Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
To the same point, of course no one bears the full brunt of the costs for their public services. That is how public services work. You have no kids, but you still pay taxes and support education. I might rarely need medical attention, yet I still pay for that system. You can't pick and choose what you're supporting. We're not running a cafeteria here; you pay into the system and we elect people to distribute the resources accordingly.
|
Just like other public services and public goods, there has to be a line that separates reasonable expenditures and the frivolous. For instance, I'd definitely help fund the treatment for your son's rare cancer but there is no way I'd support paying for your wife's boob job. The City does have an obligation to provide both hard and soft infrastructure for its citizens but it absolutely does not need to be in the business of funding people's desired lifestyles and dreams.
Personally, I think the City should do away with the property tax model and move to a model where the dwelling owner would cover their dwelling unit's portion of the City's operational budget. The City would need to find out how much each dwelling would have to pay if everyone lived in basic yet sustainable neighbourhood. If your dwelling is located in a neighbourhood that costs more to service, you have to pay the basic levy plus the difference. If your dwelling is located in a neighbourhood that costs less to service, you have to pay the basic levy less the difference.