Raise the Hammer

And nothing in there is a new argument

To address your points in order

Lowering the tax rate does decrease the amount of taxes coming in to the city's budget. Like this... avg value of 1 home with an average value of $100, at a tax rate of 1.5% gives taxes in at $1.50. If the tax rate is reduced to 1%, that's $1.00 That's less. Balance the budget this year on a rapid tax cut. You refuse to accept that this is even an issue for council.

I have not proved that a lower tax rate rate leads to higher revenue. I've proved that Hamilton already pays less tax. You draw the inaccurate correlation that reducing the tax rate results in higher values out of thin air. There is no realistic reason to think that is accurate.

I can't belief that you have the gall to imply that someone else is arguing a point that they know is wrong, when that is clearly your position.

That's not a new argument. I've made it before and anyone with a basic knowledge of geography knows that's accurate. Major cities have high property values and the value decreases moving away from the city into rural areas where the cost is the least. That you don't see this as evident speaks volumes.

So the property values increased and then the city reduced the tax rate, not enough for your liking, but they reduced the tax rate after the values increased.

Capital expenses. I don't agree with many of them, but the citizens have consistently voted in councillors with the knowledge that large expenses will follow, so I wouldn't go around blaming councillors for being greedy. It's a city wide issue.

You are completely wrong on this issue.

If you think you are right, please explain why entire the population of Oakville hasn't moved to Hamilton to take advantage of our cheaper properties and the lower average property taxes. Which they would in your model until a point was reached where the property values increased to the point where the taxes balanced out. Forget it, you're insane.