Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1834076" data-attributes="member: 17296">I notice you saying "we" alot. Implying my inclusion. Whereas you obviously are referring to you, and not me.Sure it does. One of the things that followed is that the government in question fought to try to force this payment... to collect their "protection money". When someone big enough attempts to collect protention money it's government, when it's a smaller group it's thuggery. When it's two groups... well, the two groups of thugs, or the two governments, fight it out. This isn't always the case. Sure, it's owned by the county, but in general most cities cannot do this. At least most in Texas can't do it. In this case in particular that I am referring to, there was alread a full proto city there, and they had already applied, which application was held up and held up, until the larger city ate them. The "government" didn't own it. At least, the city didn't. The county did. The city decided that it was going to own it, and tax it. They claimed it was their land *afterwards*. If it were owned beforehand that would be a different story altogether. The wealthy people being referenced were indeed the entire populace of the annexed area. They weren't the uber rich. You're right. The uber rich in THAT legal battle was the city. They were indeed already paying community taxes to maintain their community. And they still are paying those same taxes. And they are still responsible for it, or at least they're still being held responsible for those taxes. Yet they are paying additional city taxes to support the city structures that duplicate but do not service their area. As well as taxes on other issues that apply to the city as a whole and not them at all. That second type can't really be complained about... but the first type? The city is charging them water taxes, for instance, and they are also paying a seperate tax to maintain their own water. In fact, all such infrastructure tax is being duplicated there, where they must maintain their own, the city has refused to take over responsibility for it, and yet they have to pay to maintain that infrastructure for the city... which they are not being allowed to use.So I agree... it makes sense that if the tax doesn't apply to you you shouldn't have to pay it. It makes sense that they shouldn't be responsible for maintaining a seperate infrastructure while simulataniouly being responsible for the main infrastructure... etc. But then again, this is just them being more obviously stolen from. Which bring me to my next point...But that area had all the city infrastructure IT needed before being involuntarily annexed. And it's still having to maintain it's own infrastructure, while paying now to maintain everyone elses *in addition*. Let me repeate, they are not recieving ANY support from the city to maintain this infrastructure, yet they are being charged for it. It seems identical to me. I'm not sure what difference you're claiming.</blockquote>

Verification