4 ms·

Electricity and water are usually close to 100% paid for by the bills and if not it's not exactly a big difference if they are. The roads and the occasional bi

Electricity and water are usually close to 100% paid for by the bills and if not it's not exactly a big difference if they are. The roads and the occasional big investment in something like a water treatment plan are paid via taxes. The money taxes a circuitous route to get there since so much money goes to fed and state taxes who then fractionally fund these sorts of infrastructure upkeep things. Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. Rich communities get less because their taxes get redirected to poorer communities to a larger extent. If poorer communities were not benefits of this wealth transfer they find ways to make do with less but it wouldn't be the financial devastation that many here like to imply.

300bps 4y ago
Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. You’re not taking school taxes and costs into consideration. In my school district, they spend $18,211 per student each year. Average school taxes per house are $8,100. So a house with 1 child costs $10,111 per year. But the average house with children has 2.1 kids costing over $30,000 more than is paid in. This is a very common problem and why development, especially of larger homes (with likely more children) is a net drain on the local tax base.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Schools are an infinite money pit. Their expenses grow to consume what is available. Likewise their expenses can be trimmed if the money is simply not available. As we've learned from pumping poorly performing schools full of money, expenditure is only loosely correlated with results.
- frumper 4y ago
  Sounds like your problem is children. Children need to be schooled whether they live in a large house or are crammed into a tiny condo.
  - 300bps 4y ago
    Children need to be schooled whether they live in a large house or are crammed into a tiny condo. True, but doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. GP said homes pay as much in taxes as they receive in services. I disputed that by pointing out that even with very large homes, the people in the home receive far more educational services than their taxes pay for. Your response to that is to say children need education?
    - frumper 4y ago
      Most of the suburbs, small cities and towns I've been in are predominately single family homes, yet they somehow all have schools paid for by taxes. People that tend to live in very large homes tend to pay disproportionately larger shares of taxes.
      - 300bps 4y ago
        small cities and towns I've been in are predominately single family homes, yet they somehow all have schools paid for by taxes That somehow is because they tax people that don't have kids in school. In fact, municipalities can nudge this. Approve a 55+ community and it will give the community a net tax benefit. Same thing with a condo community. But approve a plan for a community of single family homes with 4+ bedrooms and you will have a huge drain on the tax base literally forever.

300bps 4y ago

Unless a community is exceptionally rich or poor the people living there pay roughly what it costs +/- a few percent. You’re not taking school taxes and costs into consideration. In my school district, they spend $18,211 per student each year. Average school taxes per house are $8,100. So a house with 1 child costs $10,111 per year. But the average house with children has 2.1 kids costing over $30,000 more than is paid in. This is a very common problem and why development, especially of larger homes (with likely more children) is a net drain on the local tax base.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Schools are an infinite money pit. Their expenses grow to consume what is available. Likewise their expenses can be trimmed if the money is simply not available. As we've learned from pumping poorly performing schools full of money, expenditure is only loosely correlated with results.
frumper 4y ago
Sounds like your problem is children. Children need to be schooled whether they live in a large house or are crammed into a tiny condo.
- 300bps 4y ago
  Children need to be schooled whether they live in a large house or are crammed into a tiny condo. True, but doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. GP said homes pay as much in taxes as they receive in services. I disputed that by pointing out that even with very large homes, the people in the home receive far more educational services than their taxes pay for. Your response to that is to say children need education?
  - frumper 4y ago
    Most of the suburbs, small cities and towns I've been in are predominately single family homes, yet they somehow all have schools paid for by taxes. People that tend to live in very large homes tend to pay disproportionately larger shares of taxes.
    - 300bps 4y ago
      small cities and towns I've been in are predominately single family homes, yet they somehow all have schools paid for by taxes That somehow is because they tax people that don't have kids in school. In fact, municipalities can nudge this. Approve a 55+ community and it will give the community a net tax benefit. Same thing with a condo community. But approve a plan for a community of single family homes with 4+ bedrooms and you will have a huge drain on the tax base literally forever.