La Vergne residents - 100 percent increase in the city’s property tax rate

#26
#26
tigervol9802 said:
Yes, but you also need -

-Bigger and/or more schools
-Probably a bigger jail
-A second or third fire department depending on size of your town
-More buses, police cards, fire engines, other costs for these as well as regular maintenance
-More maintenance on street/roads because of increased traffic causes them to deterriorte faster
-Nevermind your police chiefs, fire chiefs and other higher ups in city services are probably going to want (and deserve) raises for increased workload and stress

Of course, I'm not even factoring in that for economies of scale to function properly that each person moving in to the city would require the same or less government services per what they pay into the system as those already living there. Typically, this isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Do you have any support for that?

None of the services you have mentioned necessitate an increase in tax rate. That could all conceivably be covered by the increased tax revenue of a growing population. Coupling that with the fact that you do get economic returns, there really isn't an excuse to raise taxes based on population increase. Mosley is banking that his populace isn't smart enough to understand that.
 
#27
#27
nbakerld said:
Do you have any support for that?

None of the services you have mentioned necessitate an increase in tax rate. That could all conceivably be covered by the increased tax revenue of a growing population. Coupling that with the fact that you do get economic returns, there really isn't an excuse to raise taxes based on population increase. Mosley is banking that his populace isn't smart enough to understand that.
Click to expand...

You live an a big a fantasy land as utgibbs does.
 
#29
#29
nbakerld said:
Do you have any support for that?

None of the services you have mentioned necessitate an increase in tax rate. That could all conceivably be covered by the increased tax revenue of a growing population. Coupling that with the fact that you do get economic returns, there really isn't an excuse to raise taxes based on population increase. Mosley is banking that his populace isn't smart enough to understand that.
Click to expand...

Can you support any of your supposed economic theory stances other than Ron Paul says so?

La Vergne, Tennessee (TN 37086, 37089) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

The city has grown by 65% since 2000. The median income has risen by 6K from 51K to 57K, or roughly 11%. Property value has risen roughly 40%.

You really want to tell me in real world practical application, not ecnomic theory, that these numbers in a more detailed calculation would equal a local government that would allow the same services per resident as it did in 2000 based on same base of tax revenues?
 
#30
#30
nbakerld said:
I live in the fantasyland where people understand basic principles and theories of economics.
Click to expand...

You seem like a very book smart individual that has never, ever dealt with something other than a straight textbook example of how things work.

Good luck with that.
 
#31
#31
tigervol9802 said:
The city has grown by 65% since 2000. The median income has risen by 6K from 51K to 57K, or roughly 11%. Property value has risen roughly 40%.

You really want to tell me in real world practical application, not ecnomic theory, that these numbers in a more detailed calculation would equal a local government that would allow the same services per resident as it did in 2000 based on same base of tax revenues?
Click to expand...

He doesn't deal in those.
 
#32
#32
tigervol9802 said:
Can you support any of your supposed economic theory stances other than Ron Paul says so?

La Vergne, Tennessee (TN 37086, 37089) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

The city has grown by 65% since 2000. The median income has risen by 6K from 51K to 57K, or roughly 11%. Property value has risen roughly 40%.

You really want to tell me in real world practical application, not ecnomic theory, that these numbers in a more detailed calculation would equal a local government that would allow the same services per resident as it did in 2000 based on same base of tax revenues?
Click to expand...

So you can't support it? Can you be more specific? You want support of every idea I've ever expressed?

Did you watch the video I posted on page 1 of this thread?
 
#33
#33
tigervol9802 said:
Can you support any of your supposed economic theory stances other than Ron Paul says so?

La Vergne, Tennessee (TN 37086, 37089) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

The city has grown by 65% since 2000. The median income has risen by 6K from 51K to 57K, or roughly 11%. Property value has risen roughly 40%.

You really want to tell me in real world practical application, not ecnomic theory, that these numbers in a more detailed calculation would equal a local government that would allow the same services per resident as it did in 2000 based on same base of tax revenues?
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Why would ad valorem taxes on new properties not pay for the incremental expense unless the previous millage rates were egregiously low. If so, no one has an argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#35
#35
BigPapaVol said:
I don't understand. Why would ad valorem taxes on new properties not pay for the incremental expense unless the previous millage rates were egregiously low. If so, no one has an argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ady whaty?

ben_stiller_zoolander_003.jpg


Why is it hiding my Zoolander gif?
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
justingroves said:
He doesn't deal in those.
Click to expand...

You're like that little sidekick dog in the old cartoons who constantly says to the big dog, "ain't that right, Spike?"

4 posts on this thread and you have provided nothing of substance. All you know is you want in on the argument.
 
#39
#39
Baker is mostly correct. Also, the city should have seen increased tax revenue if the population exploded like they say.
 
#40
#40
nbakerld said:
So you can't support it? Can you be more specific? You want support of every idea I've ever expressed?

Did you watch the video I posted on page 1 of this thread?
Click to expand...

If I really wanted to support the argument of how there is a point where real world practices would require a tax hike at a local level I would. However, you would still claim economic theory trumps it.
 
#41
#41
golfballs03 said:
Baker is mostly correct. Also, the city should have seen increased tax revenue if the population exploded like they say.
Click to expand...

That's really all I've been saying.

A population increase does not necessitate increased tax rate. If a city is managed properly it could still mean the city needs to raise the rate a little bit. It could also mean the city ends up with a surplus. You definitely shouldn't require a 100% property tax increase to keep up with a 65% population increase.
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
I don't understand. Why would ad valorem taxes on new properties not pay for the incremental expense unless the previous millage rates were egregiously low. If so, no one has an argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I have no idea on prior rates being high/low/whatever.

If you are talking about a local govt mostly supported by property taxes then you will get into the average size of the family moving in, number of new properites, etc.
 
#44
#44
nbakerld said:
That's really all I've been saying.

A population increase does not necessitate increased tax rate. If a city is managed properly it could still mean the city needs to raise the rate a little bit. It could also mean the city ends up with a surplus. You definitely shouldn't require a 100% property tax increase to keep up with a 65% population increase.
Click to expand...

Of course, that was growth since 2000. I have no idea what the growth is in the last 18 years, the last time the property tax was increased.

My guess, given general knowledge of the area, is that it is well over 100%.
 
#45
#45
tigervol9802 said:
If I really wanted to support the argument of how there is a point where real world practices would require a tax hike at a local level I would. However, you would still claim economic theory trumps it.
Click to expand...

This was actually the statement I was asking you to support:

tigervol9802 said:
Of course, I'm not even factoring in that for economies of scale to function properly that each person moving in to the city would require the same or less government services per what they pay into the system as those already living there. Typically, this isn't the case.
Click to expand...

It'll take us on a tangent, so I don't care that much for an answer. I just was wondering if that was something you made up, had heard, or had support for.

Basically what I get from that is if a city grows, it's "typically" because poor people moved there.
 
#47
#47
it's a tax rate. you multiply the rate by the base and you get the revenue. as long as the base is increasing, you shouldn't have to raise the rate in order to see increased revenue. plus factor in the incremental costs mentioned above, it doesn't pass basic reasoning to think they need a 100% increase.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top