But how they get the money and from who is a factor too.
This always happens when real property is taxed rather than commerce, and the amount of land available for development is limited or fixed.
To start with all land is taxed according to its initial assessment, after that revenues can not increase without raising rates and/or further developing parcels to increase their taxable value.
Both of which are unsustainable in the face of any inflation at all.
Each of which have their staunch supporters at odds with the other.
If only rate increases are considered, rate increases will have to outpace inflation or the taxing authority will go bankrupt.
The taxing authority can not be allowed to fail especially since the original purpose of this type tax is for the taxpayer to go bankrupt before the nobility does.
Eventually the _landowner_ will be assessed more tax than the land itself brings in, and will require _owners_ having outsized wealth from other sources, often only multigenerational prosperity will be sufficient.
At the other extreme where revenue growth comes only from further property development, pressure is greatest on undeveloped properties having the biggest upside potential.
New infrastructure is built at the expense of the old, spread more widely, and naturally not yet having future inflated maintenance costs incurred.
Little hand-waving is needed when a tax payer & collector are all prospering over the deal in the short term and there is some plausibility to behave as if future prosperity for all taxpayers will increase at the rate enjoyed by those involved with the development. Surely making costly things easier by then.
Inflation makes it impossible to know for sure anyway.
Mix and match these growing costs across citizenry which is not becoming more prosperous, and eventually there is no discretionary wealth except among the few who overcame the inflationary toll.
Taxing commerce instead of property allows revenue to grow at the rate of real prosperity unlimited. With the risk that revenue will drop when prosperity drops, or the authority will go bankrupt at the same time as the general citizenry in such a case.
Not a realistic risk since the authority will have enough credit to delay its own bankruptcy until after the majority of the citizens are ruined.
I guess the point of view about what kind of tax could ideally fund infrastructure indefinitely depends on whether you are a lowly taxable subject or a high-born guv'nor.
But how they get the money and from who is a factor too.
This always happens when real property is taxed rather than commerce, and the amount of land available for development is limited or fixed.
To start with all land is taxed according to its initial assessment, after that revenues can not increase without raising rates and/or further developing parcels to increase their taxable value.
Both of which are unsustainable in the face of any inflation at all.
Each of which have their staunch supporters at odds with the other.
If only rate increases are considered, rate increases will have to outpace inflation or the taxing authority will go bankrupt.
The taxing authority can not be allowed to fail especially since the original purpose of this type tax is for the taxpayer to go bankrupt before the nobility does.
Eventually the _landowner_ will be assessed more tax than the land itself brings in, and will require _owners_ having outsized wealth from other sources, often only multigenerational prosperity will be sufficient.
At the other extreme where revenue growth comes only from further property development, pressure is greatest on undeveloped properties having the biggest upside potential.
New infrastructure is built at the expense of the old, spread more widely, and naturally not yet having future inflated maintenance costs incurred.
Little hand-waving is needed when a tax payer & collector are all prospering over the deal in the short term and there is some plausibility to behave as if future prosperity for all taxpayers will increase at the rate enjoyed by those involved with the development. Surely making costly things easier by then.
Inflation makes it impossible to know for sure anyway.
Mix and match these growing costs across citizenry which is not becoming more prosperous, and eventually there is no discretionary wealth except among the few who overcame the inflationary toll.
Taxing commerce instead of property allows revenue to grow at the rate of real prosperity unlimited. With the risk that revenue will drop when prosperity drops, or the authority will go bankrupt at the same time as the general citizenry in such a case.
Not a realistic risk since the authority will have enough credit to delay its own bankruptcy until after the majority of the citizens are ruined.
I guess the point of view about what kind of tax could ideally fund infrastructure indefinitely depends on whether you are a lowly taxable subject or a high-born guv'nor.