14 ms·

Disagree. The freedom for a community to spend funds in ways they want is much more free than the opposite. Also disagree with your bottom line. In many cases (

Disagree. The freedom for a community to spend funds in ways they want is much more free than the opposite. Also disagree with your bottom line. In many cases (e.g. ones where abatements were given in my community) it lowered the tax rate over time.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "The freedom for a community..." If this was a community decision why is there pushback in LIC? Because, it wasn't a community decision. It was the gov using taxpayer money to subsidize one of the largest most successful companies in the world. Fact: The Gov created the housing bubble. Fact: The Gov created the student loan bubble. Fact: The abatements in __your__ community came out of someone else's pocket. That money had to come from somewhere.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Ignoring the other facts as guff, this is a common misunderstanding: > The abatements in __your__ community came out of someone else's pocket. That money had to come from somewhere. Abatements are not gifts, they are reductions. The money that was not taken did not have to come from anywhere. The reductions did not amount to a negative total (not even close in my case), and therefore the abatements essentially amount to a sale price, not below cost. In other cases, such as sports teams, the benefits of the trade-offs are not as easily recognized because they are not purely financial. But here, it is simpler to understand the bulk discounts in exchange for economic growth.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    > "Abatements are not gifts, they are reductions." Yes. But you make it sounds like the gov services being provided was also reduced. Is that the case? If not, then that means the services being provided still have to be paid for. So if it's not your community, then where do you think that money is coming from?
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > But you make it sounds like the gov services being provided was also reduced No. I stated, "The reductions did not amount to a negative total" which includes public services. I am saying the new tax income more than covers the services needed. Cost per resident is not linear. Again, these are sales prices, not below-cost prices. Governments are reducing tax rates to significantly increase tax totals, a reasonable investment. > where do you think that money is coming from? The same place it otherwise would, just at a reduced bulk rate.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

> "The freedom for a community..." If this was a community decision why is there pushback in LIC? Because, it wasn't a community decision. It was the gov using taxpayer money to subsidize one of the largest most successful companies in the world. Fact: The Gov created the housing bubble. Fact: The Gov created the student loan bubble. Fact: The abatements in __your__ community came out of someone else's pocket. That money had to come from somewhere.

kodablah 8y ago
Ignoring the other facts as guff, this is a common misunderstanding: > The abatements in __your__ community came out of someone else's pocket. That money had to come from somewhere. Abatements are not gifts, they are reductions. The money that was not taken did not have to come from anywhere. The reductions did not amount to a negative total (not even close in my case), and therefore the abatements essentially amount to a sale price, not below cost. In other cases, such as sports teams, the benefits of the trade-offs are not as easily recognized because they are not purely financial. But here, it is simpler to understand the bulk discounts in exchange for economic growth.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "Abatements are not gifts, they are reductions." Yes. But you make it sounds like the gov services being provided was also reduced. Is that the case? If not, then that means the services being provided still have to be paid for. So if it's not your community, then where do you think that money is coming from?
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > But you make it sounds like the gov services being provided was also reduced No. I stated, "The reductions did not amount to a negative total" which includes public services. I am saying the new tax income more than covers the services needed. Cost per resident is not linear. Again, these are sales prices, not below-cost prices. Governments are reducing tax rates to significantly increase tax totals, a reasonable investment. > where do you think that money is coming from? The same place it otherwise would, just at a reduced bulk rate.