5 ms·

So people pay taxes to the federal government, who then doles it back out to the cities and states to spend it, after taking a big cut for their own legions of

So people pay taxes to the federal government, who then doles it back out to the cities and states to spend it, after taking a big cut for their own legions of bureaucrats. If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator.

whateverman23 4y ago
Because the cities and states that need the money aren't necessarily the ones with the money. The richer states and cities subsidize the poorer states and cities via this exchange. This should be considered a good thing.
digdugdirk 4y ago
Sure, except for the vast majority of spaces in the US that don't have a tax base that could support any sort of infrastructure network, but still provide vital goods for the country as a whole. The majority of US agricultural output would fall under this category, for one example.
- htag 4y ago
  Three quarters of highway and road spending is done by state and local government [0]. I'd be interested in seeing if rural spending has a higher ratio of federal spending than urban spending, but unless data is provided I will doubt your claim. [0] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
zekrioca 4y ago
It seems most people -- including you -- do not know they need safer roads, inspite of all evidences. It is extremely dangerous to bike anywhere in most cities of the US, and this is just an example.
juve1996 4y ago
> If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator. Your state rep can listen all they want but they won't have the means.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Because after fed taxes the states are left with a stone they can't squeeze blood from or at least not without pissing people off. Secondly, there's a tradeoff here. If you take something out of the purview of the feds so that your state can do it "right" you lose the ability to force Alabama or West Virginia or whatever to do it your way.

whateverman23 4y ago

Because the cities and states that need the money aren't necessarily the ones with the money. The richer states and cities subsidize the poorer states and cities via this exchange. This should be considered a good thing.

digdugdirk 4y ago

Sure, except for the vast majority of spaces in the US that don't have a tax base that could support any sort of infrastructure network, but still provide vital goods for the country as a whole. The majority of US agricultural output would fall under this category, for one example.

htag 4y ago
Three quarters of highway and road spending is done by state and local government [0]. I'd be interested in seeing if rural spending has a higher ratio of federal spending than urban spending, but unless data is provided I will doubt your claim. [0] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

zekrioca 4y ago

It seems most people -- including you -- do not know they need safer roads, inspite of all evidences. It is extremely dangerous to bike anywhere in most cities of the US, and this is just an example.

juve1996 4y ago

> If these projects are important, why can't they be funded directly via city and state taxes? If I want safer roads, I can call up my state rep, who is much more likely to listen to me than my congressman or senator. Your state rep can listen all they want but they won't have the means.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Because after fed taxes the states are left with a stone they can't squeeze blood from or at least not without pissing people off. Secondly, there's a tradeoff here. If you take something out of the purview of the feds so that your state can do it "right" you lose the ability to force Alabama or West Virginia or whatever to do it your way.