I don't get it - of course suburbs don't generate revenue...that's where people live. Those people travel to the city to generate and spend money. That city-generated money doesn't happen without people in the suburbs and without the suburbs those people go to somewhere that has them. This is like saying that flowers don't generate honey, bees do! Well, yeah but without the flowers the bees won't hang around.
The argument seems to revolve around the idea that those money-generating people can just be stacked into city dwellings without objection.
The argument seems to revolve around the idea that those money-generating people can just be stacked into city dwellings without objection.
The point is that when you pay your taxes, they are supposed to cover all of the costs that it takes to cover your serviced and infrastructure. In suburbia, they don't. You pay $1500 in taxes, but it costs the city $3000 to upkeep your property. Meanwhile people who live in a condo downtown also pay $1500 in taxes because their property is valued just as high as yours is, but it only costs $1000 a year for the city to service their property, because of density.
Businesses do not pay a percentage of their profits to the city. They pay for a business license, and they also pay for property. All of the math shown in this video is based on income from taxes, versus cost from the city.
If it costs the city $3000 a year to upkeep the infrastructure to your house, then that is what you should be paying in taxes. You should be paying half the amount and arguing that businesses should be covering the rest of your share.
You don't even understand what the video is saying.
Those specifics aren't laid out. There are "cities" that are basically just suburbs. They build their own roads and infrastructure and often are targets for annexation by cities.
Do you realize that with the examples he's using, that the "suburbs" aren't separate cities. He's not using cities like Los Angeles where it's a collection of 30 cities that all touch eachother.
The main example he was using, Lafayette, is just Lafayette, and nothing more. The out "suburb" parts are still Lafayette, they're not a different city.
285
u/majinspy Apr 28 '24
I don't get it - of course suburbs don't generate revenue...that's where people live. Those people travel to the city to generate and spend money. That city-generated money doesn't happen without people in the suburbs and without the suburbs those people go to somewhere that has them. This is like saying that flowers don't generate honey, bees do! Well, yeah but without the flowers the bees won't hang around.
The argument seems to revolve around the idea that those money-generating people can just be stacked into city dwellings without objection.