11 ms·

It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under

It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle. In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Kids can use bikes to get around, families' second cars can be glorified golf carts. Enviro-winning. I agree about the desirability of free mass transit. To take a case in point, Tallinn (Estonia's capital) instituted it for residents (only), the idea being to get people to undo bogus out-of-city residences and return to the city's tax rolls. The last I read, it's working nicely.

lucas_membrane 4y ago
> In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.
- euroderf 4y ago
  OK, I forgot to mention ceteris paribus. So you suggest, by analogy, that higher gas prices might reduce demand for electric vehicles by pre-emptively emptying drivers' wallets ?
replygirl 4y ago
> It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice It's usually an ancestor's choice and getting out is typically either prohibitively difficult or in conflict with family values Spoken by someone who got out
- euroderf 4y ago
  Ya can't keep'em down on the farm once they've seen the city lights.
specialist 4y ago
> are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle As an urban US taxpayer, I'm totally on board with fairness, revenue sharing (rural communities still receive full education, health, etc), and making sure every one has some kind of chance in life. In short, I really want "the greater good" for everyone. The way it's worked out is urbanites like me unwillingly subsidize sprawl. Thru extortion, deceit (h/t Robert Moses), and tantrums. Some kind of acknowledgment of this parasitic (codependent?) relationship would be nice. Instead, the recipients hate us. Worse, they think they're carrying us.
- euroderf 4y ago
  The USPS is subsidised for the boonies and that's just fine by me. In wider comparison to urban service levels, perhaps health care is the most glaring gap nowadays ?

lucas_membrane 4y ago

> In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.

euroderf 4y ago
OK, I forgot to mention ceteris paribus. So you suggest, by analogy, that higher gas prices might reduce demand for electric vehicles by pre-emptively emptying drivers' wallets ?

replygirl 4y ago

> It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice It's usually an ancestor's choice and getting out is typically either prohibitively difficult or in conflict with family values Spoken by someone who got out

euroderf 4y ago
Ya can't keep'em down on the farm once they've seen the city lights.

specialist 4y ago

> are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle As an urban US taxpayer, I'm totally on board with fairness, revenue sharing (rural communities still receive full education, health, etc), and making sure every one has some kind of chance in life. In short, I really want "the greater good" for everyone. The way it's worked out is urbanites like me unwillingly subsidize sprawl. Thru extortion, deceit (h/t Robert Moses), and tantrums. Some kind of acknowledgment of this parasitic (codependent?) relationship would be nice. Instead, the recipients hate us. Worse, they think they're carrying us.

euroderf 4y ago
The USPS is subsidised for the boonies and that's just fine by me. In wider comparison to urban service levels, perhaps health care is the most glaring gap nowadays ?