Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#31

Post by massysett » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not.

The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc.

Of course some government is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that some people "pay for more than they use." That's called progressive taxation. So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it.

It would be just as ridiculous to write an article about how "people with children in schools aren't paying the cost of the school" or good grief even "people who have a fire aren't paying the cost of the fire department." Roads are provided for the public good.

So it really doesn't matter that the author doesn't even address the fact that many of these supposedly deadbeat property owners are paying a whole bunch of taxes that are keeping the city of Ames afloat, along with its supposedly inaccurate road tax scheme.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#32

Post by baddox » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #3

mfoy_ wrote: post #2

Interesting article, and great visuals. The Sankey Diagram of the budget was very nice and of course all the interactive maps bear mentioning. I think that anecdote about the "free" parking structure was really telling. The federal government swooped in and built a bunch of parking space then left the lesser governments squabbling over whose responsibility it wasn't. More importantly, I think the best solution is to…

I have to share one of my favorite anecdotes. CA colleges are, for a number of reasons (prop 13, etc), in perpetual budget crises. A mother with a daughter in a UC was interviewed on tv whining about the impact of budget cuts on her daughter's education. After about a minute of this moron whinging, the reporter asked if she would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars per year more in tax if it were dedicated to…

If you're wanting to be fair, you should also bring up the very real (and reasonable) possibility that this woman would rather existing tax revenue be spent on education than some of the things it is currently being spent on.

There is nothing contradictory about feeling overtaxed and also feeling that insufficient tax revenue is being spent on education.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#33

Post by armenarmen » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #8

First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zonin…

Some of the logic behind the incentivization of all this was to make the US less vulnerable to nuclear attack during the Cold War. Basically it would be harder to kill all of us if we were more spread out.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/Cold.War.Urban.Vulnerab...

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#34

Post by warfangle » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

Don't most streets with houses on them have houses on both sides of the street? In which case if two houses are each paying 60% the cost of the street on their frontage, isn't there a 20% overage?

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#35

Post by x0x0 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

akchin wrote: post #11

x0x0 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to share one of my favorite anecdotes. CA colleges are, for a number of reasons (prop 13, etc), in perpetual budget crises. A mother with a daughter in a UC was interviewed on tv whining about the impact of budget cuts on her daughter's education. After about a minute of this moron whinging, the reporter asked if she would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars per year more in tax if it were dedicated to…

This might be unpopular, but California is a great example of a place where taxes are high, but it is not spent well. I remember looking at this a few years back, and although the state claims that 2/3 of state tax dollars goes towards education, a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable, it essentially takes money away from today's generati…

While I'm with you on prop 13, we combine high income taxes with exceptionally low property taxes for long term property holders. Again, if we want nice things, we have to pay for them.

As for pensions, you say unsustainable promises, I say stealing from people who took cash later instead of cash immediately. Consider your last boss deciding to reach into your checking account and take $40k out because the business retroactively decided they overpaid.

According to this http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016CAbs_1... pensions are 36.9/208.2 = 18% of the state budget.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#36

Post by x0x0 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

massysett wrote: post #31

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc. Of course some government is a Ponzi sche…

The point, as I read it, is this only works as long as there is enough growth to pay for upkeep of older infrastructure. The second the growth slows, or even stops, there's trouble. And nobody is arguing you should only get out what you put in, but on average, if property taxes are barely high enough to pay for the street in front of that house, it's obvious there will be a problem.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#37

Post by HighPlainsDrftr » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well.

I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it.

There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefits.

The other part, while I don't know how you would get around it, seems to be the fact that my car tires are about 10" wide (20" combined). The street in front of my house is 80' wide. Thats an awful lot of space not being used.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#38

Post by kevinnk » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:17 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #9

There's this assumption that are $15-$18 per square foot. I'm no expert here, but I think that number might be roughly double what cities actually pay, based on this document from the State of Michigan : https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-Y... It's a decade old, but I'm seeing only $8/square foot cost, not $15+. Using the rest of the authors map + numbers, the majority of properties are now ac…

> Of course, Michigan roads are infamous for being terrible -- this might be the reason.

This is a bit of a tangent, but Michigan actually has fairly high construction standards for roads. However, it also has one of the highest truck weight limits in the nation (over double the federal limit) and most road damage comes from heavy trucks.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#39

Post by machrider » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

HighPlainsDrftr wrote: post #37

I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well. I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it. There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefit…

For one thing, you can safely go a lot faster on asphalt than on dirt while still being able to round corners and come to a stop.

Re: Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

#40

Post by stellar678 » Thu, May 05, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

HighPlainsDrftr wrote: post #37

I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well. I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it. There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefit…

I'm sure there are some road users this wouldn't work for, but check out permeable interlocking pavers. I encountered some country roads in Germany that were paved with these for many kilometers. It was a beautiful and pleasant place to ride.