[sampleinajar]

True, but "rich" is fairly subjective. I also don't think that point was implying that only rich people could afford homes, but that the suburban "lifestyle" and the associated costs of infrastructure were being "subsidized". For the most part, cities subsidize less urban areas.

[scarface74]

Subsidized by who? Suburban areas are often separate municipalities with separate budgets and I would think that most infrastructure would be paid by property taxes and local sales taxes.

In fact here in Atlanta there is a trend toward upper class neighborhoods separating from Atlanta and creating separate cities - no this isn’t a good thing.

[sampleinajar]

It's not exactly true that all services in a local municipality are funded solely by local funds. For example, in your state of Georgia the state pays a share of public education. Most states' largest sources of revenue come from sales taxes which it should be clear comes disproportionately from cities as cities are disproportionately populated. Any state funded and especially state run service is going to be largely funded by city dollars. It's admittedly complex and varies state by state in degree, but overall it stands true that cities pay more taxes to their state in dollar amount by virtue of there being more people; therefore it seems fair to say that any state funds used for any area outside the cities is subsidized by the cities. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just a valid observation.