[nox101]

No, you don’t. plain and simple. Tons of people living together share the costs. the few in the suburbs need to pay for their own infra. They’re not now. The cities are subsidizing the suburbs. that’s not fair.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

[foobazgt]

I've watched that video and seen it quoted a fair number of times, but I don't see how it jives with the reality of tax collection and spending - at least in my area of residence (ATL). I'd love some hard data on how the city is subsidizing the suburbs.

Instead, the recent trend has been that wealthy areas near downtown (e.g. Buckhead) have been trying to incorporate so that they're no longer subsidizing the rest of the city.

[Dalewyn]

Your sentiment can be summarized as "Fuck you, I got mine." Hardly convincing.

As an aside, the countryside can survive without cities but cities cannot survive without the countryside. Perhaps consider your dependences before brazenly brushing them off.

[Larrikin]

There's absolutely no way farmers can be more than subsistence farmers without selling to the masses in the city. Country farmers like to pretend they enjoy living off the land but outside of what they actually sell to make money, they would be losing same amenities as the city that they are not willing to give up.

[nox101]

no, my sentiment is you’re stealing from me and not even aware of it. you’re taking more than your portion.

Cities need farms (a few people and a few roads) they don’t need suburbs (people wasting resources, living large, and stealing tax resources from the cities to subsidize their lifestyle)