But why does Detroit have higher taxes?
Is it not that there is a smaller base of taxes, but a large population with great needs?
Is it not that the value of land is very low there, and the value of income of the people living in Detroit is very low. But the cost to educate a student or to provide health care for people on welfare is the same as elsewhere. And so is it not true that in order to get enough money to run those services from poorer people, that Detroit must tax more?
Isn't it true that schools in America, instead of being part of a uniform national system and funded based upon needs from the national state so that there is parity, are instead funded and directed by each and every separate community? Doesn't that mean that poorer areas, like Detroit, have bad schools because the only money is from Detroit, while wealthy areas, like Beverly Hills, have very good schools because the property values in such areas are very high, so even with lower tax rates more money is taken in?
You say that Detroiters do not WANT to change, but isn't this a matter of a lack of education? In France, the national education system would be imparting the national values there. But in America, each locality is on its own. So, places that have intelligent residents do well, but places that are already blighted are relying on people who already don't know what they are doing to direct the school systems that are supposed to teach children to not be like their parents, where their parents are not functioning well.
But what needs do Detroit have that any other community does not also need? Schools, Trash collection, city police, water system, fire department, and a park system. Even my middle-class community of 10,000 people needs those. What is more important? One household with a $200,000 home paying $6000+ in taxes, or 5 households in 200,000 homes paying $3000 in taxes? The lower taxes increase revenues since more people will be apt to move to Detroit if the costs there are a bargain elsewhere. Currently, it costs more to live in a poorer neighborhood in Detroit because of taxes, than it does in a working or middle class area in the surburbs. The city services in the burbs are much better than Detroit.
Is it not that the value of land is very low there, and the value of income of the people living in Detroit is very low.
There's actually diverse income ranges in Detroit, although as a whole, Detroiters are poorer than most of the rest of the state. In order to gain more tax revenue, Detroit needs to attract more residents. By raising taxes, they will be driving out (as they have) the rest of the working and middle class to neighboring Southfield(surburban) and other areas. All of the Detroit metropolitan area's communities compete against one another.
But the cost to educate a student or to provide health care for people on welfare is the same as elsewhere. And so is it not true that in order to get enough money to run those services from poorer people, that Detroit must tax more?
All of the federal(national) funds (outside of Social Security) are given through revenue sharing systems (From USA to State to County) with states(provinces) or through subsidities. It's complicated, and hard for me to explain, and even I don't know all the particulars on revenue sharing. In its most simplistic view, Detroiters pay the federal income tax, Social Security Tax, state income tax, state sales taxes, local property taxes, and city income tax. Much of the state money also funds county and city services through bureaucratic revenue sharing. Most of the local money is funded through taxes on homeowners and businesses' property values.
Isn't it true that schools in America, instead of being part of a uniform national system and funded based upon needs from the national state so that there is parity, are instead funded and directed by each and every separate community?
It depends on the state. In Michigan's case, it is a combination of the state and local communities. Each community elects a school board for their local district. They have the most say on matters. Schools in Michigan are funded by the sales taxes, and also by property taxes. The funding by the state depends on how much money per student. Detroit actually gets more money per student than the school district I went to. However, my district was highly rated.
Doesn't that mean that poorer areas, like Detroit, have bad schools because the only money is from Detroit, while wealthy areas, like Beverly Hills, have very good schools because the property values in such areas are very high, so even with lower tax rates more money is taken in?
California and Michigan operate under different state governments. I am unaware of how California funds their schools. There is some disparity between the rich districts (Bloomfield Hills) and poor districts in Michigan (Not sure actually what Detroit was considered since they had a lot of corporate tax money in their property tax revenues), although the passage of "Proposal A"(which changed funding from all property taxes to mostly sales taxes, with some property taxes) fixed much of that, but raising the funding of the poorer areas, which were mostly rural areas with little revenue from businesses. The rich districts pay more in taxes and have more revenue for their schools, as that was the compromise for proposal A to pass.
You say that Detroiters do not WANT to change, but isn't this a matter of a lack of education?
I don't believe so. I believe it is due to lack of effort, and also a lack of trust. The lack of trust is due to anamosity between the city of Detroit and it's surburbs. The city blames the suburbs for its decline as they are mostly white(outside of Southfield and a few others). After 1967(riot), there was a mass exodus of white residents from the City of Detroit, which has continued for 30 years. It is tough for someone today who is 'too close' to white surburbanites to win election in Detroit. It's about as popular as being "too friendly" with President Bush over at the Le Monde newspaper offices.
The lack of effort is a problem that affects not just Detroit, but everywhere, including wealthy white areas. Very few citizens are truly well informed about government and politics Most can name our president, and some can name our governor, vice president, and some senators. Very few know who their representatives are at the local level. Most just have the attitude of "I hate politics. I'm not voting since I don't like any of them, and my vote doesn't count anyway." Anyone can read a paper, or even turn on the TV, let alone the internet, to find out information on their local representatives running for office, including the school board. And even when they do not know most of the information, they should know better when their current representatives are doing a poor job and vote for someone better next time.
So, places that have intelligent residents do well, but places that are already blighted are relying on people who already don't know what they are doing to direct the school systems that are supposed to teach children to not be like their parents, where their parents are not functioning well.
For all the jokes here on FR about Detroit, I truly believe that there is a group of intelligent citizens in that city capable of learning on their own, and who are intelligent enough to fix the city if they chose to. Unfortunatly, there is a large toleration of corruption because "That's just the way it's always been." My great-grandfather (a Detroiter) was the son of Irish immigrants and only had an 8th grade education. He invented balancing machines. He used that intelligence to survive the Great Depression, which made the poverty of 2005 Detroit look like a rich area.
That's why I believe the intelligence is there, but I question the effort.