He's generalizing, of course, but it's because in the US, the suburbs incorporate into their own cities, and keep the taxes for themselves. Meanwhile, they commute into a city on a freeway paid for by the urbanites and enjoy all the benefits of city infrastructure, without paying for it.
Not sure how cities incorporate in Canada but that's how it usually is here.
Certainly no disagreement that suburbanites commute. And once they arrive they spend bucketloads of money on a daily basis & tend to work for companies that spend bucketloads of money locally for office space & all the goods held therein.
Communters do tend to also help support public transportation systems that are made available, in effect subsidizing them. Afterwards they leave & cost the city absolutely nothing beyond some infrastructure.
I can name ten(s) of cities in the United States that absolutely die the moment 5-6pm strike, but were couriered money in by suburbanites during the day and would have zero infrastructure otherwise.
I too am generalizing, of course.. I couldn't imagine seeing suburbanites as vultures.
> I can name ten(s) of cities in the United States that absolutely die the moment 5-6pm strike, but were couriered money in by suburbanites during the day and would have zero infrastructure otherwise.
>He's generalizing, of course, but it's because in the US, the suburbs incorporate into their own cities, and keep the taxes for themselves.
Well, sure, and they provide services to residents with those taxes, just like the cities do. Cities don't have any claim on that money. If the cities really think they're getting a raw deal tax-wise, then they can institute a municipal income tax the way NYC does. I suspect New York is the only city that can actually get away with it over the long run, though.
>Meanwhile, they commute into a city on a freeway paid for by the urbanites and enjoy all the benefits of city infrastructure, without paying for it.
They pay for the freeways with gas and income taxes. At least in my state cities don't maintain freeways, that's done at the state level. Their employers pay taxes to the city, they pay taxes on everything they buy on their lunch break. On Friday night they come into the city and drop more money in bars and restaurants, and part of that money makes its way into city coffers. Shouldn't the cities be returning some of that money to the suburbs?
In any event, it's not the suburbs that come out ahead tax-wise. It's the rural areas. Rural America is heavily subsidized at both the state and national level and most of those studies don't make any distinction.
One other point... the highway system, which city people always count as a "subsidy" of other areas is most heavily used to move goods from one population center to another. The rural areas would never have built the highway system because they don't need it.
> Well, sure, and they provide services to residents with those taxes, just like the cities do.
So their taxes go to pay for services only they use, and my taxes go to services that we all use. How is that fair?
> They pay for the freeways with gas and income taxes.
That's just an example. They spend half of their day in the city every weekday, they are going to end up utilizing some services that are paid for by municipal taxes sooner or later. It's simply ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Unless of course suburbanites aren't allowed to walk on the sidewalk or visit city parks where you live.
> On Friday night they come into the city and drop more money in bars and restaurants, and part of that money makes its way into city coffers.
Ahh, the old boost the economy/trickle down theory. I would rather they just pay taxes to the city, frankly. The money that possibly makes its way into city coffers is much less than it would be if they just paid taxes directly to the city.
> In any event, it's not the suburbs that come out ahead tax-wise. It's the rural areas.
This simply serves to demonstrate our point. Nobody is arguing otherwise, rural areas are definitely subsidized more than urban or suburban areas.
However, the same issues that cause rural areas to be so unequally subsidized apply to urban areas vs suburban areas too. It's just exacerbated in the case of rural areas.
The vast majority of the so-called subsidy is welfare, which has been pushed by urban politicians.
If you don't like the costs of the programs that you push, look in the mirror.
I've no objection to making welfare a county-level thing, so cities can pay what they want (and are willing to fund) and suburbs can pay what they want (and are willing to fund).
Not sure how cities incorporate in Canada but that's how it usually is here.