Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
That is kind of goofy.
A more fair approach would be to use a formula based 25% on your ability to pay and 75% on what you cost the city.
I am sorry someone who has 3 generations living in their home with 6 vehicles and 24 bags of garbage per week should cost way more than a single person who walks everywhere.
They use a ######ed formula to come up with the value of your house so why not one to estimate your cost to the city. Some sort of formula based upon the following:
1. Distance to your employer to reflect the amount of roads and snow removal and transit you use, how many overpasses are needed to have a decent commute, etc.
2. How many vehicles registered at your home to reflect the same things.
3. How many humans reside in your home (from your census) to reflect the amount of services/roads/police/fire you use, water and waste services.
4. How much water you use? (which I know is reflected in your water bill, but not enough).
5. How much garbage you put out per year.
6. How many pets do you have registered.
You would weight each thing according to their weight in the overall city budget.
I know that will never happen and people will whine about trying to maintain the data for that formula, but it would be nice to have people's cost representeded in their bill.
|
There are good points here but some of those things are irrelivant.
-Pets are paid for through registration, additional property taxes shouldnt be required because they really dont cost the city anything.
- Number of cars shouldnt matter since you can only drive one at a time.
It should be a sliding scale based on your income(s), number and age of occupants, size of lot and home, and age of your community, and number of nearby services (fire, police ect). Newer communities should pay more to cover the cost of infrastructure. But if some services arent available, they should be credited for that.