Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
10 pages of posts with differing opinions (so what else is new?  )
It appears to me there is a group that objects to the tax increase to pay for new infrastructure on the basis that all homeowners are paying for something that only benefits some.
So the objection is that someone may be paying for something they don't use.
Well, where to start?
School taxes for couples who never had children
Cell phone surcharges to pay for those that don't pay their bill
Higher health insurance premiums to offset losses to hospitals by uninsured patients that don't pay their bills
Corporate tax subsidies for investing in Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan or putting up a sign that says save the whales or some other such nonsense
Food stamps
Welfare checks
Medicaid
And my new favorite: Some restaurants in California adding a surcharge to combat "climate change"
I could go on, but I think I've made my point |
No. This whole thread is about the Developer’s county commissioners offloading the Developer’s infrastructure costs onto the taxpayers, thereby giving a gift to the Developer of $150 million or so.