama)) 24% tax rate!


Its interesting how many people don't understand how our tax system works. @Quigley you realize that under obama up to $9,325 and under trump up to $9,525 we are all taxed at 10%. This means that before when you feared making over $188k you real...


I’m not sure interesting is the word I’d use.

It blows my mind that people don’t understand the most simple basics of how fed incomes taxes work, like what rate each tier of income is taxed at. How can these people leave commentary on something they don’t understand in the least bit?
46   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 30, 9:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
Oh ok, thanks for clueing me in then. That actually does sound pretty fair, whereas the idea that making a few more bucks would incur a huge tax penalty didn’t.


@Quigley

No problem, i thought the same way until an accountant where i worked told me.
47   Hutch   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 30, 9:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says
I’m not sure interesting is the word I’d use.


Yes, i hear you had many comments thrown in jail. Some real classics i might add.

But i digress, @sniper how fair would it be if you made $1 more and your taxes go up by $500 effectively giving you a lower take home amount than the guy who made $1 less. The reality is that only the $1in the next bracket is taxed at the higher bracket rate. FYI
48   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 30, 10:45am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_94000 says


Infographic should really show the bum / deadbeat / derelict as being black.

« First    « Previous     Comments 9 - 48 of 48     Last »


Comment as anon_d667c or log in at top of page: