As a person who has lived in EASTERN Washington my entire life…you’re 100% correct. Same issue exists with everyone jumping all over government spending when Hanford employs (last time I checked) about 20% of the area.
And I’m stating that’s no excuse. If 1 person lived on that road, we’d be complaining “Why should taxpayers pay to fix the road for one person?” So why should 5 be that much different? The people that choose to live out in the sticks SHOULD pay a larger portion of the cost to repair their road because it was their choice to live there. The 200 taxpayers living on the other road shouldn’t have to subsidize their choice.
Rand, we can debate the reasons why rural counties with lower populations take in more money than they contribute until we’re all blue in the fingers.
The point is that they do. Rural counties, in order to remain fiscally solvent, must obtain funds from the state government. In other words, people across the state are contributing their taxes to areas and services which they do not directly benefit.
But that’s how it’s supposed to work. Society simply could not function if everyone were expected to pay their way for everything or else be left to rot.
The larger issue is that these rural counties who take the most also simultaneously object the most strenuously to “government handouts” and “socialism”
THAT’S the problem. Not that they take. Not that there’s a legitimate reason they take. It’s that they’re hypocritically taking.
And it’s like that everywhere, at every level, all across this country.
Wait. So you aren’t saying it’s the people in the rural counties who are acting hypocritically, it’s the counties as entities themselves. Is that right?
It can be both. Yes, I know that the citizens themselves have no direct say in how money gets spent or where money comes from. But they do have a direct say in who they elect. The voters who vote Republicans into office under the guise of “getting government off our back” or “socialism = bad” and yet have no problems accepting funds from the state (indeed, so much in funds that their local government simply could not function without that money) are acting hypocritcally.
The politicians who campaign under such pretenses knowing what a welfare state their county is in are acting even more hypocritically than the voters.
Ender, the reason I asked the question is that you seem to have shifted focus here. Johnny L.A. was discussing the hypocrisy of the people who live in rural counties. His position seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong) that these people are hypocrites because they vote for lower taxes but the numbers show that the counties they live in receive more taxes per capita than are paid per capita by people living in those counties. I showed above why the per capita numbers are deceiving and don’t illustrate the effect that Johnny L.A. seems to think they do.
Now, you are shifting the claim a bit. You seem to be saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that the counties themselves are hypocritical because the counties take in more money in taxes than they pay while the people in those counties vote to lower their taxes. My response to this position is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Individuals within a county vote–the county itself does not vote. It’s weird to think of the county itself as hypocritical based on the balance of payments and the way in which its residents vote. Your argument seems to be just a way to avoid the problems with per capita numbers that I identified above, but it doesn’t get at the hypocrisy charged by people who make the normal version of the argument (e.g., Johnny L.A.).
OK, the county as an entity can’t be hypocritical. The politicians who run the county can be. Using “the county” is shorthand for the second sentence.
Better?
Now as to your issue regarding the per capita vs cumulative totals, I think that’s somewhat irrelevant. It may be true that cumulatively a rural area receives less than an urban area but that’s because an urban area has more people and therefore needs more services. The cost of those services can be spread out across the entire population. This isn’t a bug but a feature.
We measure how much we pay in taxes on a per capita basis but we measure how much we receive back from taxes on a societal level. Can you quantify your car usage along publicly funded streets? The net benefit of mail getting delivered to your house? The copay you didn’t have to shell out because the kid next to your kid in class got free immunizations?
The fact is that rural areas, by the cite in the OP that you haven’t refuted, take in more than they give back. I’m completely cool with that. For a variety of reasons listed in this post and elsewhere in this thread, I understand that we live in a society and we need the government to provide things for us that individually we can’t manage. From other threads, I know you disagree.
What’s hypocritical is to vote people into office based upon that philosophy and then turn around and suck the government teat for all it’s worth.
Simply put, it doesn’t matter WHY they get more money than they give back. I don’t care. What matters is that they seem to object to the idea in principle but not in practice. That’s hypocracy.
It appears that you misunderstood my point. There is hypocrisy (or irony) here only if the same person that votes to lower their taxes also receives more than they pay in. A county doesn’t vote. The article is calling a county “Republican” only based on how the people in that county vote. So the person that votes Republican (i.e,. the people in the county) are not the same as the person that receives more tax revenue than it pays (i.e., the county), so there’s no hypocrisy or irony here.
Sounds like you agree with me. The fact that counties take in more per capita is just because the tax dollars they take in are spread over fewer people.
I only disagree in degree, not in kind.
But that’s not true. There’s no hypocrisy here, just a feature of how the numbers shake out, as I’ve demonstrated above.
