4 ms·

As opposed to all of those dollars flowing into extremely republican-leaning cities... Oh wait.

convolvatron 5y ago
i was very careful to phrase that in a way that was neurtral to which party was paying off whom its a terrible waste either way
namdnay 5y ago
I always though cities were net contributors to taxation/redistribution?
- adventured 5y ago
  You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Cities are higher net tax contributors due to population density. If we're going to fairly consider the equation, we have to include their high emissions over the decades and the price of that. Fossil fuel based electricity & heat production is by far the worst offender, 1/3 of all emissions. To say nothing of the food requirements of cities (agriculture alone being ~11% of emissions), which are potent emissions contributors. As such, should cities be made to pay for the vast destruction they've caused over time? Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. They took a very low cost, low penalty ride on helping to destroy the planet. Global climate change didn't happen in a day. There's a fair question of distribution of cost, reparations for the fossil fuel consumption & use of cities in the form of a tax to cover their century of past sins. A person might retort: yes, but, cities are more efficient than rural arrangements pound for pound. The issue is total emissions output, in the discussion of total cost (net tax +/- contribution equation), which is what the threat is with climate change. Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. Then a person might retort: but what else were all of those people in cities going to do? Not exist at all? Starve? Go without electricity? I'd suggest environmental reparations via taxation for the net damage the cities did cause (if we're looking at fairly balancing the net tax contribution equation, that is; if their inflated tax net gets counted courtesy of elevated population density, then we must also consider their environmental cost).
  - megablast 5y ago
    > You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Are you saying those people in cities, spread out over the countryside instead would have a lower environmental cost??? Absolutely not. > Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. Whereas the country side used what for power?? Magic?? > Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. The problem is not cities then. The problem is people. Most of our current problems are due to too many people. And yes, more people spread over a larger area are would be worse.

i was very careful to phrase that in a way that was neurtral to which party was paying off whom its a terrible waste either way

namdnay 5y ago

I always though cities were net contributors to taxation/redistribution?

adventured 5y ago
You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Cities are higher net tax contributors due to population density. If we're going to fairly consider the equation, we have to include their high emissions over the decades and the price of that. Fossil fuel based electricity & heat production is by far the worst offender, 1/3 of all emissions. To say nothing of the food requirements of cities (agriculture alone being ~11% of emissions), which are potent emissions contributors. As such, should cities be made to pay for the vast destruction they've caused over time? Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. They took a very low cost, low penalty ride on helping to destroy the planet. Global climate change didn't happen in a day. There's a fair question of distribution of cost, reparations for the fossil fuel consumption & use of cities in the form of a tax to cover their century of past sins. A person might retort: yes, but, cities are more efficient than rural arrangements pound for pound. The issue is total emissions output, in the discussion of total cost (net tax +/- contribution equation), which is what the threat is with climate change. Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. Then a person might retort: but what else were all of those people in cities going to do? Not exist at all? Starve? Go without electricity? I'd suggest environmental reparations via taxation for the net damage the cities did cause (if we're looking at fairly balancing the net tax contribution equation, that is; if their inflated tax net gets counted courtesy of elevated population density, then we must also consider their environmental cost).
- megablast 5y ago
  > You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Are you saying those people in cities, spread out over the countryside instead would have a lower environmental cost??? Absolutely not. > Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. Whereas the country side used what for power?? Magic?? > Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. The problem is not cities then. The problem is people. Most of our current problems are due to too many people. And yes, more people spread over a larger area are would be worse.