The city responds

[HeyBub]

Uh, from revenues that flow into the general fund, primarily from property taxes.

I'll note the city didn't offer to reduce my property tax bill by $200/year as recompense for shifting the storm sewer system from something the city should normally do, to a "fee for service" methodology.

What's next? Charging me every time I stop at a red light (they already charge me for not stopping)?

[Shaun Eli]

Well, I can give you both the economist's answer and the common sense answer.

The economist understands that it makes sense to charge people for the services they use- so if you use more sewer, or water, or electricity, you pay for it, not everyone else. That seems equitable in terms of distributing costs and fair in terms of discouraging people from using scarce resources.

The common sense answer is threefold:

1. Where does this lead? The guy who is frequently robbed more pays a higher police tax? You see who smokes and charge them a higher fire protection premium? If your kid requires special ed we charge you more? How about the fat kid who weighs down the school bus and uses more fuel?

1. The guy who is robbed doesn't call the police- so there's more robbery of everyone, and we catch fewer criminals. People lie about smoking to keep their taxes down...

2. At some point it's nuts to nickel-and-dime everyone because the cost of keeping track of all this is a significant percentage of what's collected. I just paid to renew my driver's license for eight years. I understand I pay for the right to drive, but isn't collecting this money and keeping track of it (and paying credit card fees) a waste of resources?

I'm a former economist and I say that the common sense argument wins.