View Single Post
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 8:45 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
And property values do not have a strong correlation to income. Seniors being the biggest counter example.
Seniors in this city are such a small fraction of the population that if anything, they're the exception that proves the rule. Plus, seniors tend to downsize as they age so I'm not entirely sure where all these low income seniors living in McMansions are.

Obviously there are exceptions, which is why I said *correlation* - not *1:1 relationship*. You can't seriously be arguing that property values and income levels aren't pretty heavily related in the majority of cases.

Anyway, semantics and specifics aside, all I was responding to was the comment of "X is unfair because I pay more, but get less". Yes, that's how much of our system works in this country (when looked at shallowly). I haven't seen a convincing argument as to why that should be applied to infrastructure planning as opposed to all the other realms where we accept it as a given. In and of itself, it's not really an argument to change taxation methods, unless you run in the WRA party. There are plenty of other, better arguments here.
Reply With Quote