3 ms·
There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources. For example poor cities typically have to subsi
by throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources.
For example poor cities typically have to subsidize their trash pickup more (for equivalent results) because their residents won't just bend over and take fee for use, they'll burn it or dump it wherever. Poor people don't buy pet licenses so that means animal control gets more funding out of the general fund. Even if you take in equivalent money (which you don't) having poorer people to serve results in catches like this in every endeavor of municipal government from the library to the roads to the police.
- rhizome 5y ago>There's a difference between not having resources and simply having other problems that demand those resources. A distinction without a difference, they're both "insufficient resources."
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoMy comment and the parent comment are splitting the same hair in different directions. Please enlighten me as to why my comment is a distinction without a difference whereas the one I am replying to is not.
- rhizome 5y agoThe one you're replying to isn't making a distinction, that's why.
- mjmahone17 5y ago> Even if you take in equivalent money (which you don't) having poorer people to serve results in catches like this in every endeavor of municipal government from the library to the roads to the police. This isn’t totally true. Poorer people frequently live and work on land that is substantially more economically productive. If you have 20 working adults using the same amount of space as a single family, you’ll usually have a lot more tax revenue from the same amount of land. Without requiring much more infrastructure. Which means in terms of tax revenue versus outlays, poorer districts frequently subsidize wealthier ones.