In a message dated 8/16/02 11:50:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< In some sense, local tax collecting communities would then act as competing corporations – to link this thread with the other topic floating around on the list - jacob braestrup >> In some sense they do already. New York City, for instance, imposes a local income tax, and more people flee to the suburbs. On the flip side, you find Iowa, Tennessee and Massachusetts (or some other state) offering tax reduction or elimination to a large corporation that will build a new plant in their state. Some of the locals may object to a newcomer paying lower taxes than the locals do already, and in some cases this may lead people to moving to states where the tax for the average joe (or business) is lower than in the state granting the special exemptions. Still there are other considerations besides tax rates, like crime rates, weather, ranking of the government-monopoly school system versus other government-monopoly school systems, proximity to family, and locale prejudices. Having lived in Chicago, Denver, Iowa City and now Fairfax, Virginia I've found that people have very strong prejudices about some places. When I moved to Denver many family and friends in Chicago treated me as a "traitor." Nonetheless many family and friends came to visit me in Denver, which has the reputation of being a "cool" place. (Note: you can tell that people consider a place cool if it's featured in beer commercials.) I found that in Denver people came to visit me whether I wanted them to or not. When I moved to Iowa, I got ribbed incessantly at first about whether they had flush toilets (they do) and a John Deere dealership on the corner (actually it was two corners away) etc. In Iowa City I came to know many families after whom streets were named--the Danes, the Gilpins, etc--whom I couldn't see moving regardless of what taxes anyone imposed on them. I confess I don't have a clue what any of that means. ;-) David
