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 05-16-2015, 04:11 PM
 
12,290 posts, read 15,184,803 times
Reputation: 8100

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
One should not be surprised that it is not the primary goal of people to increase tax revenues to a local government. Public employees might seek more such revenue hoping to be the beneficiaries. However, higher tax revenues for local government is just not a meritorious objective from the perspective of the taxpayer.
Most homeowners prefer the development contribute more tax revenue to help shoulder the load. Not Walmart, but higher end shopping. High-income housing is welcomed as it provides more revenue, though their residents may demand better schools and libraries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2015, 07:36 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Most homeowners prefer the development contribute more tax revenue to help shoulder the load. Not Walmart, but higher end shopping. High-income housing is welcomed as it provides more revenue, though their residents may demand better schools and libraries.
Where do "most homeowners prefer the development contribute more tax revenue to help shoulder the load"? Activist homeowners are more often than not opposing development. Local government frequently gives "development" incentives such as tax abatements to locate there to begin with - not more taxes but less. I suspect most of the time "homeowners" are more interested in businesses that provide jobs (income) or goods/services the homeowners are likely to need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2015, 12:00 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Well if you are from the camp that believes government will take care of you then perhaps your position is consistent with that logic.
Not what I said or described. Please re-read my posts about full funding of valuable city services--road maintenance, emergency response services, education--to understand what I did say and did describe. What you seem to think I described--a Soviet-style communist state or a French-style socialist state--is lightyears from what I actually described.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Preoccupation with acquisition and consumption of goods/services solely to acquire/consume is not a meritorious objective. Plenty of religions recognize greed and gluttony as "bad things" and have done so for centuries.
Again, not what I said or described. Please re-read my posts about having a strong economy. I am not describing more consumption, but a different mix. We are already spending that money, we are already being consumers of goods and services, but much of it is sent outside of the local economy. Consider, for a moment, the actual economic benefit to a city of a WalMart or a Cabela's vs. something owned locally; for the former, money tends to flow away, for the latter it tends to be kept locally and, thus, spent locally, to the good of the local economy and to the people who make up that local economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2015, 04:17 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
One should not be surprised that it is not the primary goal of people to increase tax revenues to a local government.
Going back to an earlier point you made, something that seems to be a pretty common misconception, many residents have voted higher taxes upon themselves in the name of better city services and a better QoL. A whole lot of taxes are, counter to the idea that they all were established by government fiat, self-imposed at the ballot box. Sometimes it is to fund education--after-school programs, libraries, etc. Sometimes it is to improve transportation, public and private--roadway and rail infrastructure repair and expansion.

So, while speaking in general terms about the general fund, people don't care about increasing city tax takes, residents do show a willingness to pay higher taxes when it is something they care about.

And, as I've said repeatedly but to which you have not offered a cogent response, people certainly notice and complain about potholes in and the disrepair of local streets, about slow emergency services response times due to understaffing, about cutbacks in services that serve the city (libraries, parks, museums, etc.), and so on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2015, 08:27 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Going back to an earlier point you made, something that seems to be a pretty common misconception, many residents have voted higher taxes upon themselves in the name of better city services and a better QoL. A whole lot of taxes are, counter to the idea that they all were established by government fiat, self-imposed at the ballot box. Sometimes it is to fund education--after-school programs, libraries, etc. Sometimes it is to improve transportation, public and private--roadway and rail infrastructure repair and expansion.
Well I'd like to agree with you on something but this isn't it. In my experience the people voting for the taxes believe they are forcing someone else to pay for something beneficial to the supporter. In particular the supporters are typically the ones that aren't experiencing the burden of the tax. A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
So, while speaking in general terms about the general fund, people don't care about increasing city tax takes, residents do show a willingness to pay higher taxes when it is something they care about.
I think people do care about increasing city tax takes. It's one of the top reasons to exit a city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
And, as I've said repeatedly but to which you have not offered a cogent response, people certainly notice and complain about potholes in and the disrepair of local streets, about slow emergency services response times due to understaffing, about cutbacks in services that serve the city (libraries, parks, museums, etc.), and so on.
Not sure whether you are asking a question or what.
However, there are fundamental disconnects between the problem and the solution.
For starters, the management of the taxes means that the taxes are collected under the pretext of providing services but the monies are frequently frittered away on anything but.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 01:09 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,762 posts, read 54,390,602 times
Reputation: 31056
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Well I'd like to agree with you on something but this isn't it. In my experience the people voting for the taxes believe they are forcing someone else to pay for something beneficial to the supporter. In particular the supporters are typically the ones that aren't experiencing the burden of the tax. A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
I think people do care about increasing city tax takes. It's one of the top reasons to exit a city.

Not sure whether you are asking a question or what.

However, there are fundamental disconnects between the problem and the solution.
For starters, the management of the taxes means that the taxes are collected under the pretext of providing services but the monies are frequently frittered away on anything but.
Our suburban city of 50,000 has a high tax rate, ours recently increased over $1,000/year to $6,500. Even so, proposals to increase taxes generally pass. As long as we have top-rated schools, no crime, and
clean streets people are willing to pay for it. Yes, there has been some of what we could call waste, such as 12' wide sidewalks with street lighting that makes the main arterial look like a landing strip at night, but that was back in the first few years after incorporation when the city government was new, and they had a huge surplus of money from taking over the tax revenue from the county. People are not leaving, in fact homes that are in the low-end at $500-600k are selling with multiple offers over asking in the first few days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 05:15 PM
 
1,915 posts, read 2,047,859 times
Reputation: 2191
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Consider, for a moment, the actual economic benefit to a city of a WalMart or a Cabela's vs. something owned locally; for the former, money tends to flow away, for the latter it tends to be kept locally and, thus, spent locally, to the good of the local economy and to the people who make up that local economy.
Of course, if that "national chain" is a locally owned franchise, as many restaurants and service stations are, then is that such a bad thing? Hardly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 08:51 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
Our suburban city of 50,000 has a high tax rate, ours recently increased over $1,000/year to $6,500. Even so, proposals to increase taxes generally pass. As long as we have top-rated schools, no crime, and
clean streets people are willing to pay for it. Yes, there has been some of what we could call waste, such as 12' wide sidewalks with street lighting that makes the main arterial look like a landing strip at night, but that was back in the first few years after incorporation when the city government was new, and they had a huge surplus of money from taking over the tax revenue from the county. People are not leaving, in fact homes that are in the low-end at $500-600k are selling with multiple offers over asking in the first few days.
Are referring to a property tax, a city income tax or what?
$6,500 in the abstract is not any indication of how high the taxes are nor that they are specific to the city.

If the $6,500 is a property tax for a $500-600K house, then your taxes really aren't that high.
In many jurisdictions, the highest component of the tax is due to school districts and those boundaries are not the same as any city. Is the $6,500 the total property tax or the component attributable to just the city? What is the value of the house from which this tax is calculated - or perhaps it would be better to indicate the percentage tax used and whether that includes local (or state) governments other than the city.

As far as people "paying for it" what you mean is that the people that vote are willing to impose a tax on everyone else. Not everyone can vote - consider a corporate entity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2015, 08:12 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,762 posts, read 54,390,602 times
Reputation: 31056
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Are referring to a property tax, a city income tax or what?
$6,500 in the abstract is not any indication of how high the taxes are nor that they are specific to the city.

If the $6,500 is a property tax for a $500-600K house, then your taxes really aren't that high.
In many jurisdictions, the highest component of the tax is due to school districts and those boundaries are not the same as any city. Is the $6,500 the total property tax or the component attributable to just the city? What is the value of the house from which this tax is calculated - or perhaps it would be better to indicate the percentage tax used and whether that includes local (or state) governments other than the city.

As far as people "paying for it" what you mean is that the people that vote are willing to impose a tax on everyone else. Not everyone can vote - consider a corporate entity.
We have no state or local income tax, this is the property tax. Of that amount (assessed value $552k)
about 20% goes to the city, 31% to local schools, 22% to state schools fund. The rest are minor amounts to fire district, Port, Library. About 33% is voter approved levy money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2015, 11:31 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
Of course, if that "national chain" is a locally owned franchise, as many restaurants and service stations are, then is that such a bad thing? Hardly.
Correct. Frankly, I'm in agreement that it isn't a "bad". Obviously, there's a gradation here along a scale of local economic benefit, with something like a national (or international) big box on one end, a hyper-local mom-and-pop on the other, and locally owned franchises somewhere in the middle. Franchises represent some money being kept in the local economy, but a lot of money flowing outward to the franchisor.

So, something like a Bass Pro Shop, Walmart, or Cabelas is strongly negative, a McDonalds or Chevron mildly negative or neutral, and a local joint strongly positive.
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