3 ms·

It's the other way around, the denser inner cities subsidize the sprawling suburbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7

by TomK32 3y ago

It's the other way around, the denser inner cities subsidize the sprawling suburbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

briHass 3y ago
This depends heavily on the city metro being considered and the definition of 'suburb'. For example, in the Philadelphia metro, this is definitely not the case. The counties surrounding the city are far wealthier than the city county, and many area businesses are located in those surrounding suburban counties, with only small offices in the city. The suburban schools, for example, are funded almost entirely by local taxes, while the city schools get a large chunk of their funding from the state (which of course is tax money in large part from the rich counties.). Even things like the area transportation network (SEPTA) derive a significant portion of their revenue from the suburban to city train lines (because the fares are much more expensive than intracity routes) I find this typical argument relies on counting 'suburbs' as the poorer and less dense exurb/rural communities that are an hour+ outside the city. For the census purposes, they are considered part of the metro, but nobody would consider them what is typically considered a 'suburban area'
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  The source of the surburban wealth is the city. Proximity to the urban core is the resource used to acquire that money. Those people work high paid jobs or own businesses in the city, then pay their local taxes to the surburb where they live. So the surburbs have better schools etc because of money extracted from the city. > many area businesses are located in those surrounding suburban counties, with only small offices in the city I understand why you'd have this impression and in some very exceptional cases it can be true. But look at the gross product of the different counties in your area, not personal income. I doubt this assessment holds up.
  - vaidhy 3y ago
    I have no idea why this is getting downvoted. Make a case, if you disagree.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    And then the suburbs of the city decide to break off into a separate city and take income tax revenue with them
    - oblio 3y ago
      Is that supposed to be... bad? I imagine most suburbanites NIMBY precisely against that, it probably won't happen.
      - scarface74 3y ago
        Seeing that they benefit from the city it is. It wouldn’t be bad if the school system funding comes from property taxes.
  - briHass 3y ago
    The argument was about subsidies, which can be measured by looking at tax revenues and sources of funding. An esoteric argument about 'proximity to the city is the source of all wealth' isn't well-defined or falsifiable. One could make the argument that Philly's proximity to NYC is the resource it uses to extract money, since NYC is much larger, wealthier, and relatively close.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Right, so what are the sources of funding of those suburban tax revenues? The core of the relationship will be there.
  - robswc 3y ago
    Seems like a pretty straight forward solution would be for the city to tax the business the difference in this lost revenue, if they feel the relationship is unfair, no?
- robswc 3y ago
  Yea. It blows my mind when people bring out the "80% of people live in cities" statistic because they see something that says 80% of people live in "urban" areas. I did a deep dive once to see what the government considers "urban" and found that the place I used to live was considered "urban." This is the main "town." The rest of the town/county is just houses, apartments and a "town center" which is just a ton of stores, restaurants, entertainment, etc. https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/718/Public-Works https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/718/Public-Works I suppose though, because its not truly "rural" its counted as "urban."

by TomK32 3y ago

It's the other way around, the denser inner cities subsidize the sprawling suburbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

briHass 3y ago

This depends heavily on the city metro being considered and the definition of 'suburb'. For example, in the Philadelphia metro, this is definitely not the case. The counties surrounding the city are far wealthier than the city county, and many area businesses are located in those surrounding suburban counties, with only small offices in the city. The suburban schools, for example, are funded almost entirely by local taxes, while the city schools get a large chunk of their funding from the state (which of course is tax money in large part from the rich counties.). Even things like the area transportation network (SEPTA) derive a significant portion of their revenue from the suburban to city train lines (because the fares are much more expensive than intracity routes) I find this typical argument relies on counting 'suburbs' as the poorer and less dense exurb/rural communities that are an hour+ outside the city. For the census purposes, they are considered part of the metro, but nobody would consider them what is typically considered a 'suburban area'

giraffe_lady 3y ago
The source of the surburban wealth is the city. Proximity to the urban core is the resource used to acquire that money. Those people work high paid jobs or own businesses in the city, then pay their local taxes to the surburb where they live. So the surburbs have better schools etc because of money extracted from the city. > many area businesses are located in those surrounding suburban counties, with only small offices in the city I understand why you'd have this impression and in some very exceptional cases it can be true. But look at the gross product of the different counties in your area, not personal income. I doubt this assessment holds up.
- vaidhy 3y ago
  I have no idea why this is getting downvoted. Make a case, if you disagree.
- scarface74 3y ago
  And then the suburbs of the city decide to break off into a separate city and take income tax revenue with them
  - oblio 3y ago
    Is that supposed to be... bad? I imagine most suburbanites NIMBY precisely against that, it probably won't happen.
    - scarface74 3y ago
      Seeing that they benefit from the city it is. It wouldn’t be bad if the school system funding comes from property taxes.
- briHass 3y ago
  The argument was about subsidies, which can be measured by looking at tax revenues and sources of funding. An esoteric argument about 'proximity to the city is the source of all wealth' isn't well-defined or falsifiable. One could make the argument that Philly's proximity to NYC is the resource it uses to extract money, since NYC is much larger, wealthier, and relatively close.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Right, so what are the sources of funding of those suburban tax revenues? The core of the relationship will be there.
- robswc 3y ago
  Seems like a pretty straight forward solution would be for the city to tax the business the difference in this lost revenue, if they feel the relationship is unfair, no?
robswc 3y ago
Yea. It blows my mind when people bring out the "80% of people live in cities" statistic because they see something that says 80% of people live in "urban" areas. I did a deep dive once to see what the government considers "urban" and found that the place I used to live was considered "urban." This is the main "town." The rest of the town/county is just houses, apartments and a "town center" which is just a ton of stores, restaurants, entertainment, etc. https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/718/Public-Works https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/718/Public-Works I suppose though, because its not truly "rural" its counted as "urban."