U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2013, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
No, no, no, no. This is a common claim but there's nothing behind it. The people of New York are not paying for the New Jersey suburbs, and certainly the people of Newark, Camden, and Jersey City aren't. The money is coming from those who live in the suburbs; aside from a few wealthy places in Hudson County (including parts of Jersey City, but by no means all of it), that's where the money is.

The same goes triple for the suburbs of Washington, D.C, where there isn't even a large city (poor or otherwise) within the same jurisdiction as the suburbs, until you get to Baltimore.
Not quite that simple. In California, Federal and State revenue accounts for 30% of local road funding (20% if excluding the gasoline tax transfer, which really belongs to the local governments but is collected by the State). You also have CalTrans which is generally responsible for intercity State roads. For example, if you live in a typical suburb and commute in on a freeway, that's getting significant funding from State and Federal sources. It depends where. We're expanding Interstate 5 through town. That's 100% local funding since it's entirely within city boundaries and the traffic increases have all been intracity.

Actually, good transportation projects are one of the better ways of keeping the prices in cities down. With good transportation, it's easier for those who work in the city to live outside of it decreasing demand and driving down prices. In addition, you can use all those commuters as cash cows to fund your local expenditures as San Francisco does. Toll bridge revenue and the 25% parking tax rate (proposed to increase) are big cash cows for San Francisco which uses the revenue to fund its operations. Add in hotel taxes, and San Francisco's pay-roll tax. You get 'em when they drive across your bridge, when they park their car, and when they get their pay check... and yet you don't really need to provide any services. Win win situation. Most cities in the country played that game and it didn't turn out well for them. The jobs simply up and left and followed the workers to the suburbs. In a few, however, it turned out quite well.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-09-2013 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2013, 07:03 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,509 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Question is irrelevant to whether the deduction is a "subsidy" or not.
Sorry, it's absolutely relevant. You as an owner, get a dollar of income, get to deduct more of it. Jim, as a renter, earns a dollar, doesn't. You're getting a tax preference, a well recognized concept in public policy. As Memph said awhile back, one might argue that these subsidies, whether for mortgage interest or social power installation, are justified, but subsidies they are.

On infrastructure subsidies--it differs place to place, organization to organization. In some places, city dwellers have complained and they no longer have to pay for suburban extensions. But there are plenty of places where it's still true. In terms of road funding, the state formulas are often very tilted to suburban and rural areas, and shortchange cities. Not to mention the numerous states that open the spigot wide for rural/suburban roads, but won't give a dime to center city transit systems. The Chicago Transit Authority and SEPTA in Philadelphia carry hundreds of thousands of people daily, but have had to go through fiscal crises repeatedly because of the anti-urban bias of legislatures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 11:25 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Sorry, it's absolutely relevant. You as an owner, get a dollar of income, get to deduct more of it. Jim, as a renter, earns a dollar, doesn't. You're getting a tax preference, a well recognized concept in public policy. As Memph said awhile back, one might argue that these subsidies, whether for mortgage interest or social power installation, are justified, but subsidies they are.

On infrastructure subsidies--it differs place to place, organization to organization. In some places, city dwellers have complained and they no longer have to pay for suburban extensions. But there are plenty of places where it's still true. In terms of road funding, the state formulas are often very tilted to suburban and rural areas, and shortchange cities. Not to mention the numerous states that open the spigot wide for rural/suburban roads, but won't give a dime to center city transit systems. The Chicago Transit Authority and SEPTA in Philadelphia carry hundreds of thousands of people daily, but have had to go through fiscal crises repeatedly because of the anti-urban bias of legislatures.
I have never heard of city funds being used to pay for roads outside the city. Could you cite some examples? Not talking about federal or state gas tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 09:34 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,098,346 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I have never heard of city funds being used to pay for roads outside the city. Could you cite some examples? Not talking about federal or state gas tax.
State income tax on city residents?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 09:59 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
The Chicago Transit Authority and SEPTA in Philadelphia carry hundreds of thousands of people daily, but have had to go through fiscal crises repeatedly because of the anti-urban bias of legislatures.
Right, which is why Governor Rendell diverted 800 million dollars of Federal transportation funding to SEPTA a few years ago. SEPTA goes through fiscal crises because as soon as SEPTA gets a little money, the unions are right there "gimmee gimmee gimmee", and SEPTA gives in every time. So every time SEPTA gets more revenue, the bus drivers and attendants get a raise, but quality of service goes down anyway.

SEPTA is partially funded from the state sales tax, PA Turnpike commission funds (mostly driver tolls), and lottery money. It's about 80% state funded, the rest being Federal and local.

SEPTA's 2011 operating expenses were $1.5 billion. Capital, $360 million. PennDOT's budget is about twice that. PennDOT covers the entire state, SEPTA just the city of Philadelphia and Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester counties. And PennDOT's budget includes transfer payments to public transportation, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 12:30 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
State income tax on city residents?
That's a state tax then. If you were talking city tax on city residents, I could buy it. I must say, I never heard of a state tax only being imposed on certain residents, but what goes on in Maryland never ceases to amaze me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,098,346 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That's a state tax then. If you were talking city tax on city residents, I could buy it. I must say, I never heard of a state tax only being imposed on certain residents, but what goes on in Maryland never ceases to amaze me.
That isn't what I was saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,272,687 times
Reputation: 741
Ive got an idea, convince architects to build and expand cities worth living in, to fit the demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:30 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
That isn't what I was saying.
So you're saying that city residents paying state taxes used to build a road in the suburbs is "taxing city residents to provide service to the suburbs"? State taxes tax everyone in the whole state. In Maryland that might mean someone on the Eastern Shore is paying for said road as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:36 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,098,346 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I have never heard of city funds being used to pay for roads outside the city. Could you cite some examples? Not talking about federal or state gas tax.
I misread this the first time, my apologies. I thought you were asking how city residents pay for roads outside of the city. While some portion of our state income tax goes into the state transportation fund (which doesn't fund city roadways), it is not a "city fund."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top