3 ms·
Definitely! This was the most line of reasoning in the article with the most impact. Property taxes are often progressive, disproportionally affecting the relat
by druswick 14y ago
Definitely! This was the most line of reasoning in the article with the most impact. Property taxes are often progressive, disproportionally affecting the relatively wealthy. That's good. But when the benefits are collected and spent too locally, it means areas with higher property values also get better services. It takes away the progressive quality of property taxes.
Continue this to an extreme: property taxes that I pay are only spent on my household. The city/county maintains my property, educates my children. There's no more progressive distribution.
- Evbn 14y agoWhat definition of progressive are you using? They aren't super linear relative to income.
- drakeandrews 14y agoI think you've gotten your definition of progressive muddled. Property taxes are considered to be progressive because property values are widely considered to correlate strongly with income and wealth. Spending those taxes locally (or apportioning funds for local amenaties based on local tax revenue) is regressive, because increased benefit is then therefore correlated strongly with increased wealth and income. Therefore, your example represents a most regressive distribution of tax distribution.
- patmcguire 14y agoThey originate from small New England towns where they would have been progressive. Now that the rich and the poor don't live near each other they're regressive.
- druswick 14y agoI think we agree. I didn't put it as succinctly. Progressive tax. Regressive distribution. That's an excellent way of looking at it.