It happes in every state at every level. Rural areas always get an unfairly large share, even though the government should be doing what it can to encourage (cheaper) urban living
Exactly right. Areas with low density cost more. You need to pave, maintain and plow more miles of public roadways; send buses over greater distances; fund schools that serve smaller numbers of students; and the list goes on. People in the cities, in this country, subsidize the lifestyles of those who live in suburbs and in the country. And that's true just counting the direct transfers of wealth through state and federal taxes. The indirect transfers dwarf those sums.
i live outside the city. and i get the idea of all that roadway needing to be paid for and maintained. but really, 495 is already there, a few miles from my house, whether i use it or not. and although my house was there pre-495, we didn't ask for the highway to go in, and my present occupancy is post-495.
so in this example, the state isn't paying for 495 for any reason that has to do with me.
the buses? they don't come out here any more. unless you mean school buses, because they do have to travel some. but probably a shorter distance than bigger towns, since my town is just a couple miles across.
and our school system?
it's kick-ass, thank you very much. we appreciate the funding. we also pay for it through excessively high taxes. and i do get taxed on all that land we own.
in many ways, i pay a lot to live in a low-density area. and i pay for a whole bunch of city perks i don't care about. but i don't begrudge it. isn't the state really just one big happy family?
think about it this way... the fact that i live in the country means more city parking spaces and bus seats for you :)
What we're talking about here is a net transfer of wealth. The City of Boston has 9.5% of the state's population. It also has 16% of the jobs. It accounts for 23.9% of the state's economic activity, and produces 20% of the state's tax revenue. In other words, one out of every five dollars the state takes in is generated in Boston; less than one in ten dollars it hands back out goes to Boston.
There are some reasonable arguments as to why that might be. For one thing, many of those who work in Boston live outside the city; surely they should see some of the revenues they generate at work invested in the communities that they live, as well. For another, the purpose of government is to invest in our common welfare. That's rarely accomplished in the most efficacious manner by ensuring that each individual citizen or local government unit receives back precisely what it generates in revenue. If it's more expensive to educate a child in the suburbs, sometimes it's worth the rest of us subsidizing that child's education.
What's important to me is that we recognize this reality for what it is. You may "pay for a whole bunch of city perks i don't care about," but on balance, people in outlying areas end up receiving much more in state assistance than they generate in tax dollars. Our state government is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth from urban areas to suburban and rural ones. The cities hold the businesses that generate tax dollars; they have the childless young workers who use few services but pay taxes; and the services their businesses and residents do require are cheaper to provide because of their density.
It'd be nice if Mats Tolander was a little more honest with his own use of statistics.
He makes the point that the city has relatively few children as a percentage of its population. That's absolutely true. But he doesn't follow that point through to its conclusion. The result is that all the young people living, working, and earning in the city are paying state taxes, and that the state is then funneling this revenue back out to suburbs, where more children live. That may be a socially desirable outcome, but I think it still needs to be defended, and at the very least, acknowledged. Boston, in other words, doesn't "beggar its neighbors’ children," as Tolander would have it - it's been subsidizing them, and would like to reduce the level of the subsidy.
His other jab is at Boston's educational and health care industries, which "are built on direct and indirect tax subsidies and therefore the city wants even more tax subsidies in the form of additional state aid." That's a rather twisted line of logic. For one thing, Menino has been pressing hard for PILOTS; he's not at all in favor of the subsidies. For another, as the report itself makes clear, these entities generate tens of millions in revenue - for the state, through income taxation, but not for the city. The inequity here lies in the tax structure, which forces cities to rely on property taxes. That's what local aid was supposed to compensate for. As things stand, the state tells the city it can't collect property taxes on its largest landholders and employers; the state itself collects huge amounts of income taxes from those who work for these entities, and other revenues from their subsidiaries and operations; and then the state reapportions these revenues so that the city receives a much smaller slice than it generates, and a somewhat smaller portion than its share of the population. So yeah, Tolander, that's sorta the whole point.
I really, really hate the notion that the suburbs subsidize the city. It just ain't true. As I wrote above, one in five state dollars comes from the city; less than one in ten is reinvested in the city. Suburbanites commute to their jobs on state highways, send their kids to schools built and subsidized through local aid dollars, and then have the gumption to complain about high local property tax rates that are necessary to provide services to a population that is broadly dispersed and offers few economies of scale. Yes, they're paying through the nose. And they still cost the rest of us a pretty penny, because they're not covering their own costs, even so.
Yes, cities enjoy economies of scale and economies of centrality. Boston the latter more so than most. It is served by several major and minor highways and commuter and regional train lines for which Boston and only Boston is the major node (the intersection of I-90 and I-495 is carefully placed in the middle of nowhere, and the intersection of I-93 and I-95 is generously undersized). It has an international airport and a harbor. When the city allows the construction of a residential high-rise next to an already overcrowded trolley line it is the city that bags the increase in property taxes. Boston enjoys the supply of regional labor that no other place in the area can realistically complete for. It is, by the way, that labor force that generates the bulk of the economic production that BRA likes to claim.
The economies of scale within Boston that are relevant to this discussion are limited to relatively small sections of the city while the rest of it is no more dense than Arlington, Watertown, Medford, Winchester, Reading etc. As for economy of scale compared to more far flung locations, well, it was built on drowning several villages out west in order to secure the city's water supply.
You fully discount the non-profit sales tax exemption, their income tax exemption and the personal income tax deduction for charitable donations. You fully discount the salaries for state and government workers who live in the city. You fully discount the enormous transfer of income from suburban households to the colleges in the city. You also fully discount the city's enjoyment of the services provided by the government and tax privileged institutions.
Every town wrestles with how to balance property taxes while preserving the strengths of each community and I bet every town has lots in prime locations that are occupied by non-profit organizations.
Boston's taxation problem is dwarfed by the city's spending problem. I don't think anybody in the suburbs was particularly enthusiastic about the mayor expanding the number of teachers, schools and headmasters while the student population was stagnant, and since then has declined in size.
Comments
It happes in every state at
It happes in every state at every level. Rural areas always get an unfairly large share, even though the government should be doing what it can to encourage (cheaper) urban living
Exactly right. Areas with low
Exactly right. Areas with low density cost more. You need to pave, maintain and plow more miles of public roadways; send buses over greater distances; fund schools that serve smaller numbers of students; and the list goes on. People in the cities, in this country, subsidize the lifestyles of those who live in suburbs and in the country. And that's true just counting the direct transfers of wealth through state and federal taxes. The indirect transfers dwarf those sums.
i'm not sure i get that...
i live outside the city. and i get the idea of all that roadway needing to be paid for and maintained. but really, 495 is already there, a few miles from my house, whether i use it or not. and although my house was there pre-495, we didn't ask for the highway to go in, and my present occupancy is post-495.
so in this example, the state isn't paying for 495 for any reason that has to do with me.
the buses? they don't come out here any more. unless you mean school buses, because they do have to travel some. but probably a shorter distance than bigger towns, since my town is just a couple miles across.
and our school system?
it's kick-ass, thank you very much. we appreciate the funding. we also pay for it through excessively high taxes. and i do get taxed on all that land we own.
in many ways, i pay a lot to live in a low-density area. and i pay for a whole bunch of city perks i don't care about. but i don't begrudge it. isn't the state really just one big happy family?
think about it this way... the fact that i live in the country means more city parking spaces and bus seats for you :)
bandit: What we're talking
bandit:
What we're talking about here is a net transfer of wealth. The City of Boston has 9.5% of the state's population. It also has 16% of the jobs. It accounts for 23.9% of the state's economic activity, and produces 20% of the state's tax revenue. In other words, one out of every five dollars the state takes in is generated in Boston; less than one in ten dollars it hands back out goes to Boston.
There are some reasonable arguments as to why that might be. For one thing, many of those who work in Boston live outside the city; surely they should see some of the revenues they generate at work invested in the communities that they live, as well. For another, the purpose of government is to invest in our common welfare. That's rarely accomplished in the most efficacious manner by ensuring that each individual citizen or local government unit receives back precisely what it generates in revenue. If it's more expensive to educate a child in the suburbs, sometimes it's worth the rest of us subsidizing that child's education.
What's important to me is that we recognize this reality for what it is. You may "pay for a whole bunch of city perks i don't care about," but on balance, people in outlying areas end up receiving much more in state assistance than they generate in tax dollars. Our state government is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth from urban areas to suburban and rural ones. The cities hold the businesses that generate tax dollars; they have the childless young workers who use few services but pay taxes; and the services their businesses and residents do require are cheaper to provide because of their density.
Maybe the money is going to Lawrence
Massachusetts has a lot of small bombed out cities too, I'd be surprised if they were net givers.
The BRA is speaking?
Then they must be lying!
Why is the city's solution to everything give us more money to spend on fewer people and less services - even when there is NO arbitrator involved?
Lies, damned lies and statistics
Mats Tolander wishes to take issue with the city numbers.
It'd be nice if Mats Tolander
It'd be nice if Mats Tolander was a little more honest with his own use of statistics.
He makes the point that the city has relatively few children as a percentage of its population. That's absolutely true. But he doesn't follow that point through to its conclusion. The result is that all the young people living, working, and earning in the city are paying state taxes, and that the state is then funneling this revenue back out to suburbs, where more children live. That may be a socially desirable outcome, but I think it still needs to be defended, and at the very least, acknowledged. Boston, in other words, doesn't "beggar its neighbors’ children," as Tolander would have it - it's been subsidizing them, and would like to reduce the level of the subsidy.
His other jab is at Boston's educational and health care industries, which "are built on direct and indirect tax subsidies and therefore the city wants even more tax subsidies in the form of additional state aid." That's a rather twisted line of logic. For one thing, Menino has been pressing hard for PILOTS; he's not at all in favor of the subsidies. For another, as the report itself makes clear, these entities generate tens of millions in revenue - for the state, through income taxation, but not for the city. The inequity here lies in the tax structure, which forces cities to rely on property taxes. That's what local aid was supposed to compensate for. As things stand, the state tells the city it can't collect property taxes on its largest landholders and employers; the state itself collects huge amounts of income taxes from those who work for these entities, and other revenues from their subsidiaries and operations; and then the state reapportions these revenues so that the city receives a much smaller slice than it generates, and a somewhat smaller portion than its share of the population. So yeah, Tolander, that's sorta the whole point.
I really, really hate the notion that the suburbs subsidize the city. It just ain't true. As I wrote above, one in five state dollars comes from the city; less than one in ten is reinvested in the city. Suburbanites commute to their jobs on state highways, send their kids to schools built and subsidized through local aid dollars, and then have the gumption to complain about high local property tax rates that are necessary to provide services to a population that is broadly dispersed and offers few economies of scale. Yes, they're paying through the nose. And they still cost the rest of us a pretty penny, because they're not covering their own costs, even so.
BRA must be broke, trying to
BRA must be broke, trying to sell a war memorial park.
http://www.charlestownonline.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1074
Yes, cities enjoy economies
Yes, cities enjoy economies of scale and economies of centrality. Boston the latter more so than most. It is served by several major and minor highways and commuter and regional train lines for which Boston and only Boston is the major node (the intersection of I-90 and I-495 is carefully placed in the middle of nowhere, and the intersection of I-93 and I-95 is generously undersized). It has an international airport and a harbor. When the city allows the construction of a residential high-rise next to an already overcrowded trolley line it is the city that bags the increase in property taxes. Boston enjoys the supply of regional labor that no other place in the area can realistically complete for. It is, by the way, that labor force that generates the bulk of the economic production that BRA likes to claim.
The economies of scale within Boston that are relevant to this discussion are limited to relatively small sections of the city while the rest of it is no more dense than Arlington, Watertown, Medford, Winchester, Reading etc. As for economy of scale compared to more far flung locations, well, it was built on drowning several villages out west in order to secure the city's water supply.
You fully discount the non-profit sales tax exemption, their income tax exemption and the personal income tax deduction for charitable donations. You fully discount the salaries for state and government workers who live in the city. You fully discount the enormous transfer of income from suburban households to the colleges in the city. You also fully discount the city's enjoyment of the services provided by the government and tax privileged institutions.
Every town wrestles with how to balance property taxes while preserving the strengths of each community and I bet every town has lots in prime locations that are occupied by non-profit organizations.
Boston's taxation problem is dwarfed by the city's spending problem. I don't think anybody in the suburbs was particularly enthusiastic about the mayor expanding the number of teachers, schools and headmasters while the student population was stagnant, and since then has declined in size.