Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Define a net subsidy. The way you understand it, in clear and unambiguous terms, without rhetoric. Then I can try and explain to you why you are wrong, as good as I can.
|
Net subsidy: (NPV of expenditures by the city to service an area) > (NPV of taxes + fees paid by that area).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
So, we should re-calculate the amount of subsidy every new home in Calgary has received over the last 100 years and make the suckers pay then. How far back towards the downtown shall we go? I'd say let's go all the way, SebC.
|
Leveling the playing field makes sense. There's no economic efficiency to be gained from tilting it the other way as a form of reparations though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Obviously, you can't argue with the fact that the "subsidy" you and others are objecting, has been declining.
|
It was decreased in 2011. That doesn't mean it has been in a state of constant decrease. At other times, it was increased.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
This means that the highest repayments would be received from the homeowners in Mount Royal, Elbow Park, Britannia, Inglewood etc... Oh, yeah, don't forget to add the time value of money to that calculation!
|
Patently untrue, as the older areas of Calgary were established before we started subsidizing growth. Most of our current situation can be traced back to the 1999 agreement where the city stopped charging for water and sewer infrastructure. If we were to try to rebalance the net present values, the areas developed from 1999-2011 would likely have the highest repayments, and the inner city would be
receiving repayments.