3 ms·

Because people in the burbs vote against taxes and people in the cities vote for taxes? Or one of a thousand other compex set of interactions. Also many suburbs

Because people in the burbs vote against taxes and people in the cities vote for taxes? Or one of a thousand other compex set of interactions. Also many suburbs have higher tax rates if they want better infrastructure and they can keep the rif-raff out.

nostromo 9y ago
> Or one of a thousand other compex set of interactions. That's a very handwavey response to a serious question. If it's true that dense cities are more efficient then it follows that dense cities should be cheaper, when all evidence points to the opposite effect. By the original reasoning Boise and Boulder should have very expensive tax burdens and New York should be nearly free.
- UrukParthian 9y ago
  And of course this "efficiency" doesn't put, into reckoning, the stress of population density on cognition. Especially "diverse density". Coming back from the military, I kept the same "look around at all times for threats" and it was absolutely exhausting. "hyper-vigilance" I think is the term. Still have some of it but it's easier to live with in Norcal than the concrete jungles of the Los Angeles sprawl. Can focus on trees and the tweets of birds instead of innumerable pedestrians and cars and noise...
- Retric 9y ago
  First, cities often can't tax the burbs. Commuters often use city services without paying for them. So, local taxes are only a tiny part of the story you need to look at the state and federal level. At the federal spending it's major metro areas that are funding much of the country. Delaware get's back 1/2 what it puts in and South Carolina get's back almost 8x what it puts in. Those are absolutely massive tax flows which fund things like rural hospitals. But also a lot of infrastructure like new roads. Even within states if you look at Virginia the DC area provides most of the revenue which is then spread around the state. But, this ends up far more complex than just the local property tax situation.
  - briandear 9y ago
    They DO pay for city services — if they buy something within the city or work within the city, the costs of the city are reflected in the cost of goods or the compensation from employment.
    - Retric 9y ago
      They don't directly pay to use local roads etc. They may indirectly contribute to the tax base, but it's far from 1:1. Otherwise their would be little need for local property taxes on homes and apartments. And really, your argument implies that people in Japan pay US taxes when they buy Coca Cola. At some point things are indirect enough it's a meaningless connection.

nostromo 9y ago

> Or one of a thousand other compex set of interactions. That's a very handwavey response to a serious question. If it's true that dense cities are more efficient then it follows that dense cities should be cheaper, when all evidence points to the opposite effect. By the original reasoning Boise and Boulder should have very expensive tax burdens and New York should be nearly free.

UrukParthian 9y ago
And of course this "efficiency" doesn't put, into reckoning, the stress of population density on cognition. Especially "diverse density". Coming back from the military, I kept the same "look around at all times for threats" and it was absolutely exhausting. "hyper-vigilance" I think is the term. Still have some of it but it's easier to live with in Norcal than the concrete jungles of the Los Angeles sprawl. Can focus on trees and the tweets of birds instead of innumerable pedestrians and cars and noise...
Retric 9y ago
First, cities often can't tax the burbs. Commuters often use city services without paying for them. So, local taxes are only a tiny part of the story you need to look at the state and federal level. At the federal spending it's major metro areas that are funding much of the country. Delaware get's back 1/2 what it puts in and South Carolina get's back almost 8x what it puts in. Those are absolutely massive tax flows which fund things like rural hospitals. But also a lot of infrastructure like new roads. Even within states if you look at Virginia the DC area provides most of the revenue which is then spread around the state. But, this ends up far more complex than just the local property tax situation.
- briandear 9y ago
  They DO pay for city services — if they buy something within the city or work within the city, the costs of the city are reflected in the cost of goods or the compensation from employment.
  - Retric 9y ago
    They don't directly pay to use local roads etc. They may indirectly contribute to the tax base, but it's far from 1:1. Otherwise their would be little need for local property taxes on homes and apartments. And really, your argument implies that people in Japan pay US taxes when they buy Coca Cola. At some point things are indirect enough it's a meaningless connection.