3 ms·

I believe London is one of the only parts of the UK that generates more tax revenue than it uses. In general, denser cities are more efficient in very measure.

I believe London is one of the only parts of the UK that generates more tax revenue than it uses. In general, denser cities are more efficient in very measure. It makes sense, you have the same amount of stuff with less space and less materials. Basically everywhere the way it works is that the non-cities are on perpetual welfare from the cities because the cities have all the economy, but you still have to run miles of roads and sewage into the non-cities.

nephihaha 7mo ago
It generates more revenue because it is continually having infrastructure improvements, being boosted by the media and has numerous government departments etc based there. The Garden Bridge project alone swallowed tens of millions and remained completely unbuilt. That money could have been better spent elsewhere with greater results.
- array_key_first 7mo ago
  It really couldn't have, because it's investment. The government invests in London because it has proven, and continues to prove, it pays off. Yes it's true that the rest of the UK could benefit from more investment and that MIGHT make otherwise economically defunct areas slightly less economically defunct. Keyword might. London is a "will", not a might.
  - nephihaha 7mo ago
    London has been getting inward investment for centuries, not just recently. Even today its prestige is partly from being a former imperial capital (like Vienna or Paris). If you look at the geography of London it makes for a good port area for bringing goods to and from continental Europe, but it no longer does that like it used to. In the past it was highly dependent on coal from Yorkshire, South Wales etc and materials from elsewhere whether wool or metals. In the 1980s, the London stock market was bankrolled by North Sea oil, mostly in northern English and Scottish waters. Nowadays, London's chief thing is the finance industry and stock market, but that is not location dependent at all, and very easily transferred somewhere else which puts London in a more unsafe position than it realises. Like most major cities, it consumes a great deal of energy and gets its water from elsewhere (and some recycling).

nephihaha 7mo ago

It generates more revenue because it is continually having infrastructure improvements, being boosted by the media and has numerous government departments etc based there. The Garden Bridge project alone swallowed tens of millions and remained completely unbuilt. That money could have been better spent elsewhere with greater results.

array_key_first 7mo ago
It really couldn't have, because it's investment. The government invests in London because it has proven, and continues to prove, it pays off. Yes it's true that the rest of the UK could benefit from more investment and that MIGHT make otherwise economically defunct areas slightly less economically defunct. Keyword might. London is a "will", not a might.
- nephihaha 7mo ago
  London has been getting inward investment for centuries, not just recently. Even today its prestige is partly from being a former imperial capital (like Vienna or Paris). If you look at the geography of London it makes for a good port area for bringing goods to and from continental Europe, but it no longer does that like it used to. In the past it was highly dependent on coal from Yorkshire, South Wales etc and materials from elsewhere whether wool or metals. In the 1980s, the London stock market was bankrolled by North Sea oil, mostly in northern English and Scottish waters. Nowadays, London's chief thing is the finance industry and stock market, but that is not location dependent at all, and very easily transferred somewhere else which puts London in a more unsafe position than it realises. Like most major cities, it consumes a great deal of energy and gets its water from elsewhere (and some recycling).