3 ms·

I don't agree. The whole concept is diverting money from places that need it (the ones with all the residents) to places that don't. That was at least sentime

I don't agree. The whole concept is diverting money from places that need it (the ones with all the residents) to places that don't. That was at least sentimentally understandable when people were sending tax dollars to places they have actual connections to, but once it becomes about securing some kind of consumer goods it doesn't even have that justification and will obviously benefit most municipalities which least need the help (since they will be most able to put together an appealing package). Anyway, if you want artisanal ham there are plenty of butchers who would appreciate your business.

kelnos 3y ago
Is that really the case, though? It seems like Tokyo (etc.) are still doing just fine, and a lot of the smaller towns that act as "feeders" for the big cities get a boost, which allows the small towns to do a better job of educating their kids, which directly helps the big cities later on. I think you maybe missed all the details in the article that explains why it's a little unfair that the small towns spend money to educate their citizens, but then don't get to reap the benefits of that education? I do agree with you that the end result in Japan is now a bit weird, since many people "pick their hometown" based on whatever gift/deal is available. But I think even in the original formulation, the benefits were much more than just "sentimental".
- lmm 3y ago
  The "small towns" that get the most money this way are those that produce the best products, which tend to be the ones that were already the most successful. The most desperate towns gain very little from this scheme because they don't have anything to offer. The only reason that Tokyo isn't benefitting the most of all is that it's specifically excluded from taking part. If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue? If the beneficiary is meant to be the town that educated a person, why not run the system that way? (All that stuff is on record in Japan).
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >The most desperate towns gain very little from this scheme because they don't have anything to offer. If a town has nothing to offer, then why exactly does it need to continue to exist? >If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue? Who gets to decide which towns need help, and which towns are left to wither and die? This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside. Just because a town existed in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to exist. The population is falling and people are moving to cities because it's more economically efficient and there's more opportunities there. These towns have outlived their usefulness.
    - lmm 3y ago
      The whole argument in favour of this policy was preserving those towns. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in that case why have this transfer of tax money at all? > This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside. People don't pick based on that "appeal" though. People pick based on what the "gift" is, so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy. But those towns were already doing fine!
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        Even if they did, the notion that people should get to decide how tax money is spent based on some woolly notion of which places they observe from afar are most "appealing" is highly questionable in my mind. Why should that be?
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        >but in that case why have this transfer of tax money at all? To save some towns, I presume. Some places are probably worth saving; other places, not so much. >But those towns were already doing fine! Were they? They can probably use a little boost to help fund their schools or other infrastructure, to keep the towns worth living in for people. >so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now. If it were really such a desirable place to live, people would be living there now, and there would be a functioning society, not just a bunch of stubborn elderly people waiting to die after all their kids and grandkids have moved to greener pastures.

kelnos 3y ago

Is that really the case, though? It seems like Tokyo (etc.) are still doing just fine, and a lot of the smaller towns that act as "feeders" for the big cities get a boost, which allows the small towns to do a better job of educating their kids, which directly helps the big cities later on. I think you maybe missed all the details in the article that explains why it's a little unfair that the small towns spend money to educate their citizens, but then don't get to reap the benefits of that education? I do agree with you that the end result in Japan is now a bit weird, since many people "pick their hometown" based on whatever gift/deal is available. But I think even in the original formulation, the benefits were much more than just "sentimental".

lmm 3y ago
The "small towns" that get the most money this way are those that produce the best products, which tend to be the ones that were already the most successful. The most desperate towns gain very little from this scheme because they don't have anything to offer. The only reason that Tokyo isn't benefitting the most of all is that it's specifically excluded from taking part. If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue? If the beneficiary is meant to be the town that educated a person, why not run the system that way? (All that stuff is on record in Japan).
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >The most desperate towns gain very little from this scheme because they don't have anything to offer. If a town has nothing to offer, then why exactly does it need to continue to exist? >If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue? Who gets to decide which towns need help, and which towns are left to wither and die? This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside. Just because a town existed in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to exist. The population is falling and people are moving to cities because it's more economically efficient and there's more opportunities there. These towns have outlived their usefulness.
  - lmm 3y ago
    The whole argument in favour of this policy was preserving those towns. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in that case why have this transfer of tax money at all? > This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside. People don't pick based on that "appeal" though. People pick based on what the "gift" is, so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy. But those towns were already doing fine!
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Even if they did, the notion that people should get to decide how tax money is spent based on some woolly notion of which places they observe from afar are most "appealing" is highly questionable in my mind. Why should that be?
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      >but in that case why have this transfer of tax money at all? To save some towns, I presume. Some places are probably worth saving; other places, not so much. >But those towns were already doing fine! Were they? They can probably use a little boost to help fund their schools or other infrastructure, to keep the towns worth living in for people. >so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now. If it were really such a desirable place to live, people would be living there now, and there would be a functioning society, not just a bunch of stubborn elderly people waiting to die after all their kids and grandkids have moved to greener pastures.