Austin tax burden up 25% in seven years

[ericsami]

Originally Posted by pjoseph2

Do you mean, as in forever?

How about some responsible spending instead? As in living under one's means, very little borrowing and so on?

I am not public policy or a financing expert. but being an engineer and having read the report of American Society of Civil Engineers I can see that Austin is not exactly an exception.

There is not a day that goes by that an old pipe in the city does not burst. The Transportation Grid has systemic issues. the list just goes down the road..

The city either has to fix these issues. or it can kiss growth good bye.

and when you have a country that it's population growth is 2.5% no growth essentially means the beginning of the end.

so as for your question. I am not exactly a fan of bloomberg. but I like one of his approaches to budgeting.
First figure out what you want to do in Taxing Authority.
See how much it costs.
See if you can raise that revenue without hampering growth.
if not then see what can be deferred.

The issue occurs when you decide what needs to be deferred.

Originally Posted by pjoseph2

Something about future generations?

I think we World citizens have pretty much established with out past 100 years of history that we don't give a darn about future generations. Why else would be completely empty the earth of very finite resources.

Originally Posted by pjoseph2

And yes, interest rates are at generational lows. How will that affect housing (new borrowing) and in turn tax payments. Ben Bernanke must be giddy that his plan is working thus far.

I am not exactly clear on what you meant here.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by ericsami

I am not public policy or a financing expert. but being an engineer and having read the report of American Society of Civil Engineers I can see that Austin is not exactly an exception.

There is not a day that goes by that an old pipe in the city does not burst. The Transportation Grid has systemic issues. the list just goes down the road..

If you think Austin's ever increasing taxes are a result of infrastructure spending, then you might spend some time digging into the city budget.

Focusing on infrastructure costs sounds a little like the Washington Monument strategy. Understand as an engineer, that is a logical place for you to start. But it isn't the source of Austin's "problem".

[Ultrarunner]

The big draws for those I know that moved to Austin with lower cost of living and jobs...

Seems the lower cost of living is eroding as the region becomes even more desirable to those with means...

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by scm53

Since it compounds, 3 %/yr is actually more like up 33% in 8 years. 3%/yr would be 100% in 24.

3% per year was almost always very close to the annual inflation rate for decades prior to the last recession. It was so consistent that we started using it as the standard when developing budgets for future construction projects that often take 3-4 years from start to finish.

With that inflation rate in mind, the Austin tax burden going up 25% in seven years did not strike me as unusually high, especially considering the rate at which the City has been growing.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

3% per year was almost always very close to the annual inflation rate for decades prior to the last recession. It was so consistent that we started using it as the standard when developing budgets for future construction projects that often take 3-4 years from start to finish.

With that inflation rate in mind, the Austin tax burden going up 25% in seven years did not strike me as unusually high, especially considering the rate at which the City has been growing.

Apples to oranges. The 25% increase was in the property tax as a percentage of median income, which already reflected inflation increases. An increase on an increase. If the percentage remained level, the absolute amount - the yield - would still increase every year.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by scm53

Apples to oranges. The 25% increase was in the property tax as a percentage of median income, which already reflected inflation increases. An increase on an increase. If the percentage remained level, the absolute amount - the yield - would still increase every year.

I seriously doubt that median income increased 3% per year over the last seven years.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I seriously doubt that median income increased 3% per year over the last seven years.

Never said that it did. In fact, it only exceeded 3% in one of the last seven (4.28% in 2008), only to fall back to 0.03% - essentially zero - the following year.