[gozur88]

You can only count the highway system as a subsidy if you pretend a highway between, say, San Francisco and Los Angeles is there to benefit the people of the Central Valley. And it's not.

Certainly the mortgage market is distorted by the federal government, but I have yet to see any evidence of subsidy for suburban borrowers.

[ufo]

The home mortgage interest deduction is effectively a subsidy for suburban borrowers.

[gozur88]

Why would you think that? Are people who buy million dollar shacks in SF forgoing their deduction? It's hard to imagine.

[ch4s3]

It's a subsidy for all mortgages. More people would rent if not for this subsidy. Also any roady that connect your suburb to anywhere are heavily subsidized, to the tune of greater than 60%. If your suburb build its sewers with bonds, they too end up receiving various forms of subsidy. It would be truly unique in the whole of the US if your community's property taxes covered the full cost of local services and weren't partially covered from the state's general fund.

[gozur88]

>t's a subsidy for all mortgages. More people would rent if not for this subsidy.

Well, okay. You still haven't made the case it disproportionately benefits the suburbs. People who buy houses in the city pay a lot more money, and presumably get to write off a lot more interest.

>Also any roady that connect your suburb to anywhere are heavily subsidized, to the tune of greater than 60%.

So what you're saying is cities benefit enormously from a subsidy that allows companies to employ people who don't work in the city and import products from other places?

>If your suburb build its sewers with bonds, they too end up receiving various forms of subsidy.

Oh? Do you have some evidence this is true?

>It would be truly unique in the whole of the US if your community's property taxes covered the full cost of local services and weren't partially covered from the state's general fund.

Well, sure, but we pay state taxes. I would expect some of that money to come back.