I understand that a tax rate that's too high can discourage district types, and even cause companies to pack up and leave, but does lowering taxes below the starting level make a difference in regards to growth?
I'm working on the Trains! scenario where I need to race to 12k population in 150 weeks. I heard a rumor that lowering taxes can help entice people to move in, but so far I haven't seen a substantial difference.
In my setup, I have plenty of zoned high residential, commercial, and industrial zones available, so much that there's little demand for anything. All my taxes are at 10%.
My first attempt I didn't touch taxes at all. The last ten weeks of the map I went from 10,627 to 11,532 population, for a gain of 905.
My second attempt, I rewound to the 140 week mark and tried setting the tax for high residential to 2% and used the high residential tax break district policy to (presumably) drop it to 0%. I ended up with 11,619 people, for a gain of 992, or 87 more than the full tax trial.
My third attempt, I rewound to the 130 week mark and did the same: high residential taxes to 2%, high residential tax break to try and drop it to 0%, all unoccupied low residential rezoned to high residential. I saw growth from 9,574 to 11,651, ending up with about 32 more people with 0% taxes for 20 weeks than when running 0% taxes for 10 weeks.
So it seems like there might be a slight difference, but the difference between the 10 and 20 week experiments is small enough that I could chalk it up to randomness or slightly different placement of parks/services/roads.
Does a tax break provide a growth benefit? If so, how much? And are there diminishing returns?