Why do you consider rates as distinct from other forms of compulsory taxation? It may be that rates where you are are a different thing to rates in Victoria (where I live).
Here, rates are:
* compulsory
* "progressive", based on land value, not value of services provided
* go towards services that may not be used by the ratepayer specifically, for example municipal swimming pools, not just say rubbish collection or road maintenance
“Rate payers” is U.S. regulatory jargon for “user fees charges for use of regulated services.” Typically, electric, water, or sewer. In the US, the cost of these services is not paid for with tax dollars, but recovered from fees charged to those who use those services.
Ah, right! So actually there is a large difference - rates in the US are opt-in? So if I chose not to participate in a municipal broadband system, I wouldn't have to pay for it?
Thank you for the clarification! I've been consistently downvoted on this issue in the past, and always assumed it was an expression of disagreement, rather than being due to an error on my part.
Here, rates are:
* compulsory
* "progressive", based on land value, not value of services provided
* go towards services that may not be used by the ratepayer specifically, for example municipal swimming pools, not just say rubbish collection or road maintenance