I agree; see # 91. NJ is in terrible shape; that is why Christie was elected (we’ve shed a lot of cops, teachers, and firemen since that glorious day).
The property taxes are horrible, but you have more control over them than sending THE SAME MONEY TO TRENTON. North Dakota isn’t voting to stop paying their cops and teachers; they are simply looking at paying them in a different manner (in which a lot of people can see their taxes go to other parts of the state as “pork”).
I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand. If NJ had a system like North Dakota is looking at, then Newark, Camden, and Paterson wouldn’t have been laying off cops (because they have more voters - not the same as taxpayers); the suburbs and rural areas would have lost those jobs instead (and still been paying for them).
I see you are not understanding. You seem to think that there are only two possibilities: either have the crap taxed out of you on property taxes, or have the same amount sent to your State capitol, and in either case, the “services” rendered to you are invariant.
The third option, of course, is to switch all “services” to user fees so that they are paid for by those whom use them. This is what is done in Singapore, and is why that nation is consistently ranked as best for economic freedom.