Topic Category: Economic Justice

Family Leave Expansion Would Advance Equity and Eliminate Fear of Retaliation for All of New Jersey’s Workers

Posted on by Peter Chen

Every worker in New Jersey deserves the right to take paid family leave to bond with a new child or care for a loved one. No worker should fear losing their job to care for their ill parent, or spend precious weeks with a newborn. Certainly something as arbitrary as the size of their employer should not dictate whether they can take family leave without fear of discipline or termination.

As NJPP’s June 2023 report More Than One in Five New Jersey Workers Can Still Be Fired for Taking Paid Family Leave noted, over 800,000 workers in New Jersey can be fired for taking family leave. This should never be the case.

A-5611 takes a step towards protecting this right, but the proposed amendment to the bill still leaves businesses with fewer than 5 employees unprotected – nearly 200,000 workers or 5 percent of the total workforce.

Additionally, the Family Leave Act still has gaps for coverage for workers with less than 1,000 hours worked in the last 12 months or workers who have worked for their employer for less than one year. Roughly 400,000 New Jersey workers — or 10 percent of the workforce — worked fewer than 1,000 hours and therefore did not get job protection. Workers with fewer hours nonetheless need job protection to take time to care for their loved ones.

One recent federal proposal, the Job Protection Act, would eliminate the hours requirement and reduce the tenure requirement to 90 days for the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

Job protection alone also does not solve the many remaining gaps in coverage in the paid family leave insurance program (FLI). The comprehensive A-5703 addresses many of these concerns in one package that should move alongside A-5611 to ensure that all workers who have an ill loved one or new child to bond with have access to paid time off of work.

Without adequate job protection for all workers and other program improvements detailed in A-5703, family leave runs the risk of becoming a luxury product for higher-income workers, rather than a benefit that all workers can use. Every worker in New Jersey should be able to take family leave without fear of economic penalties.

Workers and Advocates Tell Lawmakers: Do Not Cut a $1 Billion Check to Amazon and Walmart

Posted on by NJPP Staff

With the end of the legislative session approaching, more than 100 workers, policy experts, and advocates from For The Many NJ rallied outside the State House to tell lawmakers: Do not cut a $1 billion check to the world’s most profitable businesses!

As state tax collections continue to come in lower than projected, members of the coalition warned that not renewing the Corporate Business Tax surcharge would threaten essential public services, programs, and infrastructure that everyday New Jerseyans rely on.

“We cannot give the largest corporations in the world a $1 billion tax cut on the backs of working people across New Jersey,” said Antoinette Miles, Interim Director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance. “We need this revenue to fund our communities, our schools, our infrastructure, and our environment. The writing is on the wall with the fiscal cliffs on the horizon, and we have a solution right here. Lawmakers need to stop this tax cut and have these big corporations pay what they owe.”

Eliminating the corporate surcharge, a 2.5 percent tax paid only by corporations with annual profits over $1 million, would cost the state $1 billion every year. Governor Murphy said he would allow the tax to expire at the end of the year in his budget address, stating “A deal is a deal.” The state’s financial outlook has dramatically shifted since then, however, as the state is now operating at a structural deficit.

“We’ve heard a lot about a deal being a deal, but why is a deal with big out of state corporations the one that counts?” asked Peter Chen, Senior Policy Analyst at NJPP. “What about the deal to New Jersey’s commuters and students who ride buses and trains to get to work and school? Instead of honoring a deal to fix NJ Transit, we’re writing a check to Amazon and Wells Fargo instead. These are not small businesses or mom-and-pops or pizzerias paying this tax, it’s the world’s largest corporations.”

A report released earlier this year by New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) found that only the most profitable 2 percent of businesses operating in New Jersey — including out of state companies like Amazon and Walmart — pay the surcharge, while 98 percent of businesses do not pay it. The report also found that more than 70 percent of the tax cut would go to companies with more than $10 million in annual profits.

“Public employees saw the damage caused during the Christie era when the state failed to raise revenues to pay for health care, education, and infrastructure,” said Dennis Trainor, CWA District 1 Vice President. “At a time when the state needs to strengthen its investments and ensure vital services to the public and continue to fully fund the pension, our lawmakers should not be robbing the state of $1 billion to hand to the likes of Amazon and Walmart.”

Earlier this month, Senate President Nick Scutari (D-Union) said he was considering maintaining the surcharge to fully fund NJ Transit, which is facing a looming $1 billion budget shortfall. Millions of residents risk losing bus and train service they rely on if the agency’’s budget is balanced through cuts.

“​​New Jersey Transit is facing a massive deficit, and that means fare hikes and service cuts for me and hundreds of thousands of working-class New Jerseyans who use transit to get to work,” said Margarita Rodriguez, Passaic resident and member of Make the Road New Jersey. “But instead of standing up for working families, Governor Murphy, Assembly Budget Chair Eliana Pintor Marin, and Senate Budget Chair Paul Sarlo will give a billion-dollar tax break to mega-wealthy corporations like Amazon, a well-known violator of workers’ rights. Which side are you on? Do you stand with New Jersey workers and students, who need a functioning public transit system, or billionaire corporations? Don’t let NJ Transit crumble. Listen to your constituents and keep the Corporate Business Tax Surcharge. It is time Amazon pays its fair share.”

Members of the coalition also pointed to other programs and services that are underfunded or at risk of being cut, from affordable housing to environmental protection. Six percent of the corporate business tax is dedicated to environmental purposes, for example, funding open space preservation and the upkeep of city parks, farmland, and historic sites.

“Corporate business tax funding is vital to maintaining open space, which is important for outdoor recreation and is also an economic boon. Outdoor recreation in New Jersey was valued at $20.3 billion in 2021 alone,” said Ed Potosnak, Executive Director, New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. “This money should continue to be invested in open spaces, which brings environmental and economic benefits for the entire state. We’re asking Governor Murphy and the New Jersey Legislature to continue our state’s long legacy of support and funding for land preservation and open space by not letting the surcharge expire. The expiration of the surcharge on the 2 percent wealthiest corporations would mean the loss of $480 million in critical open space funding over just 10 years and will do irreparable harm to our beautiful state.”

“We have a lot of talents in New Jersey, and one of them is being able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Matthew Hersh, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey. “We should not have to consider abandoning an immensely important revenue stream at the risk of losing tools that help all New Jerseyans. We’ve seen the effects of austere budgeting and what it looks like when state agencies are not properly funded. We know that fewer resources in housing means fewer affordable homes.”

With a $1 billion novelty check in hand, the coalition called on the Legislature and Governor Murphy to extend the surcharge permanently, and invest those funds in services and programs that working families rely on.

“Since the corporate surcharge was enacted, corporations like Amazon continue to enjoy record-breaking profits every year,” said Liz Glynn, New Jersey Citizen Action Director of Organizing. “But New Jersey working families have struggled to meet essential needs, and these needs continue to grow. The revenue received from the surcharge has helped meet the growing infrastructure and service needs of low-and moderate-income families across our state. Now is not the time to sunset the surcharge. We urge Governor Murphy and our State Legislature to extend the surcharge and help ensure everyday New Jerseyans can prosper during these difficult times.”

Watch a recording of the event here.

# # #

For The Many is a statewide coalition of more than 30 organizations working to expand funding for essential services and improve budget practices to meet current and future needs, especially for communities that have been historically left behind.

StayNJ 2.0: Senior Tax Cut Still 2 Regressive and 2 Expensive

Posted on by Peter Chen

The latest draft of StayNJ, a proposal to credit home-owning seniors for up to half of their property tax bills, would still direct the largest benefits to wealthy households while providing much less to lower-income homeowners and renters. Despite amendments that lower the maximum tax credit and add a much-needed income cap on eligibility, the new proposal still ties the total benefit to property taxes paid, resulting in the biggest tax cuts going to people with high incomes who own the most valuable homes.

As written, the proposal would make New Jersey’s tax code more regressive and worsen the racial wealth gap. It would also come at an enormous cost to the state, with a total price tag of $2.2 billion at a time when the state can ill afford it.

1. Still Regressive

The new StayNJ proposal, a compromise between Governor Murphy and legislative leaders, has been modified to include an income cap of $500,000 and a lower maximum benefit of $6,500. These changes fail to address the fundamental flaw at the heart of StayNJ: By tying benefit amounts to total property tax bills, the program directs larger payments to owners of larger, higher-valued homes. Further, an income cap of $500,000 still includes many high-income seniors with substantial wealth and economic advantages. To put this new income cap in perspective, it is double that of the state’s ANCHOR property tax rebate, which phases out at $250,000 in annual income.

The majority of StayNJ benefits would still go to the top 40 percent of households, leaving lower-income seniors with much less. In total, 28 percent of benefits would go to the top 20 percent of households, while those in the bottom 20 percent would receive only 7 percent of the benefits. As long as the program continues to disproportionately benefit homeowners at the expense of renters, and direct bigger benefits to those with more valuable homes, it will continue to reward the rich at the expense of the rest of the population.

Even with an additional $250 payment for seniors who rent included in the proposal, renters would still receive thousands less than their wealthier home-owning peers. The average benefit for seniors in the top 5 percent (with incomes of at least $360,000) would be $4,508, while seniors in the bottom 20 percent (with incomes less than $26,000) would receive an average benefit of $369. Because renters are disproportionately nonwhite and have lower incomes on average, the new StayNJ program would still widen the racial wealth gap.

2. Still Expensive

Based on modeling of income and homeowner data, NJPP estimates the program’s cost at $1.9 billion for the homeowner component alone, with another $300 million in ANCHOR payments for a total cost of $2.2 billion per year. With declining tax collections, federal pandemic aid set to expire, and no revenue source to pay for StayNJ, this proposal will make it extremely difficult for lawmakers to balance the state budget in future years.

Good Intentions, Poor Execution

The new StayNJ proposal remains too regressive and too expensive, directing the biggest benefits to already-wealthy households. Whatever its good intentions, StayNJ will put more in the pockets of those who need it least, while doing little to support the low-income seniors most at risk of losing their homes.

Film Tax Credit Expansion is a Bad Investment for New Jersey

Posted on by Peter Chen

On Tuesday, the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee advanced an overhaul of New Jersey’s film and television corporate subsidy program (S3748), increasing the annual maximum tax credits by at least $200 million and watering down the existing program’s accountability provisions. The bill was voted out of committee despite the lack of fiscal note or any indication of the overall cost of the program. In response to the bill advancing through committee and the bill text finally available to the public, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Peter Chen, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“Handing union-busting Hollywood studios hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies is a bad investment for New Jersey. Study after study shows that the cost of film tax credits overwhelmingly exceeds the benefits, as the jobs created are temporary and often go to specialists from out-of-state. At a time when New Jersey is facing upcoming budget shortfalls, cutting a check to movie and television companies will enrich high paid executives and corporate shareholders at everyone else’s expense. And by watering down accountability measures, lawmakers risk turning a bad investment into an even worse one if the proposed jobs and spending never materialize.

“New Jersey’s budget should prioritize public investments that we all rely on and benefit from, rather than lining the pockets of big businesses.”

More Than One in Five New Jersey Workers Can Still Be Fired for Taking Paid Family Leave

Posted on by Peter Chen

With its strong paid family leave program, New Jersey is close to being the best state to raise a family. Yet, more than one in five workers can’t take time off to care for a loved one or bond with a new child without the risk of losing their jobs due to a legal loophole in New Jersey’s family leave laws. Left unaddressed, this loophole will continue to undermine the state’s paid family leave program by deterring workers from taking paid leave that they’re entitled to.

In total, 840,000 workers across the state lack job protection if they take leave, even if they qualify for paid family leave benefits, all because they work for a business with fewer than 30 employees. For the state’s family leave program to work as intended, job protection must go hand in hand with paid leave for all New Jersey workers.

The Family Leave Loophole

How could so many workers who qualify for paid family leave not have job protections for taking leave? After all, almost all New Jersey workers pay into the state’s Family Leave Insurance program, with roughly  3.7 million New Jersey workers covered.[1]

The problem is that job protection is covered by a different law from paid leave, and they each have their own eligibility criteria. Job protection for taking leave is part of the New Jersey Family Leave Act, which only applies to employers with 30 or more employees.[2] And there are additional qualifications for coverage under this law — such as number of hours worked and duration of employment — that exclude even more workers.[3]

The arbitrary 30-employee threshold means that a majority of New Jersey businesses are exempt from providing job protection entirely. Businesses with fewer than 30 employees make up nearly 90 percent of all New Jersey businesses.

The promise of paid leave is empty if not accompanied by strong job protection for the person taking leave. According to a recent study by Rutgers University, fear of job loss is a top reason workers do not take their paid family leave, even when eligible for benefits.[5] The solution is simple: Add job protection to the paid family leave program, so everyone who needs to take paid leave can take it without fear of being fired.

All workers deserve the opportunity to bond with their children or care for their disabled, sick, or aging loved ones without fear of termination, demotion, or retaliation.[6] It’s time for state lawmakers to stand with workers and close this loophole.

End Notes

[1] New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Office of Research and Information, Family Leave Insurance and Temporary Disability Insurance, Combined Annual Activity Report 2021 (2022), p. 3. https://nj.gov/labor/myleavebenefits/assets/pdfs/Annual%20FLI%20TDI%20Report%20for%202021.pdf

[2] N.J. Stat. Sec. 34:11B-3f.(4). https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-34-labor-and-workmens-compensation/chapter-3411b/section-3411b-3-definitions

[3] N.J. Stat. Sec. 34:11B-3e. https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-34-labor-and-workmens-compensation/chapter-3411b/section-3411b-3-definitions. A recent estimate is that roughly 28 percent of people ineligible for family leave job protection.were ineligible because they worked fewer than 1,000 hours in the prior 12 months. Rutgers Center for Women and Work, Fact Sheet: NJFLA Coverage Gaps:Who has job protection under NJFLA (and who is left behind)? (April 2022) https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Centers/CWW/NJFLA%20Coverage%20Gaps%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

[4] For more information on the base year calculation, which refers to the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters before a claim is filed, please see the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Glossary of Terms, Base Year (retrieved October 31, 2022), https://nj.gov/labor/myleavebenefits/help/glossary/index.shtml#BaseYear.

[5] A majority of New Jersey employees stated that concerns about job loss (56%) or loss of seniority or advancement opportunity (54%) would be a major or minor reason that they did not use Family Leave Insurance. Sean Simone et al., Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law and Family Leave Insurance Program: Measuring the Awareness and Opinions of New Jersey Workers, October 2020 to October 2021 (2022), p. 6. https://heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/New_Jersey%E2%80%99s_Earned_Sick_Leave_Law_and_Family_Leave%20Insurance_Program.pdf

[6] Kathleen Romig & Kathleen Bryant, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, A National Paid Leave Program Would Help Workers, Families, April 27, 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/a-national-paid-leave-program-would-help-workers-families

Corporate Tax Overhaul Makes it Easier to Hide Profits in Foreign Tax Havens

Posted on by Peter Chen

Later today, the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee will vote on S3737, a bill that would overhaul New Jersey’s corporate tax code and make it easier for multinational corporations to hide their profits in foreign tax havens. The bill’s amendments weaken it further, removing much-needed discretion by tax authorities to force corporations to disclose their tax-haven subsidiaries and include their profits in their tax filings. In anticipation of the bill advancing through committee, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Peter Chen, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“At a time of record-breaking corporate profits, this bill would make it much easier for big, multinational corporations to hide their profits abroad or in complex tax avoidance schemes. The proposal was bad enough when it was first introduced, but new amendments will water down the corporate tax code even further and cost the state even more revenue.

“As many corporate lobbyists have publicly stated, this overhaul of the tax code was drafted with extensive input from corporations and their tax law firms and accountants. But one group was missing from these discussions: the people of New Jersey whose schools, transit infrastructure, and public services will lose out if corporations avoid paying their fair share in taxes. This bill, combined with the planned $1 billion corporate tax cut, would further tilt the tax code to favor special interests at the expense of New Jersey residents and the public programs and investments we all rely on.”

Read NJPP’s analysis of the bill here.

Read a national tax expert’s opposition to the bill here.

# # #

Stay Away from StayNJ: Proposal Cuts Taxes for the Rich, Leaves Low-Income Seniors Behind

Posted on by Peter Chen

Housing affordability is one of the most pressing challenges facing New Jersey, but not all policies aimed at making the state affordable are equally effective, efficient, or equitable. When evaluating new proposals and changes to the tax code, it’s critical to consider who stands to benefit, by how much, and who is left behind. In other words, “Affordable for who?”

The newly proposed property tax cut for seniors, StayNJ, has a laudable goal of helping seniors who are struggling with high costs stay in their homes. However, by the program’s very design, StayNJ would accomplish the exact opposite by providing huge tax cuts to the wealthiest homeowners in the largest homes, while providing little-to-no benefit to the lowest income homeowners and renters.

With no income cap on eligibility, higher tax cuts for more expensive homes, and no credit for renters, the StayNJ proposal represents a massive transfer of wealth and state resources to those who already have the most. As currently written, the proposal diverts billions of dollars away from much-needed investments in schools, transit, health care, and infrastructure we all rely on just as federal pandemic aid expires and state revenue collections decline.

Despite its name, A1 is decidedly second-rate when it comes to helping make New Jersey affordable for all.

1. StayNJ is Robin Hood in Reverse: Wealthy Residents Would Benefit the Most

The proposed tax cuts from StayNJ would benefit the wealthiest New Jersey residents the most and the lowest-income residents the least. According to an NJPP analysis of modeling from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the top 1 percent of New Jersey residents would receive the an average tax cut of $2,688, while the lowest-income 20 percent would receive a mere $103, largely due to the high percentage of low-income residents who rent.[1] Among those who would receive a tax cut from StayNJ, the average cut for those in the top 1 percent is roughly three times the average tax cut for those in the bottom 40 percent.

When looking at the total cost of the proposal — $2.2 billion, according to ITEP’s modeling — roughly 40 percent would go to the wealthiest 20 percent of residents, while only 5 percent would go to the lowest-income 20 percent of residents. The top 1 percent of residents alone would get a bigger share of the benefits than the entire lowest-income 20 percent.

Considering the structure of StayNJ, it’s not surprising that the proposal disproportionately benefits those with the highest incomes.

In order to get the maximum tax cut of $10,000, a homeowner must pay $20,000 in property taxes, a rare occurrence reserved for the highest-valued homes. For reference, the average property tax bill in New Jersey is less than half that amount.[2]

As a result, the average homeowner in Alpine (average home value of $2.8 million) would receive $10,000. Meanwhile, the average homeowner in Trenton (average home value of $62,863) would receive $1,700.[3]

It’s worth noting that this analysis does not account for the residents who already receive property tax credits through ANCHOR and the Senior Freeze — which each have income limits on eligibility — meaning fewer low- and middle-income seniors would receive benefits under StayNJ. As written, the StayNJ benefit is half off a senior’s property tax bill, or their Senior Freeze and ANCHOR benefits combined, whichever is more.[4]

Add it all up and the lion’s share of the StayNJ benefit would go to the wealthy, with bigger benefits the wealthier the taxpayer. This undermines the state’s progressive tax code and the principle that government benefits should flow towards those with the least, not those with the most.

2. StayNJ Fails to Accomplish Its Stated Goal by Leaving Renters and Low-Income Seniors Behind

Seniors on fixed incomes often have a difficult time keeping up with rising costs, and there is evidence that New Jersey’s low-income seniors need additional financial help. The poverty rate for seniors in New Jersey (9.2 percent) is actually higher than the poverty rate for other adults (9.1 percent).[5]

The StayNJ proposal leaves many of these low-income seniors behind, however, as the program excludes renters entirely. Renters have significantly less wealth and lower incomes than their home-owning peers. Renters also make up a substantial percentage of New Jersey’s senior population: Roughly one in five New Jersey seniors rent their homes, including more than half of Hispanic/Latinx and Black seniors.[6] Given the disparities in homeownership, this proposal will widen the racial wealth gap instead of helping close it. As noted in the appendix, senior renters number in the thousands in each legislative district.

With lower incomes, less wealth, and no equity in their home, seniors who rent are at high risk of being priced out and evicted.[7] This is illustrated by recent Census survey data showing that one in five New Jersey senior renters reported missing the last month’s rental payment.[8]

The concentration of homeownership in wealthier income brackets is clear when looking at how many people in each income range would qualify for StayNJ. Of those in the top one percent of earners in New Jersey, 40 percent would receive a tax cut from StayNJ, while a mere 5 percent of those in the lowest-income quintile would receive anything.

Beyond the exclusion of renters, this program may actually make senior housing affordability more challenging. Research shows property tax cuts for wealthy homeowners can stifle housing development and growth, stagnating the housing market and decreasing affordability, as Proposition 13 did in California.[9]

Instead of a tax cut targeted to wealthy homeowners, state lawmakers have other avenues to help reduce senior poverty: expanding outreach for enrollment in food assistance programs like SNAP, reducing health care and prescription drug costs, and increased funding for rent assistance,[10] foreclosure assistance, and housing counseling.

Using the tax code to assist seniors with high costs can only be successful if the changes are targeted to help those who need it most. StayNJ fails to do so.

3. StayNJ Threatens New Jersey’s Fiscal Health

During the Murphy administration, state lawmakers have made great progress towards fixing New Jersey’s financial health after years of mismanagement and not paying the bills. Thanks to a series of full pension payments, increased taxes for millionaires and the most profitable corporations, and strong investments in key factors that promote economic growth like public schools and infrastructure, the state finds itself on solid fiscal footing for the first time in decades.[11]

But StayNJ would jeopardize this progress by pouring billions of dollars into the hands of those who need it least, all without a revenue source to pay for it. To put the sheer size of StayNJ in perspective, its $1.2 billion sticker price is roughly equivalent to the entire budget for the state Department of Health.[12] The bill also lacks funding for administrative costs associated with the new program at the local or state level, which could balloon the cost even further. The $1.2 billion fiscal note for StayNJ may also be an undercount: The Murphy administration estimates that the annual cost is closer to $2 billion, and NJPP’s analysis indicates a cost of $2.2 billion for the state, though we were unable to model the impact of ANCHOR given the lack of public data on who has received tax credits through the new program thus far.

This expensive proposal takes place against a backdrop of reduced revenues and tax cuts for billion-dollar corporations. The Treasury forecast already anticipates $2 billion less in revenue collections over Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024.[13] And those forecasts do not include $1 billion in annual revenue that will be lost if lawmakers cut the corporate tax rate at the end of the calendar year, as they are poised to do.[14] Even a small economic downturn could wipe out the already-tenuous state surplus and make it difficult for lawmakers to balance future budgets without severe cuts to other programs and services.

There are More Efficient and Effective Ways to Help Seniors Stay in New Jersey

When designing policies to make the state more affordable for seniors, lawmakers should target support to the residents who need the most help. Instead, StayNJ would do the opposite by targeting benefits to New Jersey’s wealthiest households while leaving many low-income seniors behind entirely. The program’s poor design, coupled with its billion-dollar price tag and lack of a funding source, should have lawmakers looking for other ways to help seniors stay in New Jersey.

Appendix: Senior Renters by Legislative District

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Demographic and Housing Characteristics Table H13

End Notes

[1] NJPP analysis of Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy modeling. Data on file with author.

[2] NJ Dep’t of Community Affairs, 2022 Property Tax Information (2023), https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_docs/22_data/22taxes.xls

[3] NJ Dep’t of Community Affairs, 2022 Property Tax Information (2023), https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_docs/22_data/22taxes.xls

[4] Derek Hall, N.J. senior tax relief bill fueling sudden drama and talk of state shutdown. Here’s what’s in it., NJ.com, May 28, 2023, https://www.nj.com/politics/2023/05/nj-senior-tax-relief-bill-fueling-sudden-drama-and-talk-of-state-shutdown-heres-whats-in-it.html

[5] Kaiser Family Foundation, Poverty Rate by Age, 2021, https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%2265%2B%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D.

[6] U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Demographic and Housing Characteristics: H13B (Black), H13D (Asian), H13H (White Non-Hispanic), H13I (Hispanic/Latino).

[7] Annie Nova, He’s 75 and facing eviction. Many other older renters are, too. CNBC.com, June 22, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/millions-of-renters-may-soon-be-evicted-heres-one-familys-story-.html

[8] U.S. Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey Week 57 (April 26 – May 8, 2023), Housing Table 1b, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/hhp/2023/wk57/housing1b_week57.xlsx

[9] İmrohoroğlu, Ayşe, Kyle Matoba, and Şelale Tüzel. 2018. “Proposition 13: An Equilibrium Analysis.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 10 (2): 24-51. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20160327

[10] Will Fischer, Douglas Rice & Alicia Mazzara, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Research Shows Rental Assistance Reduces Hardship and Provides Platform to Expand Opportunity for Low-Income Families, Dec. 5, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/research-shows-rental-assistance-reduces-hardship-and-provides-platform-to-expand.

[11] Christian Wade, New Jersey receives ratings upgrade over ‘solid’ recovery, The Center Square, Apr. 7, 2023,  https://www.thecentersquare.com/new_jersey/article_8f8ef360-d550-11ed-b2e5-4b80b8a6a8b7.html

[12] State of New Jersey, Budget in Brief: Summary of Budget Recommendations, Fiscal Year 2024, https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/24bib/BIB.pdf at p. 70.

[13] Derek Hall, N.J. tax revenues plummet billions below Murphy budget estimate. Are the good times over?, NJ.com, May. 18, 2023, https://www.nj.com/politics/2023/05/nj-tax-revenues-plummet-billions-below-murphy-budget-estimate-are-the-good-times-over.html

[14] State of New Jersey, Budget in Brief: Summary of Budget Recommendations, Fiscal Year 2024, https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/24bib/BIB.pdf at p. 65.

Senior Tax Credit Proposal Falls Short of Helping Seniors With the Lowest Incomes

Posted on by Peter Chen

On Friday, new details of Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin’s senior tax credit program were released to the public. The proposal would create a new program, StayNJ, that would provide a tax credit worth 50 percent of a senior’s property tax bill, with credits capped at $10,000. Because the proposal would provide maximum benefits to those with property tax bills of $20,000 and up, and does not include an income limit on eligibility, the program would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest seniors in the state who own the highest-valued homes. In response to the newly released bill text, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) released the following statement.

Peter Chen, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“Lawmakers should be doing everything they can to help seniors keep up with rising costs, but this proposal would fall short by directing the biggest tax cuts to the wealthiest households while many low-income seniors would get nothing. With no income cap on eligibility, higher tax credits for more expensive homes, and no assistance for renters, it’s clear who this program would benefit and who it would leave behind. The program also comes at an enormous cost to the state, just as revenue collections are coming in lower than expected, putting funding for existing public programs and services that seniors rely on at risk.

“Making New Jersey more affordable for seniors is a noble goal, but we’re not going to get there by giving the likes of Bruce Springsteen and Phil Murphy a $10,000 check. There are more effective and efficient ways to target relief to the seniors who are struggling the most with high housing costs, grocery bills, and prescription drug prices.”

The StayNJ proposal would benefit wealthy homeowners the most, leave renters behind, and widen the racial wealth gap:

  • Homeowners with property tax bills in excess of $20,000 would receive the maximum StayNJ credit while lower-income residents would receive less due to their smaller homes and lower property tax bills.
  • Only thirteen municipalities in New Jersey — including Alpine, Millburn, Rumson, and Princeton — have an average property tax bill that would qualify for the full StayNJ credit. These towns have average property values of over $1 million and are home to celebrities, professional athletes, and business and finance executives.
  • One in four seniors aged 65 and over — roughly 230,000 New Jersey residents — rent their homes and would be left out of the proposal, including more than half of Black and Hispanic/Latinx seniors in the state.
  • Homeowners over age 65 in New Jersey are disproportionately white. More than 80 percent of white seniors are homeowners, compared to 41 percent of Hispanic/Latinx seniors and 49 percent of Black seniors.
# # #

Rutgers Faculty Deserve to be Respected and Fairly Compensated

Posted on by Nicole Rodriguez

Earlier today, more than 9,000 Rutgers University faculty and graduate student workers went on strike across the university’s three campuses. Rutgers faculty have been without a contract for 284 days. In response to the strike, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) released the following statement.

Nicole Rodriguez, President, NJPP:

“We stand in solidarity with the Rutgers grads and faculty on strike across the state. These workers are the backbone of the university and have dedicated their lives to educating and inspiring the next generation of leaders. They deserve to be recognized, respected, and fairly compensated for their contributions to the university and the state. In New Jersey, there is no place for a higher education model that underpays faculty, reduces tenured positions, and does not guarantee job security.”

###

Assemblywoman Reynolds-Jackson Introduces Child Tax Credit Expansion Bill

Posted on by NJPP Staff

Today, Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson (D-Trenton) introduced legislation to expand and improve the New Jersey Child Tax Credit (CTC) to further reduce child poverty and support working families facing rising costs.

The proposal, A-5214, would increase the tax credit over two years for children under 6 years old — doubling the maximum credit from $500 to $1,000 — and expand eligibility for the program to include children age 6 through 11. The expansions would build on a policy with a proven track record of success at both the federal and state levels in directly assisting families.

“Our children are our future, and we must do everything we can to support them,” said Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson (D-Trenton), sponsor of the Child Tax Credit expansion bill. “The Child Tax Credit recognizes the high costs of raising kids, especially now as families face rising prices for groceries, housing, clothing, and other basic needs. This bill would provide much-needed relief for families by expanding the Child Tax Credit with larger benefits and so more children qualify. When families have the resources they need, it sets their kids up for success now and later in life.”

The expansion is similar to one proposed in a recent report by New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), which found that an estimated 441,000 families across New Jersey would benefit from the expanded tax credit, including 713,000 children in households receiving the tax credit.

“Expanding the Child Tax Credit is a smart investment in the state’s future,” said Louis Di Paolo, Communications Director at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). “This proposal helps kids, targets relief to families who need it most, and will have both immediate and long-term benefits for the families who receive it and the broader economy. Policies like this are how we make New Jersey affordable for families struggling to keep up with rising costs.”

The expanded tax credit would be available to New Jersey families with annual incomes up to $80,000. After two years, the tax credit would break down as follows:

  • Households with an income of $30,000 or less will receive a tax credit of $1,000 for each child under 6, and $600 for each child age 6 through 11.
  • Households with an income of $30,000 to $40,000 will receive a tax credit of $800 for each child under 6, and $500 for each child age 6 through 11.
  • Households with an income of $40,000 to $50,000 will receive a tax credit of $600 for each child under 6, and $400 for each child age 6 through 11.
  • Households with an income of $50,000 to $60,000 will receive a tax credit of $500 for each child under 6, and $300 for each child age 6 through 11.
  • Households with an income of $60,000 to $80,000 will receive a tax credit of $300 for each child under 6, and $200 for each child age 6 through 11.

The original New Jersey CTC, also sponsored by Asw. Reynolds-Jackson, passed in June 2022 by a 31-6 vote in the Senate and 72-2 vote in the Assembly. Families with children under six years old started receiving their CTC payments earlier this year at the start of tax season.

# # #

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»