3 ms·

>new taxes and public works that make larger cities livable I thought people are moving specifically because large cities are unliveable. The article actually

>new taxes and public works that make larger cities livable I thought people are moving specifically because large cities are unliveable. The article actually cites a more lax regulatory and tax environment as one of the reasons for why people and businesses are moving.

jorblumesea 8y ago
Sure, and then the realization that cities need to pay for things like infrastructure and transit to support their growing (and increasingly dense) population, and either way a a possibly unlivable situation develops. High taxes/high rents, or low taxes but zero infrastructure or support. No US city has managed to figure out the formula. That low tax situation has only lasted because there was previously no need for real serious spending.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Taxes in California are funding public employee pensions, not supporting infrastructure (as evidenced by countless remedial propositions)
  - jorblumesea 8y ago
    That's not true, the largest slices of California's state budget goes to healthcare, with education next in line. Pensions are 3rd and account for 18% of the state budget. I'm not denying pensions aren't a significant chunk, but the "your taxes do nothing" argument is getting pretty old. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spending_pie_chart https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendi...
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      My point remains...you're not paying for infrastructure. You also missed the chicken/egg...high taxes a component of the high cost of living that causes people to move in the first place. California's poverty rate has risen with the population...the poor are moving in and they are not impacted by most tax measures, so they have no reason to oppose them.
      - jorblumesea 8y ago
        You are paying for infrastructure. $50 / billion a year, 4% of the total budget. Not including specific city budgets and local spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2024CAb_60t https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_202... Taxes are just one side of the same coin, the high cost of living is really just a density issue. Lots of high paying jobs, lots of Nimby building practices and little density and transit investment. Tokyo is a city of 20 million people yet is far more affordable and even has higher taxes. California didn't build to support it's population. If these secondary cities make the same mistake, they too will be high cost/unlivable places.
- nawitus 8y ago
  Wouldn't the cost of infrastructure scale with the increased tax revenue from the increased population? I would also assume that infrastructure is actually cheaper per capita if population density increases, which would imply lower tax rates.
  - jorblumesea 8y ago
    It depends on how the infrastructure is funded. In some states, that budget is based on property taxes. In some states, income and state taxes. It's not really a one size fits all problem. In some cases, the money is there but the voter will is not because there's a real "tax is theft" movement in many states.

jorblumesea 8y ago

Sure, and then the realization that cities need to pay for things like infrastructure and transit to support their growing (and increasingly dense) population, and either way a a possibly unlivable situation develops. High taxes/high rents, or low taxes but zero infrastructure or support. No US city has managed to figure out the formula. That low tax situation has only lasted because there was previously no need for real serious spending.

claydavisss 8y ago
Taxes in California are funding public employee pensions, not supporting infrastructure (as evidenced by countless remedial propositions)
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  That's not true, the largest slices of California's state budget goes to healthcare, with education next in line. Pensions are 3rd and account for 18% of the state budget. I'm not denying pensions aren't a significant chunk, but the "your taxes do nothing" argument is getting pretty old. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spending_pie_chart https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendi...
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    My point remains...you're not paying for infrastructure. You also missed the chicken/egg...high taxes a component of the high cost of living that causes people to move in the first place. California's poverty rate has risen with the population...the poor are moving in and they are not impacted by most tax measures, so they have no reason to oppose them.
    - jorblumesea 8y ago
      You are paying for infrastructure. $50 / billion a year, 4% of the total budget. Not including specific city budgets and local spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2024CAb_60t https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_202... Taxes are just one side of the same coin, the high cost of living is really just a density issue. Lots of high paying jobs, lots of Nimby building practices and little density and transit investment. Tokyo is a city of 20 million people yet is far more affordable and even has higher taxes. California didn't build to support it's population. If these secondary cities make the same mistake, they too will be high cost/unlivable places.
nawitus 8y ago
Wouldn't the cost of infrastructure scale with the increased tax revenue from the increased population? I would also assume that infrastructure is actually cheaper per capita if population density increases, which would imply lower tax rates.
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  It depends on how the infrastructure is funded. In some states, that budget is based on property taxes. In some states, income and state taxes. It's not really a one size fits all problem. In some cases, the money is there but the voter will is not because there's a real "tax is theft" movement in many states.