The conclusion the video comes to about changing policies to push for developments that will get better ROI is interesting. The more obvious conclusion, to me, is simply to raise taxes on...
The conclusion the video comes to about changing policies to push for developments that will get better ROI is interesting. The more obvious conclusion, to me, is simply to raise taxes on single-family housing and privately owned cars. Or, in a more indirect way, just raise the higher marginal income tax rates (I think it's reasonable to expect that those who own single-family homes and the most cars are on the higher end of the income distribution). Maybe that's politically unviable, though? I've also heard it is politically unviable (in most US cities) to change the minds of local zoning boards and others who have power over what kinds of developments can be made in which places.
I think both of your proposed solutions have immediate problems. First, simply raising property taxes and vehicle taxes is far more punishing for people who aren't rich, which are the people who...
The more obvious conclusion, to me, is simply to raise taxes on single-family housing and privately owned cars. Or, in a more indirect way, just raise the higher marginal income tax rates (I think it's reasonable to expect that those who own single-family homes and the most cars are on the higher end of the income distribution)
I think both of your proposed solutions have immediate problems. First, simply raising property taxes and vehicle taxes is far more punishing for people who aren't rich, which are the people who make up the majority of most groups, including those in suburbia. Second, simply raising income taxes on richer people (ignoring that you have a logical issue here, which is that while richer people tend to be in single family homes and have more cars, people with cars and single family homes don't tend to be rich) is a potentially more equitable solution, it suffers from the immediate problem that income taxes tend not to be municipally collected.
That's actually kind of the point of the series - through municipal decisions, you can make choices to design a more livable, more economical, more environmental city that favours people, and doesn't just mean yanking up the cost of living for everyone.
Also, it's worth noting that the "good" city - Guelph, ON - is already exceptionally expensive from a property-tax-per-average-income point of view; while it is indeed a great place to live, that greatness comes at a much higher cost of living than other towns and cities in the immediate area. My source on that is anecdotal; I live in Guelph.
I suggested only raising taxes on the highest marginal rate tax payers. This, by definition, would not affect people who "aren't rich". The idea should be, for people who can afford to live in...
First, simply raising property taxes and vehicle taxes is far more punishing for people who aren't rich
I suggested only raising taxes on the highest marginal rate tax payers. This, by definition, would not affect people who "aren't rich". The idea should be, for people who can afford to live in single-family homes and prefer strip-mall-ville, they can pay more and relieve municipalities from subsidizing their lifestyle.
while it is indeed a great place to live, that greatness comes at a much higher cost of living
My sense is that this is true of every nice place to live—nice places to live tend to be nice because they have well-maintained public facilities and infrastructure which won't remain as such without public funding in the form of taxes. That sort of thing doesn't really happen at scale by chance.
Maybe I'm not following; you wrote two suggestions originally: simply to raise taxes on single-family housing and privately owned cars raise the higher marginal income tax rates The first...
Maybe I'm not following; you wrote two suggestions originally:
simply to raise taxes on single-family housing and privately owned cars
raise the higher marginal income tax rates
The first suggestion would address the issue for the city - raising property taxes is a direct way to increase city revenue. However, increasing revenue in this way is disproportionately punishing to people who aren't rich. Note that property taxes don't take into account income, only address. The second suggestion would address the inequity of the first solution, but has the issue that income tax isn't collected municipally, so it doesn't actually increase city revenue directly.
My sense is that this is true of every nice place to live—nice places to live tend to be nice because they have well-maintained public facilities and infrastructure which won't remain as such without public funding in the form of taxes.
Yes, but the whole point of the video and the Strong Town series is that you can make place nice places to live without raising taxes by making careful selections about what sort of projects are built. In the example city, revenue has gone up, taxation rate hasn't increased as a result (of the projects listed, anyways), and the city improves. That is clearly a much better solution than just raising taxes. So while raising taxes may be a more obvious solution, it is undoubtedly a worse one.
I did have some issues figuring out where to put this, but I opted for this group as others in this series were here, and it is about city design, and now that it's here, I think it makes sense.
I did have some issues figuring out where to put this, but I opted for this group as others in this series were here, and it is about city design, and now that it's here, I think it makes sense.
The conclusion the video comes to about changing policies to push for developments that will get better ROI is interesting. The more obvious conclusion, to me, is simply to raise taxes on single-family housing and privately owned cars. Or, in a more indirect way, just raise the higher marginal income tax rates (I think it's reasonable to expect that those who own single-family homes and the most cars are on the higher end of the income distribution). Maybe that's politically unviable, though? I've also heard it is politically unviable (in most US cities) to change the minds of local zoning boards and others who have power over what kinds of developments can be made in which places.
I think both of your proposed solutions have immediate problems. First, simply raising property taxes and vehicle taxes is far more punishing for people who aren't rich, which are the people who make up the majority of most groups, including those in suburbia. Second, simply raising income taxes on richer people (ignoring that you have a logical issue here, which is that while richer people tend to be in single family homes and have more cars, people with cars and single family homes don't tend to be rich) is a potentially more equitable solution, it suffers from the immediate problem that income taxes tend not to be municipally collected.
That's actually kind of the point of the series - through municipal decisions, you can make choices to design a more livable, more economical, more environmental city that favours people, and doesn't just mean yanking up the cost of living for everyone.
Also, it's worth noting that the "good" city - Guelph, ON - is already exceptionally expensive from a property-tax-per-average-income point of view; while it is indeed a great place to live, that greatness comes at a much higher cost of living than other towns and cities in the immediate area. My source on that is anecdotal; I live in Guelph.
I suggested only raising taxes on the highest marginal rate tax payers. This, by definition, would not affect people who "aren't rich". The idea should be, for people who can afford to live in single-family homes and prefer strip-mall-ville, they can pay more and relieve municipalities from subsidizing their lifestyle.
My sense is that this is true of every nice place to live—nice places to live tend to be nice because they have well-maintained public facilities and infrastructure which won't remain as such without public funding in the form of taxes. That sort of thing doesn't really happen at scale by chance.
Maybe I'm not following; you wrote two suggestions originally:
The first suggestion would address the issue for the city - raising property taxes is a direct way to increase city revenue. However, increasing revenue in this way is disproportionately punishing to people who aren't rich. Note that property taxes don't take into account income, only address. The second suggestion would address the inequity of the first solution, but has the issue that income tax isn't collected municipally, so it doesn't actually increase city revenue directly.
Yes, but the whole point of the video and the Strong Town series is that you can make place nice places to live without raising taxes by making careful selections about what sort of projects are built. In the example city, revenue has gone up, taxation rate hasn't increased as a result (of the projects listed, anyways), and the city improves. That is clearly a much better solution than just raising taxes. So while raising taxes may be a more obvious solution, it is undoubtedly a worse one.
@deimos this is a good example of a video that doesn’t really fit anywhere (maybe ~finance would be better) but would be good in a mobility group ;)
I did have some issues figuring out where to put this, but I opted for this group as others in this series were here, and it is about city design, and now that it's here, I think it makes sense.