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.
I was just wondering what do families with children do to benefit cities.
The average per-pupil cost of education nationally is $8,287 in 2003-2004 nationally. A vast majority of that was from local property taxes and state aid to education.
In New Jersey that number is $12,981, New York $12,930, DC $12,801 and these are 2003-2004
No wonder a property tax crisis is going on in much of the country!
I was wondering with all this talk about property taxes why should cities approve housing that increases property taxes on people who dont have kids.
Personally, I think cities should approve mainly 55+ senior communities and condo and apartment buildings to deter people with kids from moving into communities and raising the property taxes.
In the future, I think places with low birth rates and small school-aged populations will be in far better shape then places with high-birth rates where education spending causes spending from everything else to decline and taxes to skyrocket.
Personally, I like the kids that live on my street and play 'baseball' in the alley, I wouldn't want to live where there were no children.
I heartily agree, but overcrowded schools are not a good situation either.
Frankly I do not completely understand what's going on with this conundrum, nor how to solve it.
I agree as well. I grew up in an overcrowded school and remember that all through junior high they closed the cafeteria to make it into classrooms and made us eat lunch in our other classrooms. The students who were on the free lunch programs got boxed lunches and everyone else had to bring theirs. It was sort of a crappy way to spend lunch. When I got to high school and was able to eat in a cafeteria again, it was nice.
I don't know what the solution is either. However, I question the whole mechanism of school funding being related to properly taxes, I don't think that makes for an equitable system to begin with.
I was just wondering what do families with children do to benefit cities.
Personally, I think cities should approve mainly 55+ senior communities and condo and apartment buildings to deter people with kids from moving into communities and raising the property taxes.
In the future, I think places with low birth rates and small school-aged populations will be in far better shape then places with high-birth rates where education spending causes spending from everything else to decline and taxes to skyrocket.
You do realize that the majority of the workforce between 20 and 50 has children at home. So who's going to run the senior communities? Provide police and fire protection, build the roads, work in the stores, staff the hospitals, install your cable and phone, maintain the electrical grid, and pretty much run the world around you? You might find a small community or two are the outskirts of large metropolitan areas, where the local population is largely aging, but supported by the workers in the neighboring cities.
But even if one family moves into your 55+ utopia, someone legally has to offer the children an education. Whether that's a county government, a city or a overlay school district, you're going to get taxed for the education. It is inevitable.
Also if your city doesn't offer a family friendly enviroment, they're going to have to pay more to get people to commute to work. That too leads to higher taxes, or poor services.
A majority of cities arent family-friendly and seem to be doing rather well. Downtowns and urban neighborhoods of many urbann
cities are thriving and they arent family-friendly.
I just think rather then catering to families with children, they should cater to 55+ only communities, condos and lofts they get lots of property tax revenue and can a greater percentage of it on city and county improvements rather then on K-12 which is incredibly expensive and puts those communities at a disadvantage on infrastructure because so much of those property taxes are going to one area.
Looks like Texas sure likes very high property taxes.
According to the census, in Plano the median house with a mortgage pays
4,358 a year in property taxes. Thats alot!!
I think that they should have a public school system, but I think that the zoning should be more condo's and apartment's which tend to have very low household sizes. Not only are you getting more property tax per acre of infrastructure but you can use a much higher percentage of those property taxes for things other then schools which only benefit a certain segment of the population.
MattDen, perhaps you and Need_Affordable_Home can join forces--enact a law against reproduction and enforce abstinence; then introduce the low property tax law for the +55 set. We might come up with a jazzy title for the law.
Sounds a little like a science-fiction movie I saw recently but in reverse. In the movie everyone over 30 years old took a leap into extinction
I was just wondering what do families with children do to benefit cities.
The average per-pupil cost of education nationally is $8,287 in 2003-2004 nationally. A vast majority of that was from local property taxes and state aid to education.
In New Jersey that number is $12,981, New York $12,930, DC $12,801 and these are 2003-2004
No wonder a property tax crisis is going on in much of the country!
I was wondering with all this talk about property taxes why should cities approve housing that increases property taxes on people who dont have kids.
Personally, I think cities should approve mainly 55+ senior communities and condo and apartment buildings to deter people with kids from moving into communities and raising the property taxes.
In the future, I think places with low birth rates and small school-aged populations will be in far better shape then places with high-birth rates where education spending causes spending from everything else to decline and taxes to skyrocket.
It's nothing more than a money machine, problems will never be solved, money will always be a factor...just like the laws, why make them more strick? Money is still a factor, why not make them less restrictive so that the money machine flows faster, and less stress is put upon the rest of the population. have a nice day.......rustman
They don't, so cities need to fund contraception and vasectomies as heavily as schools, childcare, playgrounds etc. Which cities do this? If none then which come closest?
Zoning is counterproductive because limiting the unit count causes larger homes with room for more children, but childfree people like me need lots of little units, not a few big ones.
Last edited by Allandi; 03-23-2007 at 11:15 AM..
Reason: spelling
I know at least once state--Kentucky perhaps--that has a special program for reversing vasectomies!
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.
municipal contraception
