10 ms·

The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insul

The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. This is just another piece of luddite alarmism. Always Remember: the situation is SO DIRE, we had to exempt private jets from the fuel tax. Even billionaires simply can't afford to pay gas taxes, this is how bad things are /s: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-jets-amazon-orders-set-to-escape-higher-eu-energy-taxes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j... Meanwhile the city of Austin debt service is 5% of its budget, and Austin's debt per capita is $1,287. Some Ponzi.

x3iv130f 4y ago
Sure, we can just keep on increasing taxes until all the top earners leave for cheaper areas. I prefer low taxes. What's there to lose by building towns at a human scale? Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Tax Flight Is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-flight-is-a-myth https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-fligh...
  - refurb 4y ago
    That’s a high quality study! “It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount.” That’s their argument high taxes don’t drive people elsewhere?
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      Luckily Texas is 32nd in tax burden, and has zero state income tax.
      - CaptainZapp 4y ago
        Then again, Texans may be in deep shit if the weather turns too cold or too hot and the power grid conked yet again. Believe it or not, but a well maintained infrastructure has a lot to do with adequate taxation and regulation.
        bin_bash 4y ago
        I just bought a generator with some of the tens of thousands I’m saving by not paying CA tax anymore
        refurb 4y ago
        Indeed, unlike say, California whose high taxes have helped create a robust electrical infrastructure which hasn’t randomly started fires destroying entire towns (and killing dozens) and doesn’t have rolling blackouts each summer. Is that what you mean?
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        ERCOT’s CEO was fired over the incident im sure you are referring to. fired within weeks. Who’s getting fired over California’s blackouts? Let me guess, it’s all just climate change?
        User23 4y ago
        Texas has other even more terrifying fragilities that I'm not going to get specific on, because they're that scary and I don't want to give crazy people ideas.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - bliteben 4y ago
        Texas property taxes are insanely high, I would would consider moving to be closer to family, but I am pretty averse to the annual taxes at the properties that would appeal to me there (10k - 20k annual taxes).
  - john567 4y ago
    No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country of residence because absurd tax rates. I'm a productive member of society and high earner but I'm starting to loose faith in my institutions. If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, that's what they do. Only the people that don't have the means to leave stay creating a particular nasty downward spiral of people without jobs and home ownership dependent on government subsidies.
    - ForHackernews 4y ago
      > No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country Cool, your N=1 anecdote completely invalidates all the statistical research in that area.
      - Aeolun 4y ago
        Since the article is about state taxes, and the OP is talking about national taxes, I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.
      - john567 4y ago
        N=1 isn't an argument either. I'm simply saying what a lot of people in my situation also thinks. It's just sensible that you don't stay because you like paying taxes. You stay where you are because of family and friends. To say that it doesn't influence people decision is deceiving. > all the statistical research in that area. Calling BS on that right there
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, Well sure. But that's probably true of "fail your responsibilities" regardless of tax rate. Nobody wants to live in a state without a well-functioning government.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway2037 4y ago
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  >I prefer low taxes. Texas is 32rd in terms of tax burden, you will prefer it. >Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am. That’s an enforcement problem. If you think this doesn’t happen in dense cities, with way more sports carts and way more bars, idk what to tell you. I’ve literally moved to suburbia to escape the city noise. In my case it was fire engines passing by literally every 10 minutes. That’s normal in a dense “human-scale” city centre, but very rare in the suburbs.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    > moved to suburbia to escape the city noise City noise is almost all from automobiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
labrador 4y ago
Yes and California where I am just announced a 90 billion dollar tax surplus and I see road and bridges getting fixed all the time. Maybe the rest of the country is falling apart. I don't really know.
- rglullis 4y ago
  - California had the tax surplus, not the towns. - All ponzis look good, until growth stops and the whole thing collapses. - The towns are being bailed out by the state. - The fact that you are seeing roads and bridges getting fixed does not mean that poorer cities are. And Strong Towns also shows that the suburbs (even if richer) get subsidized by the city centers.
pas 4y ago
Austin is a highly productive dense city, not a low density suburb.
- JeremyNT 4y ago
  Austin may be productive but dense it is not! The city itself is only 1/4 as dense as say Chicago, nevermind if you include the suburbs... Towns like Austin are precisely at issue. They grow by low density sprawl and large roads.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  There's no way that characterizes Austin. It's a sprawly city. Anyone who even tries to go car free there will be disappointed.
  - pas 4y ago
    Of course it's a typical growing infestation of mostly single-family-homes, but at least it has some urban core as opposed to the suburbs around it. And when Austin can't grow anymore those suburb-only municipalities will, and the prediction is that their finances will continue to worsen as upkeep costs start to dominate.
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      >at least it has some urban core why do they need to exist? they are even harder to maintain than suburbs, have you not noticed the meter thick layer of dirt in the NYC subway?
      - pas 4y ago
        that's where the sausage is made NYC public transportation has all the usual problems, but it moves a lot of people who otherwise would not be able to move. (this is basically why it's so "full of crazy people, but it's not a cause it's an effect of the efficiency of NYC)
throw0101a 4y ago
> The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as books: > Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities. * https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it. Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative: > Urban3 is a consulting company that helps cities better understand the economic impact of development. They have worked with many American cities to better understand and visualize the costs of development, and uncover which properties are productive, and which are not. Some municipalities have been willing to share that information, and it has provided a fascinating glimpse into the financial problems caused by sprawling car-centric suburban development. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Lafayette, LA case study from the video: * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... This is an accounting and ROI issue. If you don't want to believe the numbers… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  >Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative I have no interest in living in shoeboxes. > This is an accounting and ROI issue. Nope. Some just think quality of life isn’t about accounting and ROI. Do enjoy your shoebox though.
gota 4y ago
Isn't Austin a city that is growing, continually attracting people? If so, it is not a valid example against their claim. If you allow some pedantry: The claim is that _cities that don't keep growing_ go broke: a->b Showing ~b (Austin didn't go broke) only allows you to deduct ~a (Austin is growing) by modus tollens

x3iv130f 4y ago

Sure, we can just keep on increasing taxes until all the top earners leave for cheaper areas. I prefer low taxes. What's there to lose by building towns at a human scale? Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am.

pmoriarty 4y ago
Tax Flight Is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-flight-is-a-myth https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-fligh...
- refurb 4y ago
  That’s a high quality study! “It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount.” That’s their argument high taxes don’t drive people elsewhere?
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    Luckily Texas is 32nd in tax burden, and has zero state income tax.
    - CaptainZapp 4y ago
      Then again, Texans may be in deep shit if the weather turns too cold or too hot and the power grid conked yet again. Believe it or not, but a well maintained infrastructure has a lot to do with adequate taxation and regulation.
      - bin_bash 4y ago
        I just bought a generator with some of the tens of thousands I’m saving by not paying CA tax anymore
      - refurb 4y ago
        Indeed, unlike say, California whose high taxes have helped create a robust electrical infrastructure which hasn’t randomly started fires destroying entire towns (and killing dozens) and doesn’t have rolling blackouts each summer. Is that what you mean?
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        ERCOT’s CEO was fired over the incident im sure you are referring to. fired within weeks. Who’s getting fired over California’s blackouts? Let me guess, it’s all just climate change?
      - User23 4y ago
        Texas has other even more terrifying fragilities that I'm not going to get specific on, because they're that scary and I don't want to give crazy people ideas.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bliteben 4y ago
      Texas property taxes are insanely high, I would would consider moving to be closer to family, but I am pretty averse to the annual taxes at the properties that would appeal to me there (10k - 20k annual taxes).
- john567 4y ago
  No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country of residence because absurd tax rates. I'm a productive member of society and high earner but I'm starting to loose faith in my institutions. If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, that's what they do. Only the people that don't have the means to leave stay creating a particular nasty downward spiral of people without jobs and home ownership dependent on government subsidies.
  - ForHackernews 4y ago
    > No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country Cool, your N=1 anecdote completely invalidates all the statistical research in that area.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      Since the article is about state taxes, and the OP is talking about national taxes, I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.
    - john567 4y ago
      N=1 isn't an argument either. I'm simply saying what a lot of people in my situation also thinks. It's just sensible that you don't stay because you like paying taxes. You stay where you are because of family and friends. To say that it doesn't influence people decision is deceiving. > all the statistical research in that area. Calling BS on that right there
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, Well sure. But that's probably true of "fail your responsibilities" regardless of tax rate. Nobody wants to live in a state without a well-functioning government.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
forum_ghost 4y ago
>I prefer low taxes. Texas is 32rd in terms of tax burden, you will prefer it. >Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am. That’s an enforcement problem. If you think this doesn’t happen in dense cities, with way more sports carts and way more bars, idk what to tell you. I’ve literally moved to suburbia to escape the city noise. In my case it was fire engines passing by literally every 10 minutes. That’s normal in a dense “human-scale” city centre, but very rare in the suburbs.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  > moved to suburbia to escape the city noise City noise is almost all from automobiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8

labrador 4y ago

Yes and California where I am just announced a 90 billion dollar tax surplus and I see road and bridges getting fixed all the time. Maybe the rest of the country is falling apart. I don't really know.

rglullis 4y ago
- California had the tax surplus, not the towns. - All ponzis look good, until growth stops and the whole thing collapses. - The towns are being bailed out by the state. - The fact that you are seeing roads and bridges getting fixed does not mean that poorer cities are. And Strong Towns also shows that the suburbs (even if richer) get subsidized by the city centers.

pas 4y ago

Austin is a highly productive dense city, not a low density suburb.

JeremyNT 4y ago
Austin may be productive but dense it is not! The city itself is only 1/4 as dense as say Chicago, nevermind if you include the suburbs... Towns like Austin are precisely at issue. They grow by low density sprawl and large roads.
renewiltord 4y ago
There's no way that characterizes Austin. It's a sprawly city. Anyone who even tries to go car free there will be disappointed.
- pas 4y ago
  Of course it's a typical growing infestation of mostly single-family-homes, but at least it has some urban core as opposed to the suburbs around it. And when Austin can't grow anymore those suburb-only municipalities will, and the prediction is that their finances will continue to worsen as upkeep costs start to dominate.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    >at least it has some urban core why do they need to exist? they are even harder to maintain than suburbs, have you not noticed the meter thick layer of dirt in the NYC subway?
    - pas 4y ago
      that's where the sausage is made NYC public transportation has all the usual problems, but it moves a lot of people who otherwise would not be able to move. (this is basically why it's so "full of crazy people, but it's not a cause it's an effect of the efficiency of NYC)

throw0101a 4y ago

> The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as books: > Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities. * https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it. Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative: > Urban3 is a consulting company that helps cities better understand the economic impact of development. They have worked with many American cities to better understand and visualize the costs of development, and uncover which properties are productive, and which are not. Some municipalities have been willing to share that information, and it has provided a fascinating glimpse into the financial problems caused by sprawling car-centric suburban development. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Lafayette, LA case study from the video: * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... This is an accounting and ROI issue. If you don't want to believe the numbers… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

forum_ghost 4y ago
>Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative I have no interest in living in shoeboxes. > This is an accounting and ROI issue. Nope. Some just think quality of life isn’t about accounting and ROI. Do enjoy your shoebox though.

gota 4y ago

Isn't Austin a city that is growing, continually attracting people? If so, it is not a valid example against their claim. If you allow some pedantry: The claim is that _cities that don't keep growing_ go broke: a->b Showing ~b (Austin didn't go broke) only allows you to deduct ~a (Austin is growing) by modus tollens