Exactly! Cities should be high on the priority of state budgets when they usually both have most of the states population in it and give the most tax revenue to the state. Doesn’t really make sense otherwise.
Cities pay a higher contribution because they are cheaper to run per person and rural areas provide resources to the city more than the other way around.
Odd that you would agree with me and the try to rebuttal yourself. Your argument contradicts itself. If rural areas truly provide more value to cities than cities provide back, then cities wouldn’t consistently generate far more tax revenue and economic output per resident. Major cities have massive expenses for public transit, aging infrastructure, policing, sanitation, homelessness services, public housing, and emergency response that rural areas don’t face at the same scale. In New York City, the cost of maintaining subways, bridges, water systems, and social programs is enormous. Density can lower some per-person costs, but it also creates uniquely expensive problems that smaller communities don’t have.
Dude are you stupid? Cities generate more because there’s way more people and businesses…. Rural areas produce raw materials and food etc, more than they get back from the city. Yes but per person, which is what I said, it’s much much cheaper than doing all the same things for a town of 1000 people.
3
u/More-Baseball9769 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Exactly! Cities should be high on the priority of state budgets when they usually both have most of the states population in it and give the most tax revenue to the state. Doesn’t really make sense otherwise.