“Inefficiently distributed”? Do you mean that if things were different, things would be different? You don’t approve of the reality of the situation. That doesn’t change reality.
Should every metro area in America have consolidated metro government? I vote “no”. The Twin Cities have managed to reach a compromise that they hope will be in the best interest of the twin Cities and surrounding areas. If it works - great. If it doesn’t work, well, they’ll have to think of something else. At least they’re trying to get along and maybe accomplish something.
Detroit and it’s surrounding areas don’t seen to have the same level of trust. Detroit can’t entice employers to come to Detroit. No employers = no jobs. No jobs means people move away. The tax base is reduced. Fewer employers. Fewer employees.
Your attitude guarantees that people will dig in their heels and refuse to cooperate. If you want to annex my community to feed your Big City habit, I’ll see you in court or move beyond your fifedom.
I mean just what I said: that more Americans voted for Democratic House candidates then voted for Republican House candidates, yet we got a Republican-controlled House anyway. And implicit in what I said is that if your side can only manage to control one of two legislative bodies, and that despite getting fewer popular votes, while our side has comfortable control of the executive branch (and will thus soon take control of the judicial branch as well), you don’t have a very solid position. The old Southern white men who vote for Republicans are for the moment just efficiently distributed enough to hold the House; but as that demographic steadily becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the country as a whole, the collapse will be all the more wide-ranging when it comes.
That may be the stated assumption, but I suspect that as with consolidated metro governments, the actual motivation is to enhance the power of a favored group at the expense of a disfavored group. In this case, the game is to make Jews a minority in greater Israel.
Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose that Israel proposed combining with all areas under its military occupation, i.e. Judea and Samaria, with citizenship and voting rights for all residents including Arabs who are living there. Suppose this were sold as a “one state solution.”
Would people like BrainGlutton support such a proposal? Of course not, since it would result in a Jewish majority.
I would support that. First of all, just as a matter of basic morality, if you do not do this you have de facto apartheid. But I also suspect this would be the death knell for Likud and its ultraright coalition partners. This is what I think a lot of conservatives misread about progressives’ approach to Israel: we don’t hate the idea of there being a majority of voters there who are Jewish, we just hate to see those right-wing parties in charge.
I’m not about to fuck my own wife and children and their futures up because some other assholes have it bad, or their parents fucked them or whatever.
I have to look out for my own family, and if that means moving to the suburbs and letting south Dallas become even more Haiti-like than it already is, then I have no heartburn about it.
Bump, I appreciate that you quoted my questions and begin to take a stab at answering one of them. But really I already acknowledged that the compassion was not there. Stipulated. My first question was really more about the practical aspects of living in a metro area where the city is that out-of-control. How will you ultimately insulate yourself?
Isn’t it really that you want to leave, while expecting others who are not at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder to stay in the city and keep things from spiraling totally down to Haiti level? Do you acknowledge that if everyone like you bugged out, that it would make things very difficult even for the suburbanites, and require walls and heavy security and heavily armored all terrain vehicles to travel outside the walled suburban enclaves? Do you not think that businesses might find it more attractive to move someplace where there are not such dramatic issues to deal with, not to mention more consistent infrastructure and a better image all around?
Also, you did not address my question number two at all.
Well you are kind of proving my point here – it seems that you support Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria primarily because you feel the political result of the change in demographics would be favorable.
Here’s another thought experiment:
Suppose that Israel starts annexing parts of Judea and Samaria in the same way that some cities annex surround suburbs. i.e. they do it slowly but surely over time in such a way as to enhance their territory without affecting the political balance. Would you support such an annexation plan?
You continue to ignore, or are unaware of, how Congress and state legislatures are elected. A Democrat majority of voters in one city or state do not dictate to any other city or state who they should elect to represent them. Your wishes are NOT their command.
Your side can only manage to control one of the two legislative bodies of the U.S. Congress. It’s the popular vote in 50 States that elects Senators and the popular vote in State districts that elects Congressmen. The POTUS is elected by the Electoral College. A majority of govenors are Republican. A majority of State legislature bodies are controlled by Republican majorities.
Your claims of doom and gloom for one party doesn’t match reality. Your support of “Cities w/o suburbs” doesn’t seem to have much support either. If Big City can’t draw employers and employees into their legally defined taxing boundary, Big City had better cut costs in order to live within their tax based means or go bankrupt and close it’s government doors. The people who are left in Big City can move to where the jobs are and taxes paid match taxes spent.
Move. If things are that bad, why are you still there? Why would you even want to be there? The AMBIENCE? The aroma? Quality of life?
What would be the fianancial benefit of using what little tax dollars they have left to wall in Detroit or NYC? Why would a taxing body (government) chose to install an expensive, manned wall to prevent anyone who has money to pay taxes from leaving the city? It’s a losing effort.
It’s not about compassion really; it’s about wanting to live somewhere that you feel like part of the community, not some kind of cash-cow for another segment of the population to benefit from. I don’t advocate making things worse for the poor, but I do have a problem with the city neglecting basic maintenance and infrastructure improvements in favor of low-income enhancements. The maintenance and infrastructure benefit everyone, while the low-income stuff strictly benefits the low income people.
I mean, if I can’t get my sidewalk fixed, despite people having a hard time pushing strollers over it and people tripping frequently, and in the meantime the city funds home improvments, and specific transit enhancements for low income people, how should I not feel like the city doesn’t reflect my interests or use the tax money I pay for on things I value?
That’s why people move to the suburbs; they want a like-minded community in terms of tax policy, social policy and school district policy. Cities, especially large diverse ones with large poverty problems don’t provide that.
You seem to think that anyone above working class has some sort of obligation to stay in the city and subsidize the poor for some reason. A lot of people (me included) would disagree. It’s totally within my rights and reasonable for me and my family to move somewhere outside of the big city to avoid that.
The way I see it, the people in the city ultimately have 3 choices- move somewhere else, make it better for themselves, or marinate in their own squalor and lawlessness. Any hand-wringing and moaning about poverty, or single-parent households or whatever are secondary to those three choices. The discussion here is basically whether people take choice 1 or 2.
And ultimately that’s what the OP comes down to- they want consolidated government so they can subsidize the central city at the expense of the suburbs, because they basically think the suburbs owe the city something.
And as for #2, it’s never going to be exactly equitable, but if half of the people in a given municipality take more than they give, it’s not at all surprising if that other half doesn’t like it and decides to pack up and go elsewhere. That’s pretty much my point in a nutshell. Practically speaking, I bet there’s a certain percentage of freeloaders/freeloading that most middle class and above communities will tolerate without complaint, but above that, and it becomes an issue. Having 50% or more taking is probably more than most will tolerate without a fight.
While your crude “every man for himself” rhetoric is amusing, how would your wife and children be “screwed” by this proposal?
Nobody’s forcing to live in south Dallas or wherever. All that will be changed under this proposal is the distribution of existing government powers and tax revenue
Translated: Take money away from the wealthy suburbs and redistribute it to low income city residents.
You say this like it’s a small thing. It’s one of the main reasons people move to the burbs.
I have no problem with the idea of proportional taxation. I pay my state and federal income tax knowing that it’s a proper redistribution of wealth because we all live in a greater community. But where I see the problem is that you are taking effectively taking away the right of local rule. Even if you disagree with it, the people living in those suburbs are there for a reason. You’re saying that you’re going to take away the right to live in a local community of their choice by forcing them to join in a larger municipality where their voice is effectively lost. And the *only *reason they are being forced to join is to get access to their tax revenue. You think people won’t resent that?
The effect of this is that people will move further away from the cities, to where annexation can’t reach.
Well if that’s all that’s happening, why not lobby the legislature to impose a special property tax on suburban communities and transfer the proceeds of the tax to the city?
The answer is twofold:
First, such a proposal is obviously unfair and would be a difficult sell. Which is part of my problem with these annexation proposals. They attempt to conceal their agenda.
Second, a lot of these city governments tend to be rather corrupt and handing them extra money would be counter-productive. Which is also a problem with these annexation proposals.
Part of the difference with state and federal income taxation is that the lines were drawn a long time ago. If someone wanted to draw new state lines in order to transfer wealth and power to a favored group, I would have the same objection.
LOL. Exactly. ALL that will be changed is the distribution of existing government powers and tax revenue. Against the will of the people. Newsflash - It’s my money and you can’t have it.
Big City overspent it’s way into bankruptcy and you want to give them even more tax money. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.
Maybe you should try to reach a willing compromise between the urban and suburban residents? Demanding more money from the suburbs to support your urban lifestyle is going to meet a lot of resistance and won’t solve the urban problems.
But “50% or more taking” is likely to be true almost everywhere. Of that 50+%, some of them will be paying almost as much in taxes as they get back in services. But others will be getting a pretty substantial deal.
But here’s the thing: let’s say the richest 40% of a suburb packs up and goes elsewhere, or maybe just cuts themselves out of the rest of the suburb and forms a smaller, richer suburb. Now, in this new suburb, around half of *them *will be “freeloading” off the others. There are only three ways I can think of to avoid having anyone be a “taker”:
–if each house is its own municipality, impractical though that would be
–if the wealth of the community were perfectly uniform (way too socialist even for me)
–if instead of property or income taxes, a poll tax were used instead: the budget for government is determined and then each member of the community is charged 1/X of that budget, where X is the number of people who reside in that municipality. Basically like splitting a restaurant check.
Actually I see this as an increase of local rule and my hope is that many state government functions will devolve to the metropolitan level instead.
Some people will resent it obviously. But since I’m not planning a coup or a violent revolution solely to bring about these reforms, I’m assuming that the plans will be adopted democratically by the people living in those areas after persuasion (and perhaps some manipulation).
Plus I doubt few people move to a suburb because they calculate that their vote will be worth more in a mayoral election. And as I indicated before, major cities have levels below that such as a ward so that people’s voices can be heard.
Hence the aim will be to cover the entire contiguous built-up area AND some of the surrounding undeveloped areas as greenbelt/future development zones. Therefore unless somebody invents teleportation, there will be limits to how much someone can move away without losing access to jobs and other city services.
Who says its against the will of the people? Some metropolitan areas have approved of this measure.
Big City, if it “overspent its way into bankruptcy” was due to a vicious cycle of middle-class residents moving out which eroded the tax base while still having to provide services to the poor even as conditions in the city grew worse without the leavening element of the middle class, which in turn exacerbated further migration with only those who could afford to move being left in the city.
The proposed metropolitan governments is not a one-way thing with only the inner city benefitting. In exchange the residents of suburbs will be able to vote on issues of municipal government and have a say in the administration of the areas along with inner city residents.
