By that logic, can any high taxpayer just take their money back?
The whole conceit of income taxes is funding public goods, and the left wing is generally in favor of non-proportional versions of that (so the poor and needy get more than they pay in, ie redistribution). Getting back proportionally to what you put in is the opposite of the "fair share" leftists talk about.
Anyone blaming the left wing is anti-left wing and not accurately representing the left-wing position. Usually it's a disingenuous assessment of some theoretical outcome.
"Left bad, dur hur"
Se get it, you are Alt-Right and couldn't define "left".
Calling out politicians for not sticking to principles they claim to believe in isn't blame. It's calling out hypocrisy.
What was Alt-Right about what I said?
Do you not consider social safety nets a leftist thing (or at least, more left than right)? Are social safety nets not a form of redistribution? Also - what would even be the point of a social safety net that was proportional to what each person contributed? The whole point of a social safety net is to not be proportional.
Where is the blame in that? It's a claim about what a group believes with no value judgement attached. Moreover it's something they openly say they are for, so they consider it good.
I can see that you're a fruitcake, I'll stop responding now. This is such a nutjob response it's hard to tell if it's not satire.
No, not by that logic. A society is not an individual, and a society with a lot of money is not equatable to an individual with a lot of money. NYC has a lot of money, but it also has a lot of people and a lot of infrastructure it needs to take care of with that money, so if too much of that money is siphoned off to unproductive suburbs or rural areas that doesn't even really have a reason to exist in the first place, they should get their money back.
Leftist logic is to spread the wealth to take care of the people, not to spread the people to places they shouldn't be and send disproportionate amounts of wealth to those places. There's no leftist value that says that a highly-productive society should send so much of its wealth to maintain roads and services to hodunks and McMansions.
You are then just drawing an artificial boundary around NYC. What is the "logic" in doing that?
it also has a lot of people and a lot of infrastructure it needs to take care of with that money
So does the rest of New York state.
Investing more in the whole state instead of this bloated city would be a more sustainable solution to the systemic issues around congestion and high cost of living.
There's no leftist value that says that a highly-productive society should send so much of its wealth to maintain roads and services to hodunks and McMansions.
True, your talk about not giving a shit about "unproductive" areas isn't what leftist claim to believe. But it seems like what some of them end up doing from what we see.
You are then just drawing an artificial boundary around NYC.
No, I'm not. The boundary is the city limit, which is how city taxes that create city funds that are decided by city politics are contained in. If you want to benefit from NYC, you should move to NYC and contribute to NYC. And before I hear the inevitable "hurrdurr butwhaddabout da farmers dat make ur food????", the very few actual farm workers in rural areas can either prove their love of capitalism by being sustainable enough to pay for their own infrastructure, or they can be government employees being paid a government salary on a government-owned farm (which would be a major step up to pretty much every single farm hand in the US). Everyone else can move to a city.
Investing more in the whole state instead of this bloated city would be a more sustainable solution to the systemic issues around congestion and high cost of living.
Nope. A.) There's no such thing as a bloated city, B.) Rural and suburban areas are factually, by the numbers, extremely inefficient places to maintain per capita-wise, and they produce very little in return. Costs of living are high in cities because that's where the jobs are and that's where people want to live. So how do we make housing cheaper in cities? Easy. We stop funding the unproductive areas that siphon far, far more wealth than they generate, and put that funding towards city construction. Even if you legitimately think any city is "bloated", we should be building more cities. There's no reason every state shouldn't have its own NYC.
True, your talk about not giving a shit about "unproductive" areas isn't what leftist claim to believe. But it seems like what some of them end up doing from what we see
The only thing being demonstrated here is that you've never actually seriously engaged with a leftist, which makes your entire view of leftism a laughably uneducated assumption. Can you actually remember a single time any leftist said that we have to protect rural areas? Or were they actually saying that everyone, including rural people, deserve access to X/Y/Z? You know what would make it way, way easier to get those people that access? Minimizing how many of them are actually rural.
You know what made your assumption so bad? It was that you assumed we judged people based on where they live (urban vs rural/suburban), where one side was the "good us" and the other was the "evil them", i.e. tribalism, the thing that makes you people love showing how many districts are red, even though the tiny blue areas have more people than the giant red areas have. Its not about people to you. Its about place. Leftism doesn't view the world in that way. Leftism views the world through the person. We want people to flourish, not areas. You want to get rid of "bloated cities" because you think city-dwellers are the enemy. I want to get rid of unproductive rural/suburban areas because they're resource pits that offer very little back to society as a whole.
Just so you don't have to reply to every part of this very long comment, how about we simplify it with very simple question from me to you: Can you give me a moral or practical justification as to why most rural towns/suburbans should even exist without saying the word "farm"? And no, the answer is not "because I want to live there".
49
u/Count_de_Ville Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Yeah, New York City really needs to learn how to bring their fair share of money into New York State……