Raise the Hammer

A Smith wrote:

In Massachusetts, Oregon and California where the voters capped government spending and taxation...

Let's take a single example. Boston's residential property tax rate is around $10.75 per $1,000 of assessed value, or 1.075 percent - a bit more than double what you're proposing that Hamilton adopts. (Its commercial property tax rate is around $26 per $1,000 of assessed value, or 2.6 percent.)

As I and other commenters have noted previously, Boston is able to charge a lower property tax rate because its property values are higher. In fact, Boston has some of the highest property values anywhere in North America, particularly clustered in its surviving 18th- and 19th century urban neighbourhoods - neighbourhoods that survived the wrecking ball of "economic progress" because of strong public engagement by preservationists starting in the middle of last century.

If you compare various cities, you will find that the average dollar amounts charged in property taxes on equivalent properties is quite constant, with the respective rates varying based on property values (i.e. places with higher property values can afford to charge lower rates) to achieve that constant dollar amount.

That dollar amount, of course, is the money cities need to operate. Without that revenue, cities would have to cut or eliminate large swaths of the public services that residents have come to expect and which are necessary for a high quality of life.

Again let us recall that you advocate precisely this move: cutting or eliminating public services and letting the magic of unregulated free markets provide what people want.

It would be remiss, at this point, not to observe that Boston - that paragon of disciplined taxation and high property values - provides extensive and comprehensive public services. Of particular note is an excellent public transit system that includes five electric rail lines. This is not to mention a public library that is so well maintained and appointed it doubles as a tourist attraction.

caesar wrote:

if the mob doesn't agree with someone's comment it gets voted down

It may seem that way if you're not familiar with the history of A Smith's comments. In fact, he is being downvoted because of a long and unpleasant history of trolling, rude and insulting language, and disrupting civil conversations - no matter the topic - with his narrow, dogmatic obsession with tax cuts and deregulation.

Frankly, RTH readers have had enough.

Reply | Permalink | Context