11 ms·

Wouldn't that be because they can only afford the rundown house in the bad neighborhood, but the city has not corrected the tax levy because people keep living

Wouldn't that be because they can only afford the rundown house in the bad neighborhood, but the city has not corrected the tax levy because people keep living there? Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. It's more likely the city retained the levied amount and did not change it after the white people moved. Now because it's in a "bad" neighborhood, appraisal values fall, but the city government still believes it retains it's specific value.

seoaeu 5y ago
> Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. One would hope so. But your unsourced claim isn't especially compelling given that the post you are replying to directly provided evidence to the contrary.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Aren't the taxes in the vast majority of cities determined exclusively by Democrats? Edit: Looks like only a strong majority as opposed to the vast majority: https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_the_100_largest_cities https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_t...
  - hammock 5y ago
    I'd be curious to see the figures for city councils, not just mayors. I believe in most municipalities they vote on the tax changes. Chicago has 50 aldermen (city councilmen) and not a single official Republican. That has been the case for at least a couple decades if I recall correctly.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  The statement is too strong, but I think there is a point to be made, using facts not in dispute. The de facto segregation or concentration of minorities in urban areas, in say, the northeastern US, and the progression to having the highest tax rates in areas with declining tax base, without a doubt, produces a substantial correlation between higher tax rates and minorities' property. Is that an excuse for anything? Of course not. But it's institutional racism that does not require specific human beings to look at skin color and discriminate. Institutional racism hardly rules out there being also regular discrimination. But when a problem is pervasive everywhere, and intractable, shouldn't institutional racism, the way the system produces outcomes without individual intent, be a primary focus? Both because it might be a larger contributor to the problem and because, while difficult, reforming it might be easier than changing the nature of individuals. [P.S. Other people in this thread are making this an either/or, to try to dismiss evidence of ordinary discrimination. I'm not, just saying I think institutional racism should be a priority]
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Suppose we accept as a given that this hypothetical town with a declining tax base and concomitant increasing tax rate represents institutional racism. What should (can?) that town do about it to address the problem?
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Empirically? They got a casino. In general, I think it's a technical problem that lives in the details. How can institutional racism be anything else, as it is defined?
      - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
        Sounds more like you need a full on revolution to change that then.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

seoaeu 5y ago

> Cities don't just levy higher taxes on minorities. One would hope so. But your unsourced claim isn't especially compelling given that the post you are replying to directly provided evidence to the contrary.

willcipriano 5y ago
Aren't the taxes in the vast majority of cities determined exclusively by Democrats? Edit: Looks like only a strong majority as opposed to the vast majority: https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_the_100_largest_cities https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_t...
- hammock 5y ago
  I'd be curious to see the figures for city councils, not just mayors. I believe in most municipalities they vote on the tax changes. Chicago has 50 aldermen (city councilmen) and not a single official Republican. That has been the case for at least a couple decades if I recall correctly.
perl4ever 5y ago
The statement is too strong, but I think there is a point to be made, using facts not in dispute. The de facto segregation or concentration of minorities in urban areas, in say, the northeastern US, and the progression to having the highest tax rates in areas with declining tax base, without a doubt, produces a substantial correlation between higher tax rates and minorities' property. Is that an excuse for anything? Of course not. But it's institutional racism that does not require specific human beings to look at skin color and discriminate. Institutional racism hardly rules out there being also regular discrimination. But when a problem is pervasive everywhere, and intractable, shouldn't institutional racism, the way the system produces outcomes without individual intent, be a primary focus? Both because it might be a larger contributor to the problem and because, while difficult, reforming it might be easier than changing the nature of individuals. [P.S. Other people in this thread are making this an either/or, to try to dismiss evidence of ordinary discrimination. I'm not, just saying I think institutional racism should be a priority]
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Suppose we accept as a given that this hypothetical town with a declining tax base and concomitant increasing tax rate represents institutional racism. What should (can?) that town do about it to address the problem?
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Empirically? They got a casino. In general, I think it's a technical problem that lives in the details. How can institutional racism be anything else, as it is defined?
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
      Sounds more like you need a full on revolution to change that then.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]