Tweet
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
This is hilarious.
Also, TIF doesn't lower taxes at all, it takes tax revenue from a specific area and uses it to fund a specific civic improvement - one that will (in theory) eventually pay off in the form of incrementally increased tax revenue down the line - hence Tax Increment Financing. It's a very specific government intervention.
The implication in your tone is that cities and urban areas are nothing but liberal havens. It's funny, because (as you note) cities are the product of private investment and economy. They are essentially economic agglomerations of human and physical capital. Like any market, they don't function all that well without a strong government framework.
It's also funny because these areas and viewpoints are very market-oriented, yet this has been written out of the Republican (and to a lesser extent, Democratic) agenda - they're all focused on pushing free market gospel to the suburbs, which are certainly no manifestation of the free market at all, but rather a product of strict zoning and housing regulations, transportation policies pushing highways out into the sticks, etc.
The other thing of note is that in many cities, higher taxes is not an automatic, knee-jerk 'no' as you imply. In fact, many of those private investors and landlords specifically tax themselves more in order to ensure better services.
Cities are complex places, and your dogma doesn't apply. I'll give Obama's administration an incomplete grade on this so far, but they're far better than their predecessors.
Originally posted by Plante26
View Post
Cities are on the comeback due to private real estate development, not government intervention. Mostly due to TIF-type legislation and other tax-based subsidies.
Of course, this isn't the game plan for the Obama Admin. Higher taxes are in order, not lower taxes.
Of course, this isn't the game plan for the Obama Admin. Higher taxes are in order, not lower taxes.
Also, TIF doesn't lower taxes at all, it takes tax revenue from a specific area and uses it to fund a specific civic improvement - one that will (in theory) eventually pay off in the form of incrementally increased tax revenue down the line - hence Tax Increment Financing. It's a very specific government intervention.
The implication in your tone is that cities and urban areas are nothing but liberal havens. It's funny, because (as you note) cities are the product of private investment and economy. They are essentially economic agglomerations of human and physical capital. Like any market, they don't function all that well without a strong government framework.
It's also funny because these areas and viewpoints are very market-oriented, yet this has been written out of the Republican (and to a lesser extent, Democratic) agenda - they're all focused on pushing free market gospel to the suburbs, which are certainly no manifestation of the free market at all, but rather a product of strict zoning and housing regulations, transportation policies pushing highways out into the sticks, etc.
The other thing of note is that in many cities, higher taxes is not an automatic, knee-jerk 'no' as you imply. In fact, many of those private investors and landlords specifically tax themselves more in order to ensure better services.
Cities are complex places, and your dogma doesn't apply. I'll give Obama's administration an incomplete grade on this so far, but they're far better than their predecessors.
Comment