3 ms·
Did you miss this part? To the extent that taxpayers donate to their hometowns, Tokyo no longer freerides on the substantial public expenditures required to ra
by causi 5y ago
Did you miss this part?
To the extent that taxpayers donate to their hometowns, Tokyo no longer freerides on the substantial public expenditures required to raise and educate internal migrants.
The cost to raise a child to adulthood in Japan is around $300,000. That's quite significant.
- jefftk 5y agoYour $300k includes costs paid by the parents, though, but in this case we only care about government costs.
- causi 5y agobut in this case we only care about government costs Why? Raising a child is a six-figure investment of money that doesn't go somewhere else. Every expenditure that doesn't immediately go back into the local economy like food is wasted when a person leaves. That fraction of a tax is probably never going to equal what the hometown spent on things like education it will receive no return on.
- LatteLazy 5y agoI think it's very weak logic. First, even if someone actually paid the 300k it takes to raise a child, that doesn't mean that person owns the adult. And second, who is paying that? Education (in Japan and the UK) is primarily funded at a national level. So Tokyo/London, have already contributed significantly to the cost of that person's education (and to the education of plenty of people who will never move there to work). And most of the costs of raising kids are paid either by parents or at a national level. It seems to me this is just post hoc justification for taking resources out of productive areas that need them and sending them to unproductive areas that don't. That might be "democratic" if there are a lot of unproductive areas. But it isn't fair or efficient or effective. And it will soak up resources better spent helping people who actually need them...