[lotsofpulp]

Please show how you would stop net benefit recipients from moving in and net taxpayers in from moving out.

This is a very practical concern of implementing broad population wide benefits.

City / state A says they will subsidize people who need help, and politician in city / state B says they will keep taxes low by sending people who need help to city / state A.

[giraffe_lady]

But that's exactly what is happening here. Talking about carmel, it is a suburb of indianapolis. It depends on indy for its residents' income that fuels its taxes. It depends on the relative poverty of the surrounding metro area for low wage workers where it wants them, and it saves money by not spending on services they need, forcing them into the nearby communities instead.

This is the extractive relationship you're worried about. It's the same deal with singapore! It is critically dependent on the labor of impoverished disenfranchised malaysians it keeps as close as possible but avoids spending any of its resources on. As always it is simply the poor subsidizing the rich.

[lotsofpulp]

I know, and if the choice is to extract or be extracted from (which the evidence indicates it is), then I am going to opt for “to extract”. Indianapolis should do the same as Carmel. That is the problem with the way governments and taxation, coupled with freedom of movement, work in the US.

If you asked me to vote for a federal marginal land value tax on ALL land, I would be down. I would be down to help provide a floor for quality of life for everyone.

If you asked me if I want to make only myself poorer relative to my peers across city/county/state lines, I am going to say no.