Quote:
Originally Posted by hulkrogan
I'd agree with "Partly" but I still think property tax is still a super arbitrary form of taxation.
I think property tax should cover maintenance and improvements to all things in the city that are required to keep you living on your lot. Lot size does matter, as a larger lot has a longer sidewalk, longer street frontage and possibly a longer alley, but these costs are quite minimal compared to roads servicing your community, water and sewer facilities etc.
It would be great to tax communities on the edge of the city more because people are using a longer network of roads and transit to get to work, but that isn't necessarily true. Someone may live and work in Cranston, while someone may live in the Beltline but work at the Airport. This is why I think fuel taxes and tolls are actually fantastic methods of taxation. If someone is using the city roads a ton, tax them for their usage. If gas prices and transit fares go up, you take care of targeting people living far from their place of work and give people a chance to realize some savings by living close to work. Same with sewer/water. Build the price of maintaining the actual infrastructure to service a community into the tax. If you live by a waste water plant, good for you, you have a very short sewer run so you should see some savings. You live way up a hill very far from a water treatment plant? Too bad, you're paying for the operation of the maintenance and pumps to get it up there. If it costs the city more to service that land, you should be paying for it.
|
He did have a good point about the lot size and even if it's in the core you might have to consider the opportunity cost of the land your lot occupies. Whether or not you are at the edge of the city or the middle your lot size contributes to sprawl the same amount as anyone else's lot of the same size.
Agree with some of your gas/road taxes/tolls comments.