Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
First, the issue of people paying more taxes (and "more than their fair share") is cute. I feel for you. Thing is that a) you knew that or ought to have before you decided to buy there and b) you issue is with the market value tax system and not with how the spending is completed. If the tax system was based on square footage,lot size or just split evenly regardless of where you are in the city then everything would be fine. In other words, the issue here isn't really urban sprawl, but its a matter of ,disliking the tax system as it is. That's fine, but call it what it is.
Second, I dislike the notion that "schmucks" like me (your term here, not mine) who don't live in the inner city are some how being placated with inner city money. Those of us in the suburbs aren't receiving any special treatment. Most of the things we demand from the city are pretty basic; a traffic system so that we can get to work and be productive, a reasonable infrastructure so that we can go to the ice rink, library, golf courses or other amenities. Our transit needs aren't even all that different.
|
With respect to point a) knowing about a situation doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it. If the advantages of inner city living outweight the disadvantage, choosing to live there and wanting to not have to subsidize the 'burbs are both rational.
With respect to point b) it's not strictly a tax structure issue. It's a matter of subsidizing the suburban lifestyle (and not a matter of rich subsidizing poor either) at the expense of the inner city. If the tax structure were to stay the same but the spending structure shifted, that could eliminated the subsidy. Or the spending structure could stay the same and the revenue model could change, and that would also eliminate the subsidy. Both sides of the equation come into play.
As for special treatment, the special treatment that you receive is that you don't pay a market rate for the services you receive. This market failure is a net drain on the city as a whole, through deadweight loss. Roads, transit and fire stations may be basic services for a city to provide, but having a low density community is a luxury that should be paid for by those who choose it.