[City_boy12]

Sorry, I don't know much about taxes since I'm not on my own yet, but do state or federal taxes generally benefit larger cities more than smaller cities or is it equal? Do larger metro areas get more $? If so, is that wrong?

[mcfinley]

I suppose it depends on your metric, and there are always exception to the rule. Per capita, small cities and rural areas tend to receive more money than large cities, because federal funds towards infrastructure, schools, nature preservation, etc serves greater populations per dollar within urban centers. Nominally, yes federal and state taxes generally benefit larger cities more than small cities.

The same could be said about the inquiry from your other post regarding city vs suburban taxes. For instance, if a state's byways are maintained by income tax or aggregated property taxes (and this varies state to state) than residents in the suburbs and rural areas receive more money per capita than those in the city.

However, within any economic region, the central city (and often the CBD) tends to receive the vast majority of funds for major, singular projects like airports, rail stations, museums, parks, federal/municipal buildings and services (is this what you meant by "help the big city pay for buildings to be built"?), etc. Therefore, one could somewhat disingenuously state that large central cities receive far more tax revenues than their suburbs and small cities because they are, by definition, acting as a hub for an entire region.

[CentralGrad258]

My understanding is that rural areas recieve substantially more, per capita than urbanized metropolitan areas. This is because urban areas and their suburbs are usually more affluent than the rural areas of the state, therefore there is a net outflow of taxes to pay for the social services provided to the residents of poorer, less developed parts of the state.

The same is true on the national level. Wealthy states like California, New York, Connecticut, etc... see a net outflow of federal taxes to poorer southern states like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina etc.. Funny how that works, considering the state of national politics..innit?

[Cirrus]

At the federal level, states with large cities subsidize states without large cities.

At the state level, large metropolitan regions subsidize rural regions.

[hudkina]

I always find it funny that the most federally subsidized states are generally the most anti-government states. I would like to see how they would react if they suddenly became donor states.

[City_boy12]

So it's not like rural areas are getting little money while big cities are getting a lot? Nothing unfair is going on?

[City_boy12]

I guess what I am asking is "are small cities and rural areas not getting their fair share of tax revenue while big cities are getting more than their fair share?"

[mcfinley]

I guess what I am asking is "are small cities and rural areas not getting their fair share of tax revenue while big cities are getting more than their fair share?"

on average and per capita, it's the other way around. small cites and rural areas get more than their fare share and big metros pay out more than they receive.

"fair share" can socially dubious though, as one might argue that individuals living in very rural areas, such as the Dakotas, have rights to an unoppressable minimum standard of living, with regards to education and basic infrastructure.

[blockski]

You'd have to define 'fair share.' Rural areas have a certain baseline of needs (and thus costs), but they tend to receive more money per capita when compared to urban areas. They also receive more money than they pay in - urban areas are the backbone of our economy, thus that's where the majority of the tax revenue is generated.

[DruidCity]

One thing to remember, also, is that some of the money spent in "rural areas" is largely for the benefit of urban areas. An example of this is a highway between two major cities.

[City_boy12]

So rural areas definitely aren't getting cheated by urban areas??

[goat314]

So rural areas definitely aren't getting cheated by urban areas??

Just look at how federal/state funds are given out in places like Missouri and you will see that rural areas have consistently been getting the lion's share of money in many states. The City of St. Louis and St. Louis County alone generate more than half of the state of Missouri's money (including the Kansas City area probably close to 80-90% of the states income). Year after year the urban areas get screwed and consistently get less than half of the states revenue in terms of roads, bridges, social programs, services, etc. etc. etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that urban areas are getting screwed in America. The real reason the United States has been falling further and further behind the rest of globe for the past 50 years.

[blockski]

So rural areas definitely aren't getting cheated by urban areas??

Well, being 'cheated' would depend on the context.

Rural areas also cover a lot more land, thus they have more lane miles, they need more bridges, and they certainly need these items at a greater per-capita rate than cities.

Still, cities (meaning metropolitan areas) generate most of the tax revenue, contain most of the economic activity, and still receive a relatively small share of the funds (relative to the revenue they bring in).

But these are just broad, general patterns. I'm sure you can find specific cases for both sides in which one cheats the other. My personal view is that the system is set up to provide bias towards rural areas. For example, Federal policy is influenced heavily in that direction (highly rural Montana has just as many Senators has highly urban New Jersey). It's a systemic result of the structure of our governments, both at the Federal and state levels.

[mcfinley]

So rural areas definitely aren't getting cheated by urban areas??

not to be rude, but you keep asking the same thing like you're baiting for a response.

is there an anecdote or counter evidence you have in mind that is dissonant with what we're saying?

[City_boy12]

I know it may sound like I'm trying to start an argument here but I'm not. Sorry, I just have this thing where I like concrete answers, which aren't always there.

Someone on citydata did say that people in large metros generally get more of the cut so I don't really know what to believe.
This is what they said:
Since tax money usage is politcally devided;yes those with more representation and keep positions generally get more of the cut of the pie per person.Just as a example: 80% of poverty is locted in 20% of two nrural areas of the country. They get 20% of federal aid. Cites wiht teh other 20% get the 80% left. The politics of poverty.

[BTinSF]

No. Probably it's the other way around. Smaller cities, suburbs and rural areas benefitting more at the expense of larger cities.

[Cirrus]

Small areas definitely are not getting cheated.

Citydata is full of people who hate cities. Don't believe a word they say.

[City_boy12]

So how do you guys know it is the other way around?

Citydata is full of people who hate cities. Don't believe a word they say.

Well skyscraperpage is probably full of people who hate rural areas, soooo............

[Gordo]

So how do you guys know it is the other way around?

Because the data is pretty clear on it. There can be coherent arguments over whether rural areas should get more per capita than urban areas, but the fact that they get more is exactly that - a fact.

Well skyscraperpage is probably full of people who hate rural areas, soooo............

I don't hate rural areas, I just like cities more. I tend to hate suburban areas from the 1950's through today, though not even all of those. I wish that there were more rural areas and more urban areas, with fewer suburban areas. I think you'll find that to be true of many people here.