It is similar here in the U.S. Taxes are paid according to where you live. If you live inside the city limits and water and sewer and police protection and fire et al is provided, then your taxes are based on the value of the property you own. Supposedly, for those who own and rent out their properties, the cost is included in the rental amount, so the renters really are paying. However, in places like New York City where there is rent control, I don't know how it balances out. I don't know of any other place that has rent control though other than NYC. That is probably why the taxes and prices on all new construction are so high there (that and the demand)!


>>In the end there's no dodging the cost of civic services. Some cynics observe that the big problem seems to be urban expansion without sufficient contribution from newcomers to pay for the infrastructure they demand. Previously adequate amenities become strained by the extra load, forcing upgrades/expansions whose cost is spread across all taxpayers, even those living in areas whose amenities were planned and completed decades ago by then taxpayers.
>
>Agreed. As I say, apart from the "silver pound" there are very few protests about the tax. Yet these civic services are enjoyed by everyone, including those living long-term in rented accomm. Yet they pay not a penny towards them. Suppose I were on the same salary as now, but for years I've been living in a rent-hike-protected flat or house, enjoying all the amenities but paying ziltch.
>
>Maybe if these people had to pay up OUR bill wouldn't be so high.