Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
No, I'm saying their tax base fled the city because of white flight, not because of taxation policies as you claim. Like most major American cities, white people fled to the suburbs and that tax base wasn't replaced. It has little to nothing to do with taxation policies.
|
Although Detroit's tax base was initially reduced because of white flight, Detroit failed to make corresponding reductions in their taxation levels, which prompted a further reduction in the tax base.
I don't think that the initial cause giving rise to the reduction in the tax base is what is instructive to other cities; rather, I think the lesson is that taxation levels must be appropriate to the tax base and the level of government services to be provided.
In that respect, I find the whole argument of "an additional X% isn't THAT much more money, so let's just pay it and get on with our life" rather weak, because the issue isn't simply what X% is, but rather whether X% is sustainable, supportable, in line with the services to be provided actually cost, and reasonably equivalent to what the increase in cost for other goods and services are (as well as equal to what the increase in incomes to pay the X% is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
If oil punges to $10/bbl and Fort MacMurray turns into something resembling Detroit are you going to grandstand that the reason why is city council's decisions?
|
I suppose that it would depend on how long oil was at $10/bbl and what actions the Fort MacMurray city council did in response to the price reduction.