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

#51
#51
nbakerld said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's really not an argument.

There's a big difference between "should work" and "does work".

This is a case where it didn't work.
 
#53
#53
justingroves said:
They were
Click to expand...

If you go by 2007 averages, Lavergne's property tax rate was less than half of the Tennessee average at that point, and had been at that point since 1993.

Like I said, I used to live there. The people that do live there are, by and large, idiots that scream for the government to do something about crime increases, ****ty roads, overcrowded schools, etc. and then when the city says "okay but it will cost you" the dumb asses do things like try to go unincorporated. I seriously hate my home town because about 99% of the people that live there are ****ing stupid.

Also, the former mayor Webb, who is interviewed in the article, is a ****ing joke. The town began it's steep decline into a slum near the end of his reign of bull****.

[/rant]
 
#57
#57
emainvol said:
If you go by 2007 averages, Lavergne's property tax rate was less than half of the Tennessee average at that point, and had been at that point since 1993.

Like I said, I used to live there. The people that do live there are, by and large, idiots that scream for the government to do something about crime increases, ****ty roads, overcrowded schools, etc. and then when the city says "okay but it will cost you" the dumb asses do things like try to go unincorporated. I seriously hate my home town because about 99% of the people that live there are ****ing stupid.

Also, the former mayor Webb, who is interviewed in the article, is a ****ing joke. The town began it's steep decline into a slum near the end of his reign of bull****.

[/rant]
Click to expand...


I haven't been to La Vergne since 2003 so I don't know the answer (which may be a simple one) to this question, but why are people moving there if it's steeply declining into a slum?
 
#58
#58
nbakerld said:
I haven't been to La Vergne since 2003 so I don't know the answer (which may be a simple one) to this question, but why are people moving there if it's steeply declining into a slum?
Click to expand...

It is cheap to live there because of low tax rates and low rent. Basically, a lot of the numbers you see now don't necessarily reflect the impact of growth over the last few years. It was in the beginning stages when I left town in '04 (crime rate was going up), and now my old neighborhood (that was pretty quiet aside from normal teenage mischief when I was there) has become somewhat of a breeding ground for gang activity, so much so that there is a police annex in the neighborhood now. The town has grown substantially since I was born in 1983, when I believe the population was around 5,000 people. The tax rates have stayed nearly static the entire time, and at an extremely low rate to boot.

Without the funds to really keep the town up, and with all the starter homes that are now being rented out for dirt cheap in the neighborhood that I was talking about, the whole place is just going to hell.
 
#59
#59
emainvol said:
It is cheap to live there because of low tax rates and low rent. Basically, a lot of the numbers you see now don't necessarily reflect the impact of growth over the last few years. It was in the beginning stages when I left town in '04 (crime rate was going up), and now my old neighborhood (that was pretty quiet aside from normal teenage mischief when I was there) has become somewhat of a breeding ground for gang activity, so much so that there is a police annex in the neighborhood now. The town has grown substantially since I was born in 1983, when I believe the population was around 5,000 people. The tax rates have stayed nearly static the entire time, and at an extremely low rate to boot.

Without the funds to really keep the town up, and with all the starter homes that are now being rented out for dirt cheap in the neighborhood that I was talking about, the whole place is just going to hell.
Click to expand...

Economies of scale and economic theory say this is impossible.
 
#62
#62
nbakerld said:
You only think this because you don't understand them...still {sigh}
Click to expand...

Dude, I graduated with a effing degree in accoutning and was 2 classes short from having a double-major in econ, in which classes I had a 4.0. I friggin get it but I can look past damned economic theories to tell you how the real friggin world operates when you take it out of theory and apply it to real life.

In theory, Keynesian economics works and the economy should be booming right now unlike anything we've ever seen before, but that's not the case either.
 
#64
#64
tigervol9802 said:
Dude, I graduated with a effing degree in accoutning and was 2 classes short from having a double-major in econ, in which classes I had a 4.0. I friggin get it but I can look past damned economic theories to tell you how the real friggin world operates when you take it out of theory and apply it to real life.

In theory, Keynesian economics works and the economy should be booming right now unlike anything we've ever seen before, but that's not the case either.
Click to expand...

Keynesian theory is widely disputed by economists. The idea of economies of scale is disputed by 0 economists. Guess you didn't learn that.

All I have argued in essence is that population increase does not necessarily require a tax rate increase. You can talk all day about how economic theory has no practical application, etc. but the fact of the matter is you are arguing with a point that can't really be argued. To argue it is to say "when population increases, tax rates must increase to maintain services". And that's not necessarily true.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
nbakerld said:
Keynesian theory is widely disputed by economists. The idea of economies of scale is disputed by 0 economists. Guess you didn't learn that.

All I have argued in essence is that population increase does not necessarily require a tax rate increase. You can talk all day about how economic theory has no practical application, etc. but the fact of the matter is you are arguing with a point that can't really be argued. To argue it is to say "when population increases, tax rates must increase to maintain services". And that's not necessarily true.
Click to expand...

No, what I have said (or tried to say) is there is a point with a governmental entity where the revenue a person paying taxes will provide will not cover the expenses to take care of that person without a tax increase.

When a city has grown approximately 300% (rough guesstimate) in 18 years with zero tax rate increase in it's major funding source, it's probably time to increase the rate, all factors considered.
 
#66
#66
tigervol9802 said:
No, what I have said (or tried to say) is there is a point with a governmental entity where the revenue a person paying taxes will provide will not cover the expenses to take care of that person without a tax increase.

When a city has grown approximately 300% (rough guesstimate) in 18 years with zero tax rate increase in it's major funding source, it's probably time to increase the rate, all factors considered.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the exact population now, but 1993 was well before the population boom, so 300% is definitely in the right ballpark
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#67
#67
tigervol9802 said:
No, what I have said (or tried to say) is there is a point with a governmental entity where the revenue a person paying taxes will provide will not cover the expenses to take care of that person without a tax increase.

When a city has grown approximately 300% (rough guesstimate) in 18 years with zero tax rate increase in it's major funding source, it's probably time to increase the rate, all factors considered.
Click to expand...
The rate move only helps to the extent it was too low. Likelihood is that the city has also massively broadened its scope of expenses. If not, 18 years is immaterial in that ad valorem taxes should still cover what they once did as inflation hasn't outstripped property valuations in that period.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
BigPapaVol said:
The rate move only helps to the extent it was too low. Likelihood is that the city has also massively broadened its scope of expenses. If not, 18 years is immaterial in that ad valorem taxes should still cover what they once did as inflation hasn't outstripped property valuations in that period.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's definitely part of it. And in this case I'd say the driving factor.

At the same time, it also depends on the people moving there/being annexed as well. If, in this case, property values remain high, then yes, it works out. But if you have lower property values and the people moving there require more services per person than they are putting into it, it can still become a problem as well.

I also think we tend to minimize the sunk costs of capital projects and other equipment for the city as well that can also add up in a hurry. And quite frankly, as your population grows, you are going to need new schools, new fire trucks, etc.

I'm not saying there probably isn't waste, I know better than that, I just contend there is a point where the collective whole of all of this to provide decent services for a community costs more per person than what the collective person pays in.
 
#70
#70
MG1968 said:
is a property tax rate of 1% really that onerous?
Click to expand...

Over the lifetime of a 30-year mortgage on a $200K house, it is pretty hefty. The opportunity cost from the ROI one would receive by investing $2K/year in a medium risk mutual fund is huge.

Property taxes, IMO, provide th orst consequences of taxes, as the wealthy will continue to seek out the new and improved neighborhoods leaving those that fall in on "undervalued" homes to cover the costs of infrastructure and services built for the wealthy and under the assumption that the property tax revenue would remain fairly constant, in real dollars.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#72
#72
therealUT said:
Over the lifetime of a 30-year mortgage on a $200K house, it is pretty hefty. The opportunity cost from the ROI one would receive by investing $2K/year in a medium risk mutual fund is huge.

Property taxes, IMO, provide th orst consequences of taxes, as the wealthy will continue to seek out the new and improved neighborhoods leaving those that fall in on "undervalued" homes to cover the costs of infrastructure and services built for the wealthy and under the assumption that the property tax revenue would remain fairly constant, in real dollars.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

what?
 
#74
#74
therealUT said:
What is not clear about that statement? What would you like me to clarify?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

you make it sound as if the wealthy move frequently and that the reason they move is that there is always going to be a better, fancier neighborhood around the corner. Then, the neighborhoods that they just vacated (apparently en masse) become rundown shadows of their former selves appealing only to 1st time buyers on very limited budgets.
 
#75
#75
and that those peasants are the ones who end up paying all the property taxes? I'm confused.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top