I thought that the politicians did this to increase the tax base? The way tax rates are calculated, increased population usually equals lower tax rates for a community. The increases in "services" rarely equals the boost in revenues.
?
Could you point me towards one example of this?
(yes this is a trick question)
Sure. In my community the tax rate decreased due to population increases (larger tax base). Our town calculated costs and created a budget and adjusted tax rates accordingly.
Now if only the federal government could do that...
My point is that there is an objective dollar figure required to run a town/city (determined at budget hearings). If that cost exceeds the revenues collected from the taxpayers then one of two things must happen: Either the tax rate must be increased or the services must be cut. If towns stick to the necessities then low tax rates are possible. When entitlements kick in, so do increases.
How can the costs of a town without any NEW services being provided (meaning keeping the existing structure, providing the same services to more people) cost any more when the new residents are paying the same tax rate? All should remain equal.