Raise the Hammer

Z Jones, >> You're still assuming causality, duh.

You too are assuming causality. You are making the assumption that increasing tax rates will produce higher revenue for the city and yet where is the proof to back that assumption up. According to the numbers JonC presented, higher tax rates in Hamilton have not led to higher revenue per property. Therefore, you're assumption is not borne out by the facts.

>> This year, let's say the city takes in a billion dollars at current tax rates. Then let's say they decide to cut rates by a third. Immediately, the city's tax revenue will go down by a third, and the city will have to cancel a third of it's spending since cities aren't allowed to run deficits.

Who said anything about cutting rates a third in one year? How about 5% a year? Would that lead to disaster? Seeing that the city wants to spend millions on a stadium and has recently shown it loves to spend money at 3x the rate of inflation, you are in no position to cry foul about not having enough money. The city has plenty of money, all it needs to do is a better job of allocating it.

>> Properties in Hamilton are WORTH LESS than equivalent properties in Toronto. That means the city gets LESS REVENUE even with higher tax rates.

Exactly. If the city wants more revenue it needs to reduce rates.

>> It may well be why the city has to charge higher tax rates in the first place, and not the opposite as you insist.

The city does not need to spend at 3x the rate of inflation no matter what you say. Most of the cost associated with running the city is employee compensation (514 million in 2007), so there is plenty of room to cut back. It would simply mean that city employees would have to have their pay linked to inflation until we could bring rates down to 1%, at which time property values would have increased enough to offset the lower rates.

>> IT'S ALREADY CHEAPER IN HAMILTON BUT PEOPLE STILL AREN'T RUSHING HERE IN DROVES

First of all, there are more people in Hamilton than Oakville and Burlington combined, but that's not the point. The goal is to not just increase the population of the city, but to increase the amount of people who would like to live here, the demand, there is a difference. That's why tax rates are so important if you want to not just increase the total amount of people that live here, but also increase how much they are willing to pay for a property. Understand?

>> Yeah, but a house that costs $200,000 in Hamilton costs $300,000 in Burlington, so you pay about the same tax

What sense does that make? A $200,000 house in Hamilton is obviously NOT the same as a $300,000 house in Burlington, otherwise the market would not price it 50% less. Furthermore, prices for homes are not simply reflections of square footage, but reflect the overall desirability of the neighbourhoods they make up. To suggest that a 2,000 sq.ft home in Hamilton currently has the same value as a 2,000 sq.ft home in Burlington means that either the whole real estate market is wrong, or you have made an incorrect assumption. I'll go with the latter.

>> You do realized that you're the ONLY ONE HERE insisting that doing something with tax rates is how to produce revenue for the city.

That's not true, if you didn't believe that higher tax rates brought in more revenue for the city, why would you be arguing against my proposal to begin lowering them? The only rational reason why anyone would be against lowering tax rates is because they DO believe it will affect city revenue and not in a positive way.

If you can't even understand who or what it is you are arguing against/for, maybe you should take some time to figure it out before calling people idiots.