Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being fiscally conservative is actually beneficial to a city because lower taxes and a lower cost of living make it more business friendly. I sure wouldn't want Phoenix to be one of the more liberal cities. Observe the list of the most liberal cities in the U.S., and what they represent:
1. San Francisco: culturally enriched but highly expensive to do anything there. The median price for a home is over $1 million, and most of them aren't mansions by any means.
2. Washington, DC: long known as America's murder capital, and not exactly inexpensive to live there either.
3. Seattle: a nice city but very expensive (and very gloomy during much of the year).
4. Oakland: the arm pit of the Bay Area. I never felt very safe there, and for good reason. It's one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S.
5. Boston: lots of culture and history, but very expensive. Winters aren't exactly anything to brag about.
6. Minneapolis: probably one of the better cities on the list, admittedly.
7. Detroit: Ugh! This place has become a crime ridden ghetto, and ranked as THE most dangerous city in the U.S. If that isn't bad enough, the city filed for bankruptcy just three years ago.
8. New York: Expensive as hell! Need I say more?
9. Buffalo: Stagnant rust belt town with not much happening. Cold, snowy, and depressing.
10. Baltimore: Another crime infested city that is among the most dangerous in the U.S.
What do these cities have to do with Phoenix raising taxes? And why does that city's weather have ANY relevance to this conversation whatsoever?
Phoenix needs to improve upon a LOT of things. That takes money. The private sector won't improve transportation, water infrastructure, park services, ANYTHING that a growing city -really- needs.
That, and all of the cities you mentioned with problems - those problems have nothing to do with Taxes. Detroit's situation? Yeah.. not tax related. You can blame job outsourcing and a city failing to diversify its jobs base. How do you do that? Build infrastructure. Set yourself up right. That takes taxes.
I want my account deleted. The amount of stupidity on the forum these last few months.. I can't even stomach it.
What do these cities have to do with Phoenix raising taxes? And why does that city's weather have ANY relevance to this conversation whatsoever?
Phoenix needs to improve upon a LOT of things. That takes money. The private sector won't improve transportation, water infrastructure, park services, ANYTHING that a growing city -really- needs.
That, and all of the cities you mentioned with problems - those problems have nothing to do with Taxes. Detroit's situation? Yeah.. not tax related. You can blame job outsourcing and a city failing to diversify its jobs base. How do you do that? Build infrastructure. Set yourself up right. That takes taxes.
I want my account deleted. The amount of stupidity on the forum these last few months.. I can't even stomach it.
I didn't see anything in the article about "improving infrastructure" with a tax increase. I saw cops, libraries & senior centers - I also saw something about pension underfunding.
As for Detroit's problems not being related to property taxes, that's just not true, and I can speak from experience - going from $4500+ a year in property taxes in the detroit metro to $1500 a year here, it makes a difference. The city services, schools, roads & "infrastructure" weren't $250 per month "better" there, in most cases they were worse.
I like a city with a healthy property tax base. A city can never can have enough commercial property, high-rise residential where a single building can bring in a million or more in tax revenue or neighborhoods with high valuations.
I don't really care for school property taxes as you can see progress as you can with infrastructure. Just imagine how nice most cities would be if 2/3rds of the property taxes were going to infrastructure or beautification projects as opposed to public schools who will turn of a return on investments for decades or not at all.
I was just in Sarasota for 2 months which has a very healthy property tax base with it's mansions in St. Armands, dozens of 10-15 story condo towers downtown and healthy commercial property tax base. Sarasota also doesn't really have neighborhoods to drag down the property tax base.
Denver and Salt Lake City are good examples of cities that have a really good property tax base from commercial and property taxes. They have lots of wealthy neighborhoods in their city limits and they don't really have the neighborhoods dragging them down like Phoenix, St. Louis, Detroit etc.
The poorest neighborhoods in Denver have comperable home values to Chandler or Gilbert and it only goes up from there.
I like a city with a healthy property tax base. A city can never can have enough commercial property, high-rise residential where a single building can bring in a million or more in tax revenue or neighborhoods with high valuations.
I don't really care for school property taxes as you can see progress as you can with infrastructure. Just imagine how nice most cities would be if 2/3rds of the property taxes were going to infrastructure or beautification projects as opposed to public schools who will turn of a return on investments for decades or not at all.
I was just in Sarasota for 2 months which has a very healthy property tax base with it's mansions in St. Armands, dozens of 10-15 story condo towers downtown and healthy commercial property tax base. Sarasota also doesn't really have neighborhoods to drag down the property tax base.
Denver and Salt Lake City are good examples of cities that have a really good property tax base from commercial and property taxes. They have lots of wealthy neighborhoods in their city limits and they don't really have the neighborhoods dragging them down like Phoenix, St. Louis, Detroit etc.
The poorest neighborhoods in Denver have comperable home values to Chandler or Gilbert and it only goes up from there.
You make some very good points. I completely agree with your dislike of paying property taxes for public schools. What bothers me the most about that is how nearly 70% of our property taxes goes toward education, and the public schools are substandard compared to most private schools. Plus, it's not exactly fair for the childless ones to pay for something which they don't use. I see it as another form of socialism, and another way for breeders to dump their kids in a free babysitting service for half a day.
We need to have some taxation for basic services like fire, police, etc., but raising property taxes to the level of a "healthy tax base" wouldn't necessarily create the utopian urban environments you described. I really believe private enterprise could do a better job at infrastructure improvement than the government can. We've seen too many examples of taxes being raised for one reason or another, and then they fall short on funds to fulfill what was originally promised.
You make some very good points. I completely agree with your dislike of paying property taxes for public schools. What bothers me the most about that is how nearly 70% of our property taxes goes toward education, and the public schools are substandard compared to most private schools. Plus, it's not exactly fair for the childless ones to pay for something which they don't use. I see it as another form of socialism, and another way for breeders to dump their kids in a free babysitting service for half a day.
We need to have some taxation for basic services like fire, police, etc., but raising property taxes to the level of a "healthy tax base" wouldn't necessarily create the utopian urban environments you described. I really believe private enterprise could do a better job at infrastructure improvement than the government can. We've seen too many examples of taxes being raised for one reason or another, and then they fall short on funds to fulfill what was originally promised.
In this era it's mainly poor and lower-middle class people who have children. I would say that is even more true in the West. Why do people want to give their hard-earned money for children who will be criminals or pregnant with their 3rd or 4th child in a decade or two anyway.
Teachers do not come cheap as they are paid about $60/hr instructional hour. Here in Arizona many of districts pay about $50/hr per instructional hour. They don't come cheap. There is no tangible return on this investment for decades and there might be none at all.
Many of the tax increases for schools don't even go to the classroom but instead to lavish pensions that private sector workers could only dream of.
Most private schools are better because while costing less they have parents that are invested in their children's education. I am all for vouchers but I think the parents need to cover part of the cost of education.
A healthy tax base like the one Sarasota is good because as a percentage of the housing value the taxes are lower. Low taxes are one of the reasons why not just Sarasota but Florida is booming.
Alot of the cities in the northeast that are crumbling charge 3% of the housing's value each and every year.
Who would want to fix up a house in Buffalo when they are going to pay double or triple the property taxes each year then if they kept the house a dump.
Being raised in Colorado Springs where the homes in my old neighborhood had property taxes of $700 a year, its hard to imagine that people in the Northeast put up $700 a month taxes on similar homes.
The people who want more funding for Arizona schools should write a check to their local school district, rather then trying to force their spending agenda on others.
Now that Valley Native and lovecrowds have found each other, this thread is officially an echo chamber.
CodyW is right, so much negativity lately on the board. People need to try to find some things to be happy about in life. Does the internet really have to be this cesspool of despair for everyone?
In this era it's mainly poor and lower-middle class people who have children. I would say that is even more true in the West. Why do people want to give their hard-earned money for children who will be criminals or pregnant with their 3rd or 4th child in a decade or two anyway.
Teachers do not come cheap as they are paid about $60/hr instructional hour. Here in Arizona many of districts pay about $50/hr per instructional hour. They don't come cheap. There is no tangible return on this investment for decades and there might be none at all.
Many of the tax increases for schools don't even go to the classroom but instead to lavish pensions that private sector workers could only dream of.
Most private schools are better because while costing less they have parents that are invested in their children's education. I am all for vouchers but I think the parents need to cover part of the cost of education.
Definitely agree with these statements 100%, and I have voted against every tax increase involving education for these very reasons. As you pointed out, most of the extra money goes toward administration costs & pensions, not to the classrooms where the money is most needed. Even so, why should those of us who choose to take some responsibility and not have children be forced to pay for everybody else's irresponsible breeding habits? Many parents take advantage of the system because it's free, and they use the schools as their own free daycare centers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark
Now that Valley Native and lovecrowds have found each other, this thread is officially an echo chamber.
Nothing wrong with that. It only proves there are a growing number of us who are fed up with having to subsidize other people's lifestyle choices. The last time I checked, procreating isn't a Constitutional right.
Definitely agree with these statements 100%, and I have voted against every tax increase involving education for these very reasons. As you pointed out, most of the extra money goes toward administration costs & pensions, not to the classrooms where the money is most needed. Even so, why should those of us who choose to take some responsibility and not have children be forced to pay for everybody else's irresponsible breeding habits? Many parents take advantage of the system because it's free, and they use the schools as their own free daycare centers.
Nothing wrong with that. It only proves there are a growing number of us who are fed up with having to subsidize other people's lifestyle choices. The last time I checked, procreating isn't a Constitutional right.
Why do we even have a Constitution, then, if procreating is such a terrible thing?
Note that the stated purpose of the Constitution is, among other things, to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I am sure the right to life and the right to have a family is covered by the whole idea of Liberty, and the point of a Constitution is to preserve and maintain the country for future generations.
Anyway, we are well off-topic so I have condensed my thoughts above. As regards the city of Phoenix, it does seem like they are eager to add to their tax base whether they really need it or not.
Why do we even have a Constitution, then, if procreating is such a terrible thing?
Note that the stated purpose of the Constitution is, among other things, to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I am sure the right to life and the right to have a family is covered by the whole idea of Liberty, and the point of a Constitution is to preserve and maintain the country for future generations.
The right to have a family is non existent in the Constitution. Even if procreating was a right, it still doesn't translate to everybody else being obligated to subsidize this personal choice. Procreation isn't necessarily a "terrible thing", but the financial burden should always be on the procreators ... and those of us who choose to be childless shouldn't be forced into paying for public schools or other things which are of no benefit to us, and have no return on investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark
As regards the city of Phoenix, it does seem like they are eager to add to their tax base whether they really need it or not.
Yes, and that's a big part of the so called "progressive" mentality: tax more & spend more regardless if it's really needed.
What bothers me about this is a certain city council member going on about how city employees all got raises/bonuses and make $100,000+ a year.....this is NOT true. I can't speak for all other employees, but I definitely don't make anywhere near that much, and haven't had a raise in about six years.
I'm a city employee as well. I WISH I made that amount. Heck, I wish I made HALF that amount!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
