Japan's Hometown Tax (2018)(kalzumeus.com)
kalzumeus.com
Japan's Hometown Tax (2018)
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2018/10/19/japanese-hometown-tax/
367 comments
This is a perspective issue.
The customer was the in-state parent. Rest assured, they were taxed just fine.
The child, when it finishes college, should do whatever is best for the child.
If the kids are leaving the state, the problem is the state isn't attractive to the next generation. Not that the kid somehow skipped out on the state. Heck, the state had an inertial advantage over every other state and still couldn't keep the kid there.
Source: I grew up in Pennsylvania. Love the place. Left for greener pastures. Don't owe them anything out of my paychecks today. But my parents kicked into their coffers for decades and still do.
The customer was the in-state parent. Rest assured, they were taxed just fine.
The child, when it finishes college, should do whatever is best for the child.
If the kids are leaving the state, the problem is the state isn't attractive to the next generation. Not that the kid somehow skipped out on the state. Heck, the state had an inertial advantage over every other state and still couldn't keep the kid there.
Source: I grew up in Pennsylvania. Love the place. Left for greener pastures. Don't owe them anything out of my paychecks today. But my parents kicked into their coffers for decades and still do.
Whatever reason the old city isn't attractive to the next generation, it is completely reasonable for people to want to fix it at the national level.
If you don't, you will only concentrate all kinds of problems on your largest cities, and even invent some wild new problem because cities can not survive all by themselves.
That said, a tax based on what city you happened to be born or identify with is the kind of weirdness that my culture can't assimilate. But it may make complete sense there (maybe because it's more traditionalist? do they want to be that traditionalist?).
If you don't, you will only concentrate all kinds of problems on your largest cities, and even invent some wild new problem because cities can not survive all by themselves.
That said, a tax based on what city you happened to be born or identify with is the kind of weirdness that my culture can't assimilate. But it may make complete sense there (maybe because it's more traditionalist? do they want to be that traditionalist?).
There are too few incentives at the national level. Rent seeking makes the federal government lazy. They don't have to do anything. To what country will you go? Nowhere. Coke just has to beat Pepsi by the thinnest of margins.
There's no need to build another New York City when we already have New York City. It would be folly for the federal government to stand up a competitor to New York City.
But! It's not folly for Illinois or California to try. Competition is good.
There's no need to build another New York City when we already have New York City. It would be folly for the federal government to stand up a competitor to New York City.
But! It's not folly for Illinois or California to try. Competition is good.
They might be "trying", but they're failing miserably. I'd say they aren't really even trying to make a competitor to New York City: no place in America looks remotely like it. I don't see any American city attempting to make itself dense, walkable, and with a decent subway system, except maybe DC (but that one has structural challenges because it's split across 3 states for stupid historic reasons).
DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Phoenix, There are a ton of up and coming metros that are growing 3–5% a year while NYC is in decline along with LA and Chicago.
Sure they are not prioritizing “walkability” (i.e walking through human feces and crowds of homeless people). Heck FL recently surpassed the population of New York state for the first time in history, not many seemed to notice. They’re not competing, they’re winning.
Sure they are not prioritizing “walkability” (i.e walking through human feces and crowds of homeless people). Heck FL recently surpassed the population of New York state for the first time in history, not many seemed to notice. They’re not competing, they’re winning.
I don't think California has failed in making competition for NYC in SF or LA. Yes, they aren't exactly like NYC, and they have different benefits, but they attract as much of the nation's (and world's) mindshare these days.
The biggest attraction of SF and LA is the weather.
Weather is some of it, but that isn't close to the biggest appeal of those cities at all. Many of us like SF and LA way better NYC, and NYC weather really isn't that bad (from my limited 3 month stay there).
If it's the past 3 months, those aren't the bad ones. they're a bit hot. it's the next 5 to watch out for.
they're not that bad, but they're not everyone's cup of tea.
they're not that bad, but they're not everyone's cup of tea.
It was summer, and it wasn't a nice one. But NYC seemed fine in terms of weather for me.
But I really didn't like the culture, the roads, the housing, the way people drove. I'm just not suited for east coast life.
But I really didn't like the culture, the roads, the housing, the way people drove. I'm just not suited for east coast life.
[deleted]
I'm curious about your opinion of the states' decisions to reduce funding for public universities.
Neither the state collectively, non-parent residents of the state, nor the in-state parents get any future economic reward for funding higher education if the student leaves the state, so reducing the state's costs in that regard seems rational.
But that reduction in funding was part of the rise of the student loan industry, which subsequently seems to have completely deranged higher education funding.
Neither the state collectively, non-parent residents of the state, nor the in-state parents get any future economic reward for funding higher education if the student leaves the state, so reducing the state's costs in that regard seems rational.
But that reduction in funding was part of the rise of the student loan industry, which subsequently seems to have completely deranged higher education funding.
What is the reason to have higher education organized by geography instead of by industry? Shouldn't the medical industry be responsible for medical education, for example? Then you don't have a state or a city wasting investment on a student who will bail, and you don't have students who are disadvantaged for being born in the wrong state or city.
The short answer is "history".
A longer answer is that I suspect it's a bad idea in the long term. For one thing, I don't see how you wouldn't have "students who are disadvantaged for being born in the wrong state".
A longer answer is that I suspect it's a bad idea in the long term. For one thing, I don't see how you wouldn't have "students who are disadvantaged for being born in the wrong state".
>Neither the state collectively, non-parent residents of the state, nor the in-state parents get any future economic reward for funding higher education if the student leaves the state
That seems to presuppose that the students don't benefit from the education and/or there's no interstate commerce.
That seems to presuppose that the students don't benefit from the education and/or there's no interstate commerce.
The students benefit, but are now in San Francisco looking for a MTFAANG job.
I'll admit neglecting interstate commerce as a second order effect.
I'll admit neglecting interstate commerce as a second order effect.
> the problem is the state isn't attractive to the next generation
Part of the problem is that brain drain is a vicious cycle. Your home state is less attractive in part because of all the people in your field who left for "greener pastures".
And they have less funds to put into projects that might make the area more attractive, because they can't tax the people who left.
I'm not saying you owe anything out of your paycheck, but it is a problem. Both for the places being left and the overcrowded cities people are leaving to.
Part of the problem is that brain drain is a vicious cycle. Your home state is less attractive in part because of all the people in your field who left for "greener pastures".
And they have less funds to put into projects that might make the area more attractive, because they can't tax the people who left.
I'm not saying you owe anything out of your paycheck, but it is a problem. Both for the places being left and the overcrowded cities people are leaving to.
counter-argument: by not having to appeal to (most) families, big cities can focus on attracting young professionals, hence the original moniker: YUPpies.
so if this holds water, wouldn't we expect these educated professionals to return to the states which appeal to families when they are ready to start one?
People are trying to find stability in a unstable system. The system is unstable because of the shifts in the North America (and World) economy. With manufacturing leaving the US, and the US focusing more on the service industry, the economics of scale of the service industry favour centralization in urban areas, so thats where the jobs end up being created. If the current system stay in place for long enough, it will become stable, with multi generation families having entire cycles in a given region.
It's the same thing that happened to coal country, just in a larger scale, and slower.
Aye. If gauranteed remote was a thing I'd be out of the city -- and fast.
But RTO is still contentious, and the ability to find a job if I moved to vaguely-near-Boise would be terrible. One misstep at work, or even just another economic shift, and I'm moving again.
But I'd love to be in a smaller city. Annapolis MD, or coastal WA or deep mountains MT, whatever.
But RTO is still contentious, and the ability to find a job if I moved to vaguely-near-Boise would be terrible. One misstep at work, or even just another economic shift, and I'm moving again.
But I'd love to be in a smaller city. Annapolis MD, or coastal WA or deep mountains MT, whatever.
There are a couple of probably significant factors that would counter such a tendency.
First, the states with the big cities they moved to also have smaller towns outside those cities that are fine for families. They can move to one of those and still have sufficient contact with the city to maintain their career.
Second, their spouse likely is not from the same state they are from, and may not want to move to that state. And they may not want to move to where the spouse is from.
First, the states with the big cities they moved to also have smaller towns outside those cities that are fine for families. They can move to one of those and still have sufficient contact with the city to maintain their career.
Second, their spouse likely is not from the same state they are from, and may not want to move to that state. And they may not want to move to where the spouse is from.
Sometimes they do. But someone who's uprooting their life like that is probably semi-retiring - at least reducing their hours, having one partner stop working, that sort of thing. And not everyone starts a family, so the cities keep some of the most productive people forever - of course that's unsustainable, but it's not the cities' problem.
Why would they need to move back to their original state instead of over moving to a small city or into the suburbs?
I'm sure a non-insignificant group do move to one spouse's hometown, since I can assure you, having your kids' grandparents close by can be life-changing (especially for modern, dual-income families).
I'm seeing a lot less of that among people my age who are having kids. Most stay wherever they've setup their lives but move to a larger house or something similar.
I see the same, but I think the consequences hinted at by the GP are very present. I know quite a few parents, some with their parents nearby, others without. The ones with their parents nearby universally have more of an ability to do things without their kids (either regularly, or as a special-case).
And I know several parents who tried the "go it alone" method for a while, but eventually decided to move back to one of their hometowns, specifically to be closer to their parents for reasons related to their kids. Most of it seems to be a mix of wanting nearby, reliable childcare, as well as just wanting their kids to grow up with regular contact with their grandparents. (I've also seen the phenomenon where the grandparents, after retirement, end up moving to the parents' location, but often that requires the grandparents to move to a higher cost-of-living area, so I expect that happens less often.)
I don't plan to have kids, so this is certainly a grain-of-salt-worthy opinion, but it feels to me that parent-marriages would be on average healthier if the parents had easier childcare options so they can more often do "date night" type things. Certainly nearby grandparents is not the only way to achieve that, but it is one of the simplest options, assuming grandparents who are happy to be involved to that degree.
And I know several parents who tried the "go it alone" method for a while, but eventually decided to move back to one of their hometowns, specifically to be closer to their parents for reasons related to their kids. Most of it seems to be a mix of wanting nearby, reliable childcare, as well as just wanting their kids to grow up with regular contact with their grandparents. (I've also seen the phenomenon where the grandparents, after retirement, end up moving to the parents' location, but often that requires the grandparents to move to a higher cost-of-living area, so I expect that happens less often.)
I don't plan to have kids, so this is certainly a grain-of-salt-worthy opinion, but it feels to me that parent-marriages would be on average healthier if the parents had easier childcare options so they can more often do "date night" type things. Certainly nearby grandparents is not the only way to achieve that, but it is one of the simplest options, assuming grandparents who are happy to be involved to that degree.
I would love to hear a realistic plan how West Virginia could make itself as attractive as NY, Chicago, etc.
I think the question is not how to be as attractive as NYC where people from all over move to West Virginia, but rather how to make it so that young people in the 60-90th percentile feel like they may as well stay.
A possibility is a great affordability ratio - cheap housing as compared to the prevailing local wage.
Remember, inertia to stay where you you are from is strong, you just have to help it along
A possibility is a great affordability ratio - cheap housing as compared to the prevailing local wage.
Remember, inertia to stay where you you are from is strong, you just have to help it along
Affordability ratio is not the reason young people are moving to NYC. Even with the much-higher salaries (assuming you can find similar jobs to compare), you're going to have a very tiny living space in NYC. More likely, the issue is 1) the jobs in NYC simply don't exist in WV, and never will, and 2) even if the WV person is comparing similar jobs, WV will never offer the lifestyle that NYC offers.
Affordability may not be why people are going to NYC -- but it's absolutely why people are moving to Pittsburg and a few other rust belt areas popping with hipsters.
WV ain't got that tho -- Pitt is at least a real city, and it's mostly filling in after the collapse of industry.
WV ain't got that tho -- Pitt is at least a real city, and it's mostly filling in after the collapse of industry.
Knocking down all the dirt hills until you have enough flat land to build a city the size of NY or Chicago?
What is your opinion of Chattanooga, TN?
I'm trying to see both sides, but how is the parent the customer here?
I think you're mixing an opinion on high taxation in general (which you might be right about), versus how big metropolises enjoy labor that was raised somewhere else.
I think you're mixing an opinion on high taxation in general (which you might be right about), versus how big metropolises enjoy labor that was raised somewhere else.
One of the biggest functions of primary education beyond preparing the kid for their future is as a free(ish) place to stick your kid during working hours. Look at what happened during COVID when schools were shutdown it caused a lot of problems because suddenly someone had to take care of the kid during the day. The chaos that change caused alone is I think excellent evidence for that. It's also why schools happen so early even though it's clinically proven to be an inferior time to start school for the kid, they have to start that early so the parent(s) can get to their 9-5 job.
[deleted]
Simple. It’s not based on the child’s taxes (or future taxes) because then they could go to a California college, claim residency there immediately, and get California prices. Instead, I have to pay an extra $30k or so for them. Further, they haven’t paid any taxes before college, because they were in high school. So again, the fact that each state gives “local” kids a break has nothing to do with the kids taxes. Kids haven’t paid taxes, and kids moving state doesn’t change fees.
What does matter? My taxes, as parent. I pay soooo much taxes and I will continue to do so. As a result my kid is essentially forced to go to a college in state. And he will then FOR SURE move out of state. But I won’t.
So. It’s a cost to me. Like we are considering moving back to CA to get the UC discount. I will pay more in taxes but I’ll get a chunk of it back in tuition break.
What does matter? My taxes, as parent. I pay soooo much taxes and I will continue to do so. As a result my kid is essentially forced to go to a college in state. And he will then FOR SURE move out of state. But I won’t.
So. It’s a cost to me. Like we are considering moving back to CA to get the UC discount. I will pay more in taxes but I’ll get a chunk of it back in tuition break.
Of course the parent is the customer. Generally the parent is the one who makes sure the child is wel prepared for the future. College is a step in that process.
I agree that the parent is a beneficiary of the education, but my argument is with the fact that "customer" involves one beneficiary. By your logic for instance anyone that's childless shouldn't pay taxes for education, even though they benefit indirectly from an educated population.
Isn't the company that's hiring the graduate just as much a beneficiary for instance?
Isn't the company that's hiring the graduate just as much a beneficiary for instance?
The parent is who determines where the child lives during the time when the child's residency is established for in-state tuition purposes. The parent is who votes for elected officials in the state. The parent is who suggests to the child the viability of a subsidized in-state education.
"Go to State" is a recommendation from the elders. If the parents poo-poo State the kid won't consider it seriously.
"Go to State" is a recommendation from the elders. If the parents poo-poo State the kid won't consider it seriously.
Alaska has had to deal with an extreme version of this issue for a long time. One mitigation that the state has come up with is to offer competitively priced student loans to Alaska residents who are bound for colleges across the US. The interest rate on the loans is further lowered if you live in Alaska after graduation, incentivizing educated Alaskans to come back. Those students are also likely to have maintained their Alaska residency to qualify for the Permanent Fund Dividend (an annual payment that comes from rolling returns on the state’s sovereign wealth fund).
I went to michigan and tons tons tons of people ended up at the auto companies. Sure many left the state, but there's no doubt that the state had many more educated high earners because of the university.
Its up to the state then to ensure they create an environment that attracts these recently graduated students!
Listen to what these post graduate students want - for those who are moving a city like NYC or Boston they are probably enjoying not having urban sprawl, fun downtown areas, available housing, easy and accessible public transportation, etc.
Listen to what these post graduate students want - for those who are moving a city like NYC or Boston they are probably enjoying not having urban sprawl, fun downtown areas, available housing, easy and accessible public transportation, etc.
> Listen to what these post graduate students want - for those who are moving a city like NYC or Boston
I totally agree with everything you’re saying and listed but let’s not pretend the biggest item is anything but “higher salary” for most. We all know that some of these major metros have companies that pay 5-10x what you’d get in a small midwestern town.
Anecdotally, I did an internship in Cleveland followed by an internship in Santa Clara (Silicon Valley). I got job offers from both and chose California. The Cleveland company was a major donor to me school, so I got hounded by the schools career development office about why I chose to go to Santa Clara instead. They asked what the company could do to be more attractive to me - they mentioned intern ice cream parties, and Friday hours worked, and mentor programs, etc. The intern pay was $18/hr vs $80/hr, and when I brought it up, that was not a good answer - they wanted something cheaper easier and more superficial to change.
My point is that NYC and Boston have nothing to worry about, and nothing will change.
I totally agree with everything you’re saying and listed but let’s not pretend the biggest item is anything but “higher salary” for most. We all know that some of these major metros have companies that pay 5-10x what you’d get in a small midwestern town.
Anecdotally, I did an internship in Cleveland followed by an internship in Santa Clara (Silicon Valley). I got job offers from both and chose California. The Cleveland company was a major donor to me school, so I got hounded by the schools career development office about why I chose to go to Santa Clara instead. They asked what the company could do to be more attractive to me - they mentioned intern ice cream parties, and Friday hours worked, and mentor programs, etc. The intern pay was $18/hr vs $80/hr, and when I brought it up, that was not a good answer - they wanted something cheaper easier and more superficial to change.
My point is that NYC and Boston have nothing to worry about, and nothing will change.
Hey, now, cut all the hours off every day other than Friday and then a 78% pay cut starts looking okay.
> I totally agree with everything you’re saying and listed but let’s not pretend the biggest item is anything but “higher salary” for most. We all know that some of these major metros have companies that pay 5-10x what you’d get in a small midwestern town.
there's a lot of places in between "random midwestern town" and NYC that handily beat both on wages to COL ratio. even just looking at other major east coast cities like DC, atlanta, or boston, NYC is far more expensive and typical engineer pay is only a little higher.
there's a lot of places in between "random midwestern town" and NYC that handily beat both on wages to COL ratio. even just looking at other major east coast cities like DC, atlanta, or boston, NYC is far more expensive and typical engineer pay is only a little higher.
On the other hand, if college were still affordable, students could stay where they wanted instead of being all but forced to move to cities with higher salaries. For every 1 software engineer who flees to Silicon Valley, I bet there are 20 accountants, teachers, and nurses who'd like to continue living in their home state if they could afford it.
There is a similar phenomenon with Canada, and the USA. University is cheaper and more subsidized in Canada, and then a small but significant % of graduates - often some of the very best - move to the USA, and then never pay another tax dollar towards education, or anything else. It might be a bit annoying, but there's little that can actually be done about it, and all the usual arguments about the benefits of an educated populace still apply; the vast majority don't move away.
In the US, there are programs where various federal agencies will pay for your education, and offer you a job on graduation. At a high level, the terms require you to repay the cost of education (prorated) if don’t work for that agent for a certain period of time.
I can see this working in Canada (or other states that want a boost in educated citizens). Subsidize education via forgivable loans, then forgive the loans if you work in-state. The main issue I see is that the US has a terrible history with loan forgiveness. You always hear stories of (eg) teachers who should get their loan forgiven being rejected for some paperwork issue or simply bank fraud.
I can see this working in Canada (or other states that want a boost in educated citizens). Subsidize education via forgivable loans, then forgive the loans if you work in-state. The main issue I see is that the US has a terrible history with loan forgiveness. You always hear stories of (eg) teachers who should get their loan forgiven being rejected for some paperwork issue or simply bank fraud.
Pure spitballing. What if: in exchange for fully subsidized schooling at a state school, graduates participated in a profit-sharing agreement with the country and city that they went to school in? Similar to the Lambda model (what happened to them anyways?).
Sued by former students: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardconroy/2023/03/29/former-...
Yikes! Well this seems like a place where colleges are socialized better: we all know that getting a college degree, especially certain degrees, are no indicator of employability.
"Profit-sharing agreement" is economically the same thing as "indentured servitude", which is illegal (for good reasons IMO).
Under that line of thought, wouldn’t taxes also be indentured servitude? Or loans? IMO the key is that the government will need to take a loss on the “loans”.
> Under that line of thought, wouldn’t taxes also be indentured servitude?
Taxes are much like indentured servitude. We allow the government to do things that we wouldn't allow private entities to do.
> Or loans?
Loans for specified amounts are legal, subject to some fairly strict protections (limits on APR, discharging them in bankruptcy, lots of required disclosure). You can't generally write a profit-sharing agreement that way - how would you tell the person how much they're going to have to repay? How would you stop them declaring bankruptcy immediately to get out of it?
Taxes are much like indentured servitude. We allow the government to do things that we wouldn't allow private entities to do.
> Or loans?
Loans for specified amounts are legal, subject to some fairly strict protections (limits on APR, discharging them in bankruptcy, lots of required disclosure). You can't generally write a profit-sharing agreement that way - how would you tell the person how much they're going to have to repay? How would you stop them declaring bankruptcy immediately to get out of it?
Canada is probably a net recipient though -- lots of our immigrants were educated in South Africa, Turkey, Iran, et cetera. I suspect we gain more from other countries than we lose to the States.
> but there's little that can actually be done
Decrease taxes, encourage entrepreneurship and VC funding, and Canadian salaries will rise while cost of living will come down.
Decrease taxes, encourage entrepreneurship and VC funding, and Canadian salaries will rise while cost of living will come down.
While not a perfect program, it seems to me that NY State's "Excelsior scholarship" (for those who's family has a household income of <$125k) is one possible answer to that.
College tuition is free, you're required to live and work in NY State for the same number of years that you accepted the state funding for after graduation. If you don't do that, the scholarship/grant becomes a loan.
College tuition is free, you're required to live and work in NY State for the same number of years that you accepted the state funding for after graduation. If you don't do that, the scholarship/grant becomes a loan.
This probably works in NY as it's a good place to start a career after college. Try doing this in West Virginia, Alabama or North Dakota. If you took that program after graduating you'd probably find yourself working for low wages and being underemployed.
>We see the same problem in USA states. State taxpayer dollars pay for some amount of public college education for state universities. These are typically called "State Appropriations", and varies between 30-80% of the student's overall tuition costs.
And the world yell the same thing to USA. Canada, Italy, and England etc. all subsides their world-class universities with public funding. Where do the students go after graduation? US.
And the world yell the same thing to USA. Canada, Italy, and England etc. all subsides their world-class universities with public funding. Where do the students go after graduation? US.
> Then the state of Michigan doesn't see any more tax dollars from those students. Which begs the question, why pay tax dollars for higher education if those who benefit from that education do not contribute back?
People who live in Michigan might hope that their children can access a good education.
People who live in Michigan might hope that their children can access a good education.
> all move out of state to California, Boston, Seattle, etc for big tech jobs
Seattle is busy complaining about all those tech jobs, and how unfair it is that they make lots of money.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-splitting-of-s...
Seattle is busy complaining about all those tech jobs, and how unfair it is that they make lots of money.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-splitting-of-s...
Hate if you do, hate if you don't.
If there were no tech jobs, people here would complain that they don't have them.
If there are tech jobs, they complain that there are too many, when in reality they are complaining because they are missing out.
I do suspect that there would be different people complaining in those two cases (with some overlap, sure).
Either way, the complains are pretty irrational. I live in San Francisco, where all the property owners are thrilled that their home value has surged in the past couple decades. Take away all the tech jobs, and see what happens to those home values... Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either way, the complains are pretty irrational. I live in San Francisco, where all the property owners are thrilled that their home value has surged in the past couple decades. Take away all the tech jobs, and see what happens to those home values... Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah, Seattle is the same.
I don’t get why money is so concentrated in NYC and SV
Why are people willing to pay more to get you to move to those areas? It just seems really weird, like there’s some man behind the curtain pulling strings to concentrate people in the above metro areas
Why are people willing to pay more to get you to move to those areas? It just seems really weird, like there’s some man behind the curtain pulling strings to concentrate people in the above metro areas
Because that's where the businesses and business connections are. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem. NYC & SV are successful business hubs because they are successful business hubs. Sure, they both had to start somewhere, there's no guarantee of their continued dominance, and that's not to say other business hubs can't come into their own, but it's going to be an uphill battle for new locales wanting to attract talent.
The pandemic & work-from-home made people realize that these hubs aren't really as crucial to business success as people thought they were, but there's still a lot of institutional inertia (not to mention shitty companies requiring employees to return to office for no real reason aside from managerial power trips).
The pandemic & work-from-home made people realize that these hubs aren't really as crucial to business success as people thought they were, but there's still a lot of institutional inertia (not to mention shitty companies requiring employees to return to office for no real reason aside from managerial power trips).
Because there is money there, it's a virtuous cycle.
NYC with wall street and tech, SV with VCs and tech.
It's the place to be for those things, which makes it the place to be for those things, which brings more money in for those things, repeat.
> I don’t get why money is so concentrated in NYC and SV
For the same reason that Detroit was the technical hub 100 years ago.
Smart people congregating leads to more smart people congregating.
For the same reason that Detroit was the technical hub 100 years ago.
Smart people congregating leads to more smart people congregating.
It is way worse in a state like Wyoming: https://wyomingtruth.org/brain-drain-majority-of-university-... (66% leave after graduation). Utah, however, is pretty good about keeping its graduates in state (as well as grabbing some of Wyoming's).
The real question is whether Wyoming should be a state at all. With 1 million distributed over a vast rural area and no real city.... ofc young people are leaving.
America has a 40x gap between its smallest and largest state. Leaving Wyoming is the same as leaving SF for San Jose in population terms.
America has a 40x gap between its smallest and largest state. Leaving Wyoming is the same as leaving SF for San Jose in population terms.
I think this is what makes the article so interesting of this hometown tax idea, as I would have liked to have participated if it was here.
Fwiw, I moved away from UofM to California for career building last decade, but I moved back this year as I do love Michigan, the highly volatile weather and all.
Thank you for saying Michigan is your state. Context matters a lot. It’s annoying when people generically use “in my state” or “in my country”.
Man, this would be so good for the US to implement.
The exact tax details and how money is exactly moved around are, of course, the devil in the details.
But, forget all those very important but very arduous details for a minute, and just imagine that system up and working.
You pick some small town out there on the Gift website. You like, I dunno, Country Hams. There's a small place outside of Harrisburg, PA that specializes in that gift. They send you a medium sized ham around the holidays. It's not a mass market ham, as that's against the rules. It's real home grown and processed country ham. They put in some advert for the country ham festival in October or some month (I don't know anything about the ham world, sorry!). Its free tickets to get in. You think, hey, why not? Go out there, spend some hotel/AirBnB money, eat at the diners, buy gas, etc. Great little fall escape. You do this every year for a while. The town gets a reputation, they're the Country Ham town now.
Boom, a little cottage industry, government mandated to exist and help out the people there. The town gets to choose the cottage industry, of course. But they can leap frog it, make something of it, get things going again. Government is just coming in and priming the pump.
I don't know. There's something so damn wholesome about this idea that I just love it. Helping out each other, getting things moving again, diversifying the market, keeping things alive.
The exact tax details and how money is exactly moved around are, of course, the devil in the details.
But, forget all those very important but very arduous details for a minute, and just imagine that system up and working.
You pick some small town out there on the Gift website. You like, I dunno, Country Hams. There's a small place outside of Harrisburg, PA that specializes in that gift. They send you a medium sized ham around the holidays. It's not a mass market ham, as that's against the rules. It's real home grown and processed country ham. They put in some advert for the country ham festival in October or some month (I don't know anything about the ham world, sorry!). Its free tickets to get in. You think, hey, why not? Go out there, spend some hotel/AirBnB money, eat at the diners, buy gas, etc. Great little fall escape. You do this every year for a while. The town gets a reputation, they're the Country Ham town now.
Boom, a little cottage industry, government mandated to exist and help out the people there. The town gets to choose the cottage industry, of course. But they can leap frog it, make something of it, get things going again. Government is just coming in and priming the pump.
I don't know. There's something so damn wholesome about this idea that I just love it. Helping out each other, getting things moving again, diversifying the market, keeping things alive.
I hate to rain on your parade, but for every one town trying to "fulfill your dream", you'd get ten doing stuff like "donate to our square town in the triangle state you hate, and we will pass laws to own those triangles for you". Then add the Amazon HQ debacle and similar on top, and sprinkle some sweet madness during any campaign season (which is most of the time at this point). I'm pretty sure that making taxes "fun" is "fun" in the same way that NFTs are "fun" investing.
> Boom, a little cottage industry
This is the devil that lives in the details. You have an industry of people who are trying to get these charitable donations, and the towns that can't afford that industry or don't have anything particularly commercializable to sell get left in the dust.
For every town that becomes Country Ham Town, you have hundreds of small towns who are "random postcard town" who only get a few bucks a year. It's tough to say if they even make money vs losing money on that.
This is the devil that lives in the details. You have an industry of people who are trying to get these charitable donations, and the towns that can't afford that industry or don't have anything particularly commercializable to sell get left in the dust.
For every town that becomes Country Ham Town, you have hundreds of small towns who are "random postcard town" who only get a few bucks a year. It's tough to say if they even make money vs losing money on that.
I wonder if this could get handled at the county level. The money could be dispersed equitably by the county seat, and people could choose from a number of gifts provided by the towns in the county
That's a good thought but why stop there? Why not have some kind of national government that collects tax dollars and apportions them according to need?
>and the towns that can't afford that industry or don't have anything particularly commercializable to sell get left in the dust.
What's wrong with this? If a town doesn't have anything to offer, then why does it exist at all? And why should anyone outside the town be supporting it to help its continued existence?
The western US is full of "ghost towns": towns that used to exist back in the 1800s during the mining boom then, but when the mines dried up, so did the towns. The people all left and the town fell back to nature. These days, there's usually nothing left besides building foundations, if that. Small towns these days that have nothing left to offer should go the same way.
What's wrong with this? If a town doesn't have anything to offer, then why does it exist at all? And why should anyone outside the town be supporting it to help its continued existence?
The western US is full of "ghost towns": towns that used to exist back in the 1800s during the mining boom then, but when the mines dried up, so did the towns. The people all left and the town fell back to nature. These days, there's usually nothing left besides building foundations, if that. Small towns these days that have nothing left to offer should go the same way.
I don't agree. The whole concept is diverting money from places that need it (the ones with all the residents) to places that don't. That was at least sentimentally understandable when people were sending tax dollars to places they have actual connections to, but once it becomes about securing some kind of consumer goods it doesn't even have that justification and will obviously benefit most municipalities which least need the help (since they will be most able to put together an appealing package). Anyway, if you want artisanal ham there are plenty of butchers who would appreciate your business.
Is that really the case, though? It seems like Tokyo (etc.) are still doing just fine, and a lot of the smaller towns that act as "feeders" for the big cities get a boost, which allows the small towns to do a better job of educating their kids, which directly helps the big cities later on.
I think you maybe missed all the details in the article that explains why it's a little unfair that the small towns spend money to educate their citizens, but then don't get to reap the benefits of that education?
I do agree with you that the end result in Japan is now a bit weird, since many people "pick their hometown" based on whatever gift/deal is available. But I think even in the original formulation, the benefits were much more than just "sentimental".
I think you maybe missed all the details in the article that explains why it's a little unfair that the small towns spend money to educate their citizens, but then don't get to reap the benefits of that education?
I do agree with you that the end result in Japan is now a bit weird, since many people "pick their hometown" based on whatever gift/deal is available. But I think even in the original formulation, the benefits were much more than just "sentimental".
The "small towns" that get the most money this way are those that produce the best products, which tend to be the ones that were already the most successful. The most desperate towns gain very little from this scheme because they don't have anything to offer. The only reason that Tokyo isn't benefitting the most of all is that it's specifically excluded from taking part.
If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue? If the beneficiary is meant to be the town that educated a person, why not run the system that way? (All that stuff is on record in Japan).
If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue? If the beneficiary is meant to be the town that educated a person, why not run the system that way? (All that stuff is on record in Japan).
>The most desperate towns gain very little from this scheme because they don't have anything to offer.
If a town has nothing to offer, then why exactly does it need to continue to exist?
>If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue?
Who gets to decide which towns need help, and which towns are left to wither and die? This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside. Just because a town existed in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to exist. The population is falling and people are moving to cities because it's more economically efficient and there's more opportunities there. These towns have outlived their usefulness.
If a town has nothing to offer, then why exactly does it need to continue to exist?
>If the goal was to transfer some of Tokyo's tax income to towns that need it more, why not just do that, without all the complex bureaucracy and inefficient loss of tax revenue?
Who gets to decide which towns need help, and which towns are left to wither and die? This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside. Just because a town existed in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to exist. The population is falling and people are moving to cities because it's more economically efficient and there's more opportunities there. These towns have outlived their usefulness.
The whole argument in favour of this policy was preserving those towns. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in that case why have this transfer of tax money at all?
> This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside.
People don't pick based on that "appeal" though. People pick based on what the "gift" is, so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy. But those towns were already doing fine!
> This way, regular people decide which towns actually have some appeal and send their money there. Towns that have no appeal can go by the wayside.
People don't pick based on that "appeal" though. People pick based on what the "gift" is, so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy. But those towns were already doing fine!
Even if they did, the notion that people should get to decide how tax money is spent based on some woolly notion of which places they observe from afar are most "appealing" is highly questionable in my mind. Why should that be?
>but in that case why have this transfer of tax money at all?
To save some towns, I presume. Some places are probably worth saving; other places, not so much.
>But those towns were already doing fine!
Were they? They can probably use a little boost to help fund their schools or other infrastructure, to keep the towns worth living in for people.
>so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy
Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now. If it were really such a desirable place to live, people would be living there now, and there would be a functioning society, not just a bunch of stubborn elderly people waiting to die after all their kids and grandkids have moved to greener pastures.
To save some towns, I presume. Some places are probably worth saving; other places, not so much.
>But those towns were already doing fine!
Were they? They can probably use a little boost to help fund their schools or other infrastructure, to keep the towns worth living in for people.
>so it's really just the towns that produce something people want to buy
Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now. If it were really such a desirable place to live, people would be living there now, and there would be a functioning society, not just a bunch of stubborn elderly people waiting to die after all their kids and grandkids have moved to greener pastures.
> Were they? They can probably use a little boost to help fund their schools or other infrastructure, to keep the towns worth living in for people.
Everyone can find a use for more money, sure. But this was supposed to be a policy to help out the dying towns, not to give a boost to the top handful of non-Tokyo places.
> Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now.
Again, that contradicts the whole premise of this policy. If that's your thinking then why have the policy at all, why not just keep the money in Tokyo (which is after all where more people want to live)?
Everyone can find a use for more money, sure. But this was supposed to be a policy to help out the dying towns, not to give a boost to the top handful of non-Tokyo places.
> Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now.
Again, that contradicts the whole premise of this policy. If that's your thinking then why have the policy at all, why not just keep the money in Tokyo (which is after all where more people want to live)?
>If that's your thinking then why have the policy at all, why not just keep the money in Tokyo (which is after all where more people want to live)?
As I said before, my guess is that some places are worth saving, others not so much. The government here does have the goal of spreading the population out a bit more, because they're worried too many people are concentrated in just a few big cities, and a big disaster could be catastrophic for this reason. It does not follow that they want everyone to spread out equally across the whole country, or that every single small town needs to be saved.
As I said before, my guess is that some places are worth saving, others not so much. The government here does have the goal of spreading the population out a bit more, because they're worried too many people are concentrated in just a few big cities, and a big disaster could be catastrophic for this reason. It does not follow that they want everyone to spread out equally across the whole country, or that every single small town needs to be saved.
If that’s the goal of the policy then it would make a lot more sense to develop second- or third-tier cities (Sapporo, for instance) and encourage people to set up businesses, live, and work there, not ship funds to dying little podunk towns.
Maybe, but the "podunk" towns are frequently where a lot of the produce comes from. I imagine no one is growing watermelons or tea in a second-tier city.
Besides, they are encouraging people to move to those second- and third-tier cities. There's various initiatives for that.
Besides, they are encouraging people to move to those second- and third-tier cities. There's various initiatives for that.
People grow produce around Haneda airport so your imagination may be flawed, but either way, an agricultural economy, while important in its own way, is not going to slow population loss to the cities.
[deleted, moved to parent discussion.]
A local Texas guy told me once that he donates quite a bit to the local church, explaining that he would prefer his money do good locally instead of being diverted to the war machine that sucked in his son.
It’s not like a church builds roads in his home town…
What does that statement really mean?
What does that statement really mean?
It means that the donations to the church are generally tax deductible, and thus divert some money from the federal government to the church. And the church likely has many charitable activities.
Tax deductions only come into play if they are higher than the standard deduction. Unless he is donating tens of thousands of dollars each year (in addition to other itemized deductions), it likely doesn't change anything
He was donating quite a lot while not making much himself. That was the reason me asking why he is doing it.
Isn't the standard deduction going back to normal after the non-corporate part of Trump's tax cuts expire?
Churches are a complete scam.
After watching the collapse of the Third Place in real time during my life: maybe there was a method to the madness. You realize how utterly herculean a task it is to plan town gatherings and realize that some small (optional but peer-pressured) tithe and bit of prayer isn't much different from going to a Cafe to meet up and paying for a drink.
I almost wish I could like church for those reasons.
I almost wish I could like church for those reasons.
I'm actually really confused by this claim, as a person raised in a non-white immigrant household. I bought onto the idea of churches as community because my immigrant churches were full of apple picking, group meals in the church itself, thanksgivings at the pastor's house, etc. But someone recently told me in Catholic mass you don't even get a church-wide breakfast?? WTF? How the hell does community get formed if the actual worshipping actions isn't inherently a community building action? Someone told me the guy can bless you if you don't eat the bread, but you can't even ask for a specific blessing, like "my son needs an A, can I get the whole church to pray for him" style stuff.
I'm way more skeptical of the notion of church as a community now. If all the church community is via volunteer charity actions, just volunteer directly unaffiliated with a religion.
I'm way more skeptical of the notion of church as a community now. If all the church community is via volunteer charity actions, just volunteer directly unaffiliated with a religion.
Catholic Churches do plenty of community meals - just not around mass. This is likely due to the former requirement to fast proper to communion.
I think that's bizarre though. Mass is the one requirement everyone needs to do together-- obviously, that's the best time to sit with a meal and gossip. Even on important holidays, easter mass etc. are the few times limited practicing catholics will appear. This is the perfect time to ask how they've been, how're the kids, and welcome them with fresh hot food, maybe invite them to the litter picking up effort next week.
I'm extremely skeptical of church as a community building thing now, because based off of my white friends recollection there's very little actual community around worship itself. There are a bunch of volunteer actions outside of it, but just going to worship isn't itself community. This makes me question why we can't have a generic mutual aid group do this instead, like the Anarchist Soup folks.
I'm extremely skeptical of church as a community building thing now, because based off of my white friends recollection there's very little actual community around worship itself. There are a bunch of volunteer actions outside of it, but just going to worship isn't itself community. This makes me question why we can't have a generic mutual aid group do this instead, like the Anarchist Soup folks.
The Catholic position would be that that isn't what the Mass is for; it's a ritual sacrifice that meets a real spiritual need. Similarly, the priest doesn't need to be especially likeable or even give a homily in order to say a valid Mass.
None of those have to do with community formation, which is what the subject is about.
Sure, but you're going to be fighting an uphill battle if you want to make the Mass into that.
Right, so I'm pointing out that places of worship may not actually be great Third Spaces. They may not offer the community that people say they do.
They could always offer breakfast after mass ;)
I think it really depends on the church, and in my case I was talking about African-American dominant churches. So there may be a stronger sense of community there than the White Catholic churches.
For me, it was sort of in-between. There wasn't a church-wide breakfast except for some small snacks during the big days (Easter Sunday and Christmas). But there was plenty of donation drives that would provide food for lower income families in the area. And you very much had a chance to worship and ask for a specific blessing, sometimes in a very public manner (This Boondocks clip is surprising accurate portrayal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtP7cbbAFLA)
> If all the church community is via volunteer charity actions, just volunteer directly unaffiliated with a religion.
That's the thing, I have tried. But in my experience, volunteer work to meet friends is fleeting. You won't be making a few deep connections even if you do your best to come every week, you'll see a revolving door of people who may only come once or twice. At least among my age group, there isn't much consistency in participation.
And that fleeting, revolving door seems to be theme of modern adult life. I don't know what in particular made the same people come to pray for some higher being every week, but it's something I haven't seen in any other attempt to meet people in my adult life.
For me, it was sort of in-between. There wasn't a church-wide breakfast except for some small snacks during the big days (Easter Sunday and Christmas). But there was plenty of donation drives that would provide food for lower income families in the area. And you very much had a chance to worship and ask for a specific blessing, sometimes in a very public manner (This Boondocks clip is surprising accurate portrayal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtP7cbbAFLA)
> If all the church community is via volunteer charity actions, just volunteer directly unaffiliated with a religion.
That's the thing, I have tried. But in my experience, volunteer work to meet friends is fleeting. You won't be making a few deep connections even if you do your best to come every week, you'll see a revolving door of people who may only come once or twice. At least among my age group, there isn't much consistency in participation.
And that fleeting, revolving door seems to be theme of modern adult life. I don't know what in particular made the same people come to pray for some higher being every week, but it's something I haven't seen in any other attempt to meet people in my adult life.
> How the hell does community get formed if the actual worshipping actions isn't inherently a community building action?
Yep, Catholicism (American white-people Catholicism, at least) is weird like that. Maybe it's different in different places or among different ethnic-majority parishes, but I grew up in New Jersey and Maryland, and was dragged to mass weekly by my (devout) parents. There wasn't really any kind of community there; we showed up, took our seats, did the rituals, and then left and went home.
They also put me through CCD (Catholic version of "Sunday school") for 8 years, and while I want on some (more or less mandatory) retreats and activities with my fellow classmates, I don't recall any of those relationships extending outside class. I didn't end up forging any closer relationships with the other kids who went to my regular school, either. Granted, I may not be typical: I decided I didn't believe when I was in 5th or 6th grade, so I did the bare minimum just to get through it; maybe others tried harder and worked to make it more of a community.
I did work for our church's music director one summer in high school (mostly odd jobs and clerical stuff), and would play trumpet in the church's small ensemble for (rare) special events (regular mass just had a piano/organ player), but I didn't really get much out of that, aside from enjoying playing some music.
> but you can't even ask for a specific blessing, like "my son needs an A, can I get the whole church to pray for him" style stuff.
The church we went to in Maryland did have a small section of time devoted to community prayers. It wasn't specific, like they would just read a list of names (I think you had to sign up in advance to get someone on the list), and after each name, the congregation would respond "Lord, pray for them" or something like that.
> I'm way more skeptical of the notion of church as a community now.
I think it just depends on which religion/denomination, and the conditions in the local area. Some churches might do more to try to build community than others. And some churches might actually do build community, but many people who come for services just don't care to participate for whatever reason.
Personally I don't have a positive view of religion, but I do think it's a shame if some community-building has gone by the wayside due to declining church attendance.
Yep, Catholicism (American white-people Catholicism, at least) is weird like that. Maybe it's different in different places or among different ethnic-majority parishes, but I grew up in New Jersey and Maryland, and was dragged to mass weekly by my (devout) parents. There wasn't really any kind of community there; we showed up, took our seats, did the rituals, and then left and went home.
They also put me through CCD (Catholic version of "Sunday school") for 8 years, and while I want on some (more or less mandatory) retreats and activities with my fellow classmates, I don't recall any of those relationships extending outside class. I didn't end up forging any closer relationships with the other kids who went to my regular school, either. Granted, I may not be typical: I decided I didn't believe when I was in 5th or 6th grade, so I did the bare minimum just to get through it; maybe others tried harder and worked to make it more of a community.
I did work for our church's music director one summer in high school (mostly odd jobs and clerical stuff), and would play trumpet in the church's small ensemble for (rare) special events (regular mass just had a piano/organ player), but I didn't really get much out of that, aside from enjoying playing some music.
> but you can't even ask for a specific blessing, like "my son needs an A, can I get the whole church to pray for him" style stuff.
The church we went to in Maryland did have a small section of time devoted to community prayers. It wasn't specific, like they would just read a list of names (I think you had to sign up in advance to get someone on the list), and after each name, the congregation would respond "Lord, pray for them" or something like that.
> I'm way more skeptical of the notion of church as a community now.
I think it just depends on which religion/denomination, and the conditions in the local area. Some churches might do more to try to build community than others. And some churches might actually do build community, but many people who come for services just don't care to participate for whatever reason.
Personally I don't have a positive view of religion, but I do think it's a shame if some community-building has gone by the wayside due to declining church attendance.
>But someone recently told me in Catholic mass you don't even get a church-wide breakfast?? WTF?
That really depends on your individual parish in my experience. The church I grew up going to had donuts after ever 10:30am mass, and the one I go to now has free breakfast. I've also been to ones that have nothing at all.
It's also extremely common for Catholic churches to hold a "Friday Fish Fry" every Friday during Lent
That really depends on your individual parish in my experience. The church I grew up going to had donuts after ever 10:30am mass, and the one I go to now has free breakfast. I've also been to ones that have nothing at all.
It's also extremely common for Catholic churches to hold a "Friday Fish Fry" every Friday during Lent
More detail downthread, but I don't feel like growing up attending Catholic mass every week did much community-wise. We'd show up, sit down, do the rituals, and head home, without really interacting much (if at all) with fellow parishioners.
Certainly there were people who were more involved -- the church had a youth group, for one thing, and a bunch of outreach programs. But those were the kind of things that you had to specifically seek out, apart from the usual religious services. And if you aren't going to get community-building out of the religious services themselves, then you might as well build community outside the church entirely.
Not saying that all religious/church communities are all the same; my girlfriend in high school was much more involved with her church community (different religion). But her experience seemed to be more of an outlier than the norm.
Certainly there were people who were more involved -- the church had a youth group, for one thing, and a bunch of outreach programs. But those were the kind of things that you had to specifically seek out, apart from the usual religious services. And if you aren't going to get community-building out of the religious services themselves, then you might as well build community outside the church entirely.
Not saying that all religious/church communities are all the same; my girlfriend in high school was much more involved with her church community (different religion). But her experience seemed to be more of an outlier than the norm.
>but I don't feel like growing up attending Catholic mass every week did much community-wise. We'd show up, sit down, do the rituals, and head home, without really interacting much (if at all) with fellow parishioners.
I felt the exact same way growing up. But that's the thing: while I hated church my parents/grandparents got really involved. It wasn't unusual for my grandparents to meet up with friends after Church at some buffet and talk, and my grandmother was involved in a few non-sunday service activities. My mother met a few friend in the area through church and sang on the choir.
I don't know if they were outliers, but the key here was 1) meeting people in the area (my mom moved constantly and church was one of the first things she joins) and 2) having an easy excuse to do something after church on Sunday. I struggle to do monthly rituals with friends nearby and meanwhile two generations of family could do weekly luncheons after participation in a place that was fine with bringing kids into.
I should note that this might still be a division of the genders, though. My Grandfather didn't do much more than drop off/pick up my grandmother.
I felt the exact same way growing up. But that's the thing: while I hated church my parents/grandparents got really involved. It wasn't unusual for my grandparents to meet up with friends after Church at some buffet and talk, and my grandmother was involved in a few non-sunday service activities. My mother met a few friend in the area through church and sang on the choir.
I don't know if they were outliers, but the key here was 1) meeting people in the area (my mom moved constantly and church was one of the first things she joins) and 2) having an easy excuse to do something after church on Sunday. I struggle to do monthly rituals with friends nearby and meanwhile two generations of family could do weekly luncheons after participation in a place that was fine with bringing kids into.
I should note that this might still be a division of the genders, though. My Grandfather didn't do much more than drop off/pick up my grandmother.
> We'd show up, sit down, do the rituals, and head home, without really interacting much (if at all) with fellow parishioners.
Did you not have tea and coffee in the hall after? That was how it worked at mine.
Did you not have tea and coffee in the hall after? That was how it worked at mine.
Some churches are, sure. Churches as an overall category are absolutely not a scam.
[deleted]
Are they more of a scam than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Unfortunately in North America at least the dominant churches are politically, ideologically and increasingly "theologically" onside with wars and other fairly awful things that the government is involved in.
Grew up in an evangelical church in Alberta, Canada. It's just gotten more and more political and more and more explicitly right-wing ideological.
That and a lot of the good work many churches do is strings-attached.
That's not to say there isn't amazing charity work being done by many churches and some amazing Christian humanitarian charity work generally. But when I pay my taxes I know that the distribution of the funds is nominally under some democratic and legal governance that is not attached to someone's personal belief system. (Though that is also degrading over time)
(FWIW I've personally donated funds to charities that have church / religious affiliations despite being an atheist. But I'm extremely picky about it)
Grew up in an evangelical church in Alberta, Canada. It's just gotten more and more political and more and more explicitly right-wing ideological.
That and a lot of the good work many churches do is strings-attached.
That's not to say there isn't amazing charity work being done by many churches and some amazing Christian humanitarian charity work generally. But when I pay my taxes I know that the distribution of the funds is nominally under some democratic and legal governance that is not attached to someone's personal belief system. (Though that is also degrading over time)
(FWIW I've personally donated funds to charities that have church / religious affiliations despite being an atheist. But I'm extremely picky about it)
Sure, some churches are on the side of war. I grew up in such a church. Now I attend one of the "mainline" denominations (which tends to roughly mean Protestant, and not Evangelical). Mainline denominations are usually more politically liberal. Much more likely to find strident anti-war stances.
No, but they are more of a scam than most taxes. Historically speaking, churches haven't exactly abstained from war or pretty much any other atrocity. In terms of our current reality, they are usually not better value for money than taxes. Any time you can point to corruption, misuse of funds, politics or other issues, it is worth remembering that this applies to the churches as well.
Even if this is true "historically speaking", it doesn't have to be true of this guy's local church. Despite the bad press generally, an individual church can still be an unambiguous benefit to its community.
I would be willing to bet that the majority of local (single location, <400 members) churches are like this. Free meals for the community, donating money / labor / resources to homeless shelters, partnering with food banks and soup kitchens, etc are all very common. You just don't hear about it.
I would be willing to bet that the majority of local (single location, <400 members) churches are like this. Free meals for the community, donating money / labor / resources to homeless shelters, partnering with food banks and soup kitchens, etc are all very common. You just don't hear about it.
The larger and less accountable an organisation is, the more corruption and waste there tends to be. I would agree that donations to a large national religious movement are probably more of a scam than national taxes, but that's not the comparison being made here.
There is no longer any war in Iraq or Afghanistan
I'm sure the 7 billion dollars worth of equipment won't come back to bite us in the ass, like training Mujahideen between 1979-1989 to fight the Soviets and supplying them with Stingers did
In what way did arming the Mujahideen with Stingers bite us in the ass
Some of them got used to shoot down our own planes, no?
I've never heard of that happening
We don't always know what shot down a given aircraft, and one black-market MANPADS is much like another for most purposes, but from a search around at least one Chinook shot down in Afghanistan was thought to be by a Stinger left over from those days. Also spending a fair bit on a buyback program seems like an indication of regret.
[deleted]
Is this more of a scam than the comment it was responding to?
Depends on the area, but I live in the Southeast where churches are plentiful and my local church (which I don't attend since I'm agnostic) has a drive up food pantry staffed by the neighborhood. I contribute to it as well. They also provide housing for people on hard times and like to come together whenever anyone is widowed and made an orphan. They've even raised money for cars for people who are struggling to make a living. They frequently raise money whenever someone needs healthcare and often times the needs of the community are met just by local experts donating their time. Many folks are blue collar and may come together to repair a house/driveway/roof. etc
Churches can be pillars of a community if done correctly.
Churches can be pillars of a community if done correctly.
> whenever anyone is widowed and made an orphan
Man, only in the South can that be the same event.
Man, only in the South can that be the same event.
hahahah, I walked into that one. ;)
Churches will often times have food pantries, soup kitchens, hospitals, orphanages, homeless shelters, etc. They provide resources to the poorest in their community.
My parish actually divides its money up pretty cleanly; the first collection each week is for the upkeep of the church building, its school, etc., and there's a second collection that rotates, but once a month it's for the St. Vincent de Paul Society, which does rent assistance, furniture and coat drives, and the like, regardless of the recipient's religious affiliation.
It means charitable donations are tax deductible.
Local governments don’t always provide the community services of churches either.
Local governments don’t always provide the community services of churches either.
Churches do usually do mutual aid though. And sometimes much more humanely than the government.
(Fwiw I’m not a Christian nor do I care for religion)
(Fwiw I’m not a Christian nor do I care for religion)
It means the US government spends 10 times as much on killing others (military spending - 13%) than it does on essential infrastructure (transportation - ~2%)
I don't want to disagree with your general point (because I agree that our infrastructure is not great, and that the US glorifies the military in ways I find uncomfortable), but let's also remember that doing a good job at two wildly different things may not cost the same amount of money.
While I do think the US should be spending more on essential infrastructure, it is entirely likely that the US could end up doing an exemplary job at that, but still spend less money on it than on the military.
While I do think the US should be spending more on essential infrastructure, it is entirely likely that the US could end up doing an exemplary job at that, but still spend less money on it than on the military.
I’m not sure why that’s relevant as I have never heard of a church building trains and sewers…
I never heard of a local government building trains either.
2% of most city budgets is spent on roads. It's not like the local government is primarily spending tax money on road maintenance
As a military brat who doesn't really have a hometown, or even a clear regional identity, I like that this system lets you choose a town to donate to without forcing it to be connected to your birthplace or life history.
It'd be nice to be able to earmark it to particular government functions, maybe even charities in the area, etc.
It'd be nice to be able to earmark it to particular government functions, maybe even charities in the area, etc.
> It'd be nice to be able to earmark it to particular government functions, maybe even charities in the area, etc.
"[Your Town] has finest municipal art galleries in the state whilst streets are filled with pot-holes"
Allowing people to allocate money to government functions is generally a bad idea except if very tightly limited. Things which are 'nice' will get over-funded, and things which people find unpleasant* will not getting the funding needed. I think the problem would be ten times worse if it is people who don't actual live in an area get to choose how funds are allocated.
"[Your Town] has finest municipal art galleries in the state whilst streets are filled with pot-holes"
Allowing people to allocate money to government functions is generally a bad idea except if very tightly limited. Things which are 'nice' will get over-funded, and things which people find unpleasant* will not getting the funding needed. I think the problem would be ten times worse if it is people who don't actual live in an area get to choose how funds are allocated.
> things which people find unpleasant* will not getting the funding needed.
Septic systems are a great example of this on a home scale. So many people treat them as a mysterious vortex in the ground where all sewage magically vanishes. They don’t bother to pump the tank every few years because it costs a couple hundred dollars. Then they’re shocked when their leech field is completely failed and needs to be replaced to the tune of $30k.
Septic systems are a great example of this on a home scale. So many people treat them as a mysterious vortex in the ground where all sewage magically vanishes. They don’t bother to pump the tank every few years because it costs a couple hundred dollars. Then they’re shocked when their leech field is completely failed and needs to be replaced to the tune of $30k.
I can't wait for (nicer) incinerating toilets to cost less than $5k. Going to put a real damper in septic tank builds in areas that allow simple graywater systems.
To be fair, the current realistic alternative still has potholes. Maybe we should entertain a tightly limited allocation. Sure, let the people from outside of town donate to whatever (it's free money at best and no gain at worst), but local citizens can only allocate a portion to specific public goods.
> "[Your Town] has finest municipal art galleries in the state whilst streets are filled with pot-holes"
Maybe they have too many roads?
Maybe they have too many roads?
Sounds like they don't have enough art galleries.
Not sure I understand all the subtlety but as a Canadian (where we have about 3 big cities and the rest has no voice) I'd love to be able to divert my tax away from the city I live in and to my home town. If course we don't really pay income tax directly to the city, so it would be complicated and probably just make more bureaucracy.
I say this as someone who grew up in a small rural area and now lives in a slightly-less-small suburban/rural mix (but not in Canada). All this does is overfund rural areas and underfund urban areas which are likely already underfunded - although my only experience is the US so maybe Canada is a little better about this.
Rural areas do not "have no voice" - they have exactly the representative power of their population, the same as urban centers. I'm not sure what makes people in or from rural areas thinks that once people live close together their voice should count for less. How is it "right" or "fair" to move to an urban center, take advantage of urban amenities and services, take advantage of that higher salary, and siphon some of that tax money away to rural areas because of nostalgia?
Rural areas do not "have no voice" - they have exactly the representative power of their population, the same as urban centers. I'm not sure what makes people in or from rural areas thinks that once people live close together their voice should count for less. How is it "right" or "fair" to move to an urban center, take advantage of urban amenities and services, take advantage of that higher salary, and siphon some of that tax money away to rural areas because of nostalgia?
>Rural areas do not "have no voice" - they have exactly the representative power of their population, the same as urban centers. I'm not sure what makes people in or from rural areas thinks that once people live close together their voice should count for less. How is it "right" or "fair" to move to an urban center, take advantage of urban amenities and services, take advantage of that higher salary, and siphon some of that tax money away to rural areas because of nostalgia?
2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh?
Have you considered that the key problem here is the lack of direct control that people have over their own lives, causing these sort of situations where you have groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures?
I agree, giving people more voting powers just because they live in a certain place isn't the right way to fix this. But the fact that there is a problem is undeniable, and the fact that this inequality in voting helps ameliorate this problem is true as well.
The right answer here is to remove power from the state and elected officials, and return it to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it.
There is nothing as democratic as everyone choosing for themselves.
In the same way we should not have a vote to decide what's for dinner, and the winner means we all eat the same thing, we should not have votes on local and personal matters.
Democracy isn't voting, it's agency over what rules you.
2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh?
Have you considered that the key problem here is the lack of direct control that people have over their own lives, causing these sort of situations where you have groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures?
I agree, giving people more voting powers just because they live in a certain place isn't the right way to fix this. But the fact that there is a problem is undeniable, and the fact that this inequality in voting helps ameliorate this problem is true as well.
The right answer here is to remove power from the state and elected officials, and return it to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it.
There is nothing as democratic as everyone choosing for themselves.
In the same way we should not have a vote to decide what's for dinner, and the winner means we all eat the same thing, we should not have votes on local and personal matters.
Democracy isn't voting, it's agency over what rules you.
Lots to unpack here, and as I said I don't know much about Canada and next to nothing about Japan so this is strictly about the US.
> 2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh?
Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point.
> groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures
This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural.
> the fact that there is a problem is undeniable
For it being undeniable you haven't actually said what the problem is - only a strawman that rural Americans have no agency over their futures which is utter nonsense.
> return [power] to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it
If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep?
The problem is everybody acts like they're the sheep being taken advantage of by big bad government when it's almost never actually the case.
> 2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh?
Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point.
> groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures
This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural.
> the fact that there is a problem is undeniable
For it being undeniable you haven't actually said what the problem is - only a strawman that rural Americans have no agency over their futures which is utter nonsense.
> return [power] to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it
If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep?
The problem is everybody acts like they're the sheep being taken advantage of by big bad government when it's almost never actually the case.
If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep?
it would be better to give more independence to the sheep so that deciding what's for dinner doesn't need a majority vote of all of them. if we ignore the obvious outcome that the wolves want to eat the sheep, but simply look at the fact that wolves want meat and sheep want grass, it simply doesn't make sense that the majority here gets to dictate what everyone should eat, instead each group should be able to make their own choice.
that means localizing decisions where that makes sense. and not allowing the majority to control resources that a minority depends on. among other things.
it would be better to give more independence to the sheep so that deciding what's for dinner doesn't need a majority vote of all of them. if we ignore the obvious outcome that the wolves want to eat the sheep, but simply look at the fact that wolves want meat and sheep want grass, it simply doesn't make sense that the majority here gets to dictate what everyone should eat, instead each group should be able to make their own choice.
that means localizing decisions where that makes sense. and not allowing the majority to control resources that a minority depends on. among other things.
>Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point.
It does, but it seems you've missed.
Let me make it clear as day.
If there's a country with 3 people on it, where 2 of those people want to oppress the third, there is nothing that the third can do to prevent that oppression.
That is a perfectly legitimate outcome of a voting system, and one that occurs often.
>This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural.
On the contrary.
If you've ever been affected by a law or regulation you're against, you've directly suffered from this in regards to that topic.
Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale.
For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
This is the problem.
>If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep?
On the contrary, for it is that power that is being used to oppress.
It does, but it seems you've missed.
Let me make it clear as day.
If there's a country with 3 people on it, where 2 of those people want to oppress the third, there is nothing that the third can do to prevent that oppression.
That is a perfectly legitimate outcome of a voting system, and one that occurs often.
>This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural.
On the contrary.
If you've ever been affected by a law or regulation you're against, you've directly suffered from this in regards to that topic.
Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale.
For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
This is the problem.
>If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep?
On the contrary, for it is that power that is being used to oppress.
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.
Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.
>Isn't this also the case of blue cities in red states? I believe e.g. there's a big hullabaloo in Virginia at the moment where the bluer school district close to DC is resisting anti-transgender top-down demands from the state. If we want to argue about rural people being disenfranchised, by number, way more people in cities are disenfranchised simply because cities are more populated.
Absolutely, and my point isn't about a "rural vs urban divide" at all.
It is a general argument and principle that can be applied to every action of government.
It doesn't matter if oppression is done by a dictator or by a Majority.
The problem is too much state power.
Absolutely, and my point isn't about a "rural vs urban divide" at all.
It is a general argument and principle that can be applied to every action of government.
It doesn't matter if oppression is done by a dictator or by a Majority.
The problem is too much state power.
I don't know, let me know if this is slippery sloping or something, but I don't see why the issue is the state has too much power. You will always have a disenfranchised political minority unable to force the majority to follow whatever political position they want. There's conservatives in my city who feel disenfranchised about crime; does the city have too much power, then? What if I feel disenfranchised about no one believing me in an Among Us game?
You're missing the point.
Being enfranchised in driving the state is only important if the state has a significant impact in your life.
The lower the impact (read, the power) of the state, the lower the need to be enfranchised.
For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers, the states policy on crime wouldn't matter much. You could just hire your own private police to protect your interests.
Being enfranchised in driving the state is only important if the state has a significant impact in your life.
The lower the impact (read, the power) of the state, the lower the need to be enfranchised.
For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers, the states policy on crime wouldn't matter much. You could just hire your own private police to protect your interests.
> For your example: If the state didn't have law enforcing powers,
Then its not the state [0], whatever it calls itself, in the same way that Emporer Norton, despite his claimed title, was not the head of state of the United States.
[0] though it may be part of a larger structure involving elements formally outside of its bounds that together constitutes an effective state.
Then its not the state [0], whatever it calls itself, in the same way that Emporer Norton, despite his claimed title, was not the head of state of the United States.
[0] though it may be part of a larger structure involving elements formally outside of its bounds that together constitutes an effective state.
>Then its not the state [0], whatever it calls itself, in the same way that Emporer Norton, despite his claimed title, was not the head of state of the United States.
Plenty of states didn't have law enforcement powers, including the early US. Police is something that only really started showing up in the later half of the 1800s and even then only in certain places.
Plenty of states didn't have law enforcement powers, including the early US. Police is something that only really started showing up in the later half of the 1800s and even then only in certain places.
So you agree that this is a problem then, and we should work to increase agency and reduce disenfranchisement by moving more power to local communities?
> Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale.
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
Northern California is the same, with this proposal to solve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
Northern California is the same, with this proposal to solve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
Being subject to a law or regulation you're against is not oppression, and you're not suffering. It can be, but that's not true by definition.
Having to do something you don't want to do, or not being allowed to do whatever you want, is not oppression.
Having to do something you don't want to do, or not being allowed to do whatever you want, is not oppression.
Define oppression then.
Because I fail to see any conceptual difference here.
Because I fail to see any conceptual difference here.
By your definition (as far as I can tell), all laws are oppression. Is there any law to which there won't be any opposition by some person out there? No, certainly not. So we must have laws and the debate must be whether particular laws are too restrictive or not.
This is an interesting allegory, but it's doesn't seem to mesh with reality. After all, in US voting, n is much larger than 3, and 66% represents a super majority...
Can you put into concrete terms? How many times has Philadelphia and Pittsburgh bullied their way into something that the rest of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was so against? I think you'll find that what usually happens is the rest of the commonwealth gets its way, regardless of what the big cities want (because they have the numbers in the state legislatures).
Can you put into concrete terms? How many times has Philadelphia and Pittsburgh bullied their way into something that the rest of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was so against? I think you'll find that what usually happens is the rest of the commonwealth gets its way, regardless of what the big cities want (because they have the numbers in the state legislatures).
It's interesting that you bring up Pennsylvania - nearly every regulation, law, whatever that affects cities is either only enforced for "cities of the first class" or cities of the first class are specifically excluded. There's only one first class city in PA and I'll give you three guesses which one it is. So essentially you end up with three sets of laws - 1) applies to all Pennsylvanians and typically have nothing to do with cities or how they work 2) applies only to Philadelphia 3) doesn't apply to Philadelphia but applies everywhere else.
You're actually making a good argument in favor of jdasdf's point. Just try to get a concealed carry permit in Potter County, and one in Philadelphia County, and see how different they are. Both completely legal because there's totally different laws in play for the same process.
You're actually making a good argument in favor of jdasdf's point. Just try to get a concealed carry permit in Potter County, and one in Philadelphia County, and see how different they are. Both completely legal because there's totally different laws in play for the same process.
The premise was that big cities, like Philadelphia & PGH would somehow undemocratically impose their will on the rural parts of the state. Like you say, that isn't happening. Philadelphia's regulations aren't being imposed in Potter County.
I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it.
If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college?
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades.
For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them.
On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations?
For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?
If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college?
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades.
For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them.
On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations?
For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?
I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it.
That's not an example of what you're saying. It appears to be in ongoing discussions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations?
What level are you talking about? I mean, what locality spans city and rural areas? These are great hypothetical situations, but you gotta put real examples behind them to show that there is some conspiracy about oppressing people living in rural areas. Even at a state level, due to the nature of districting, urban areas don't have any more representation in state legislatures.
As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades.
You're now changing your argument from urban-rural to D-R?
That's not an example of what you're saying. It appears to be in ongoing discussions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations?
What level are you talking about? I mean, what locality spans city and rural areas? These are great hypothetical situations, but you gotta put real examples behind them to show that there is some conspiracy about oppressing people living in rural areas. Even at a state level, due to the nature of districting, urban areas don't have any more representation in state legislatures.
As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades.
You're now changing your argument from urban-rural to D-R?
Not GP, but recent things off the top of my head: California's law to end single family zoning. Gun laws in most blue states. Washington's comprehensive sex ed law.
It's not really urban-rural or D-R as such. It's more "people who don't even live in your town are dictating how to run it".
Like the recent ruling with abortion: it made it not a federal concern. That's it. Why do people in California care so much about what e.g. Alabama is doing now? Do they get upset about abortion laws in Poland too?
Higher levels of government are needed to prevent conflicts (e.g. to deal with someone in Colorado polluting the river and screwing over everyone in Utah), but they end up getting used to enforce social norms. It would be better if we could push more regulation down to the county/municipal level. People wouldn't need to be so polarized because they could just agree to disagree, and live somewhere with like-minded people.
Want to live somewhere where there's strict credentials for teachers? Cool. Want to live somewhere where the lady down the street that homeschools her kids can also teach yours? Cool. It's a big country. There's room for everyone.
It's not really urban-rural or D-R as such. It's more "people who don't even live in your town are dictating how to run it".
Like the recent ruling with abortion: it made it not a federal concern. That's it. Why do people in California care so much about what e.g. Alabama is doing now? Do they get upset about abortion laws in Poland too?
Higher levels of government are needed to prevent conflicts (e.g. to deal with someone in Colorado polluting the river and screwing over everyone in Utah), but they end up getting used to enforce social norms. It would be better if we could push more regulation down to the county/municipal level. People wouldn't need to be so polarized because they could just agree to disagree, and live somewhere with like-minded people.
Want to live somewhere where there's strict credentials for teachers? Cool. Want to live somewhere where the lady down the street that homeschools her kids can also teach yours? Cool. It's a big country. There's room for everyone.
California's law to end single family zoning
Not sure how this fits in. It only had 25% nay votes in the assembly and 17.5% nay votes in the senate. Some nay votes came from a D from SF and someone form Huntington Beach, so the vote really wasn't on party or urban-rural lines. I also wonder how genuine you're being when you say a measure that gives someone more freedom (to build what they want on their property) is someone telling you how to live your life.
Gun laws in most blue states.
I'm not really sure laws what you mean. We have to recognize that nationwide, 63% of adults are dissatisfied with our current gun laws. In light of this, we have the SCOTUS striking down gun laws that most people want. This doesn't appear to be the win you think it is. https://news.gallup.com/poll/470588/dissatisfaction-gun-laws...
Washington's comprehensive sex ed law
I'm not sure what to say when you think direct democracy is bad with regards to state measures.
Like the recent ruling with abortion: it made it not a federal concern. That's it. Why do people in California care so much about what e.g. Alabama is doing now?
Well, this specific issue aside, this current trend of conservatives trying to legislate from the SCOTUS (people appointed for a lifetime) is largely undemocratic. If you don't want people who don't even live in your town dictating how to run it, you should be very opposed to SCOTUS doing just that, since they basically answer to no one.
Not sure how this fits in. It only had 25% nay votes in the assembly and 17.5% nay votes in the senate. Some nay votes came from a D from SF and someone form Huntington Beach, so the vote really wasn't on party or urban-rural lines. I also wonder how genuine you're being when you say a measure that gives someone more freedom (to build what they want on their property) is someone telling you how to live your life.
Gun laws in most blue states.
I'm not really sure laws what you mean. We have to recognize that nationwide, 63% of adults are dissatisfied with our current gun laws. In light of this, we have the SCOTUS striking down gun laws that most people want. This doesn't appear to be the win you think it is. https://news.gallup.com/poll/470588/dissatisfaction-gun-laws...
Washington's comprehensive sex ed law
I'm not sure what to say when you think direct democracy is bad with regards to state measures.
Like the recent ruling with abortion: it made it not a federal concern. That's it. Why do people in California care so much about what e.g. Alabama is doing now?
Well, this specific issue aside, this current trend of conservatives trying to legislate from the SCOTUS (people appointed for a lifetime) is largely undemocratic. If you don't want people who don't even live in your town dictating how to run it, you should be very opposed to SCOTUS doing just that, since they basically answer to no one.
You're really missing the point here. The entire point being made is that what the voters at the level of a state or the entire nation is irrelevant because it shouldn't be their decision to vote on.
Even if 75% of California residents want to ban single family zoning, if 75% of residents in Redding want to keep it in Redding, why should people in San Diego have any more than 0% influence on that decision? People 600 miles away should have exactly zero input into something like that.
It's not about whether the decisions being made are good. It's about who gets to make them/how broadly they apply. China could have the greatest ideas in the world, but it doesn't make sense to "democratically" vote with equal representation between US and Chinese citizens on what free speech laws in the US should be. They have 4x the population and nothing in common. Such a "democracy" would be a farce.
Even if 75% of California residents want to ban single family zoning, if 75% of residents in Redding want to keep it in Redding, why should people in San Diego have any more than 0% influence on that decision? People 600 miles away should have exactly zero input into something like that.
It's not about whether the decisions being made are good. It's about who gets to make them/how broadly they apply. China could have the greatest ideas in the world, but it doesn't make sense to "democratically" vote with equal representation between US and Chinese citizens on what free speech laws in the US should be. They have 4x the population and nothing in common. Such a "democracy" would be a farce.
> Even if 75% of California residents want to ban single family zoning, if 75% of residents in Redding want to keep it in Redding, why should people in San Diego have any more than 0% influence on that decision?
Because Redding isn't an independent, self-supporting, sovereign entity, its an administrative subdivision of California whose existence as an entity and powers of government are delegated to it by the people of the State of California through the Constitution and laws of said State (in part directly, and in part indirectly through, e.g., Shasta County, a similar but higher-level subdivision within which Redding is nested), and which is funded in no small part by distribution of taxes set and collected by and from the State of California as a whole.
Because Redding isn't an independent, self-supporting, sovereign entity, its an administrative subdivision of California whose existence as an entity and powers of government are delegated to it by the people of the State of California through the Constitution and laws of said State (in part directly, and in part indirectly through, e.g., Shasta County, a similar but higher-level subdivision within which Redding is nested), and which is funded in no small part by distribution of taxes set and collected by and from the State of California as a whole.
>You're now changing your argument from urban-rural to D-R?
This tells me you missed the argument i was making.
The point isn't a specific urban-rural or Dem-Rep, it's the underlying concept of not having agency over what rules you.
The more powers you grant the state, the less powers you have, and the greater these issue become and the more important acquiring political power becomes.
This tells me you missed the argument i was making.
The point isn't a specific urban-rural or Dem-Rep, it's the underlying concept of not having agency over what rules you.
The more powers you grant the state, the less powers you have, and the greater these issue become and the more important acquiring political power becomes.
If you're a solid blue city in a reliably Red state, that is in Region next to a blue State, I would have no problem with control of said region Changing hands.
It would be best if there was a give and take though, especially if there is a rural community in that blue state that is solidly Red and hasn't felt represented by the blue state majority
Cements communities that are in place but makes people happy
> For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon.
This goes both ways. In Utah, the urban liberals feel like they are disenfranchised because the majority suburban/rural population of the state consistently votes conservative.
Anytime you have a majority (whether that is majority liberal urban in Oregon or majority conservative rural in Utah) you will have a minority that feel disenfranchised.
This goes both ways. In Utah, the urban liberals feel like they are disenfranchised because the majority suburban/rural population of the state consistently votes conservative.
Anytime you have a majority (whether that is majority liberal urban in Oregon or majority conservative rural in Utah) you will have a minority that feel disenfranchised.
Curiously, rural regions of the US have a fair amount of power due to how electoral seats are distributed. I'm not sure if this is also true in Canada, so it is possible that the GP's situation differs from your own experiences.
They're also heavily subsidized to make them "work", a considerable piece of rural America would already be gone if there wasn't a large amount of government funds being diverted to keep it alive and we will spend even more as it becomes less and less desirable to live there.
As soon as WFH became an option people flocked away from cities. NYC lost 200k people over two years; SF lost 60k. I would say there is a large population of city folk who desire to move to more rural areas.
If you listen to the news, they're all moving to other cities, like Austin, TX, not to rural areas.
Yes. Other/smaller cities, college towns, etc. I'm sure some have taken the opportunity to move somewhere that looks more like rural--but I have to believe the lifestyle shift would be a bridge too far for most.
They're moving to suburbs near big cities or cheap big cities in less populated states, not rural areas.
>suburbs near big cities
It's not really true of the Bay Area--and it's at least complicated around Manhattan. But a lot of cities like Boston an hour or an hour and a bit drive in reverse commute, much less weekend, traffic can bring you to a lot cheaper housing. There are expensive suburbs too. However, it's pretty easy to find suburban or exurban towns that are accessible to Boston for an evening event that have relatively modest home prices. Not Midwest cheap but reasonable. (Of course there are very expensive towns as well.)
It's not really true of the Bay Area--and it's at least complicated around Manhattan. But a lot of cities like Boston an hour or an hour and a bit drive in reverse commute, much less weekend, traffic can bring you to a lot cheaper housing. There are expensive suburbs too. However, it's pretty easy to find suburban or exurban towns that are accessible to Boston for an evening event that have relatively modest home prices. Not Midwest cheap but reasonable. (Of course there are very expensive towns as well.)
Well yes, when an area is heavily subsidized it can be attractive to live there.
Sure but what would that have to do with subsidization?
What’s the GDP of New York City versus upstate?
As an aside this silly concept of “rural/urban divide” is just that.
Silly.
We need farms and farmers to feed us, it’s ok to subsidize some of these places so that happens.
It’s also ok for the people doing the subsidization to ask the rural people to stop complaining about “socialism” or other nonsense when they’re the primary benefactors of handouts.
What’s the GDP of New York City versus upstate?
As an aside this silly concept of “rural/urban divide” is just that.
Silly.
We need farms and farmers to feed us, it’s ok to subsidize some of these places so that happens.
It’s also ok for the people doing the subsidization to ask the rural people to stop complaining about “socialism” or other nonsense when they’re the primary benefactors of handouts.
What would the GDP of NYC be, if NYC didn't have a near monopoly on the proximity to high paying jobs in NY State? If every NYC job (aside from those that absolutely required people to work on-site) allowed full time WFH, my bet is that it would be significantly lower. And people with high paying wages would be more scattered around the state, requiring less subsidizing. It would also mean that not every highly educated person moves away to the city. Part of the reason urban and rural politics is so divided is that every smart kid from a small town goes away to college and never comes back. Some because they have no desire, but others because the job they want doesn't exist outside a metro.
There may be some element of truth to that, but jobs aren’t the only reason why highly employable young people tend to move to urban areas. There’s other big reasons, like there being a lot more to things to do and a vastly wider variety of large hobby/interest communities and cultures in urban areas.
This is why the bulk of people moving away from city centers during the pandemic moved to cheaper cities or the suburban metros surrounding cities rather than small towns, and unless small towns stop being small towns it’s not going to change.
This is why the bulk of people moving away from city centers during the pandemic moved to cheaper cities or the suburban metros surrounding cities rather than small towns, and unless small towns stop being small towns it’s not going to change.
Idk, but you're intentionally responding as though you missed the point so I don't have much else to say here.
This is about suburbs, not rural areas, but Canadian politics provides an interesting history in suburbanites wresting power from city dwellers. Among other concrete impacts it means more parking, shifting funds away from public transport (which is less useful to suburbanites), etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Toronto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkO-DttA9ew&t=35s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_of_Toronto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkO-DttA9ew&t=35s
I'm guessing New York farmers don't have as much power as their Montana cousins.
Rural and low population _states_ have a fair amount of power due to having a fixed number of senators per state, but rural areas in an otherwise non-rural state may find themselves outvoted and thus mostly irrelevant.
The opposite situation, city slickers outvoted by country bumpkins, is of course possible in rural states.
Rural and low population _states_ have a fair amount of power due to having a fixed number of senators per state, but rural areas in an otherwise non-rural state may find themselves outvoted and thus mostly irrelevant.
The opposite situation, city slickers outvoted by country bumpkins, is of course possible in rural states.
This obviously varies by state, but tends to not be accurate at the state level either due to the way state legislatures are elected.
For example, in my state the majority of residents live in the largest metro area. But the smaller towns & rural areas are able to more or less permanently control the legislature (because legislators have geographic districts). As a result, our laws are frequently written in ways that are openly hostile to our major city, while favoring more rural areas.
For example, in my state the majority of residents live in the largest metro area. But the smaller towns & rural areas are able to more or less permanently control the legislature (because legislators have geographic districts). As a result, our laws are frequently written in ways that are openly hostile to our major city, while favoring more rural areas.
You're 100% right, the more rural your state the more power your state holds in Presidential elections, and indirectly in the Senate, but not much beyond that. I don't think there's a corollary in Canada but I could certainly be wrong.
Nominally, it's also true in Canada. Due to lower populated rural ridings, one rural vote can be worth up to 4X an urban vote.
But in current conditions, votes in rural Western Canadian ridings are basically worthless. They're ultra-safe Conservative seats, so they can be and are ignored.
But it wasn't very long ago that they were highly competitive ridings split between two right wing parties. Because Canada doesn't quite have the same 2 party system as the US does, the situation isn't as static.
But in current conditions, votes in rural Western Canadian ridings are basically worthless. They're ultra-safe Conservative seats, so they can be and are ignored.
But it wasn't very long ago that they were highly competitive ridings split between two right wing parties. Because Canada doesn't quite have the same 2 party system as the US does, the situation isn't as static.
That’s true of states that are as a whole relatively rural (think Wyoming) but not, say, upstate NY.
Major urban cores of Canada are not underfunded
Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver do not need more of a political voice. They do not need more love and attention they have too much focus already.
More, even, since ridings don’t all have to have the same population, unlike Congressional districts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "voice". I think in common use, you would mean power in government. This scheme was put into play because rest of Japan, in fact, has a louder voice than Tokyo:
Tokyo and the regions could have resolved their differences through the democratic process, in which the regions outvote Tokyo and could have altered Japan’s national tax and economic policies to their advantage. Tokyo obviously doesn’t want this, and instead agreed to an opt-in system which allays some of the regions’ concerns.
Doing some back of the napkin math wrt representatives in the House of Commons and senators, in Canada, the situation probably wouldn't be much different for Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. In a lot of ways, this where the US is. NY (the city) foots the bill for not only most of NY (the state), but also its tax money funds projects and services in other states as well.
Living in a US state's biggest city myself, it is a drag to see the rest of the state constantly block legislation that will help us grow, while on the flip side they are gladly taking our taxes, as we pay by far the most into the state's coffers. What I mean to say is, due to the way we pay local, state/province and federal taxes, the big cities are already a net positive in terms of tax revenue for the rest of the province/country.
Tokyo and the regions could have resolved their differences through the democratic process, in which the regions outvote Tokyo and could have altered Japan’s national tax and economic policies to their advantage. Tokyo obviously doesn’t want this, and instead agreed to an opt-in system which allays some of the regions’ concerns.
Doing some back of the napkin math wrt representatives in the House of Commons and senators, in Canada, the situation probably wouldn't be much different for Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. In a lot of ways, this where the US is. NY (the city) foots the bill for not only most of NY (the state), but also its tax money funds projects and services in other states as well.
Living in a US state's biggest city myself, it is a drag to see the rest of the state constantly block legislation that will help us grow, while on the flip side they are gladly taking our taxes, as we pay by far the most into the state's coffers. What I mean to say is, due to the way we pay local, state/province and federal taxes, the big cities are already a net positive in terms of tax revenue for the rest of the province/country.
The person who heavily promoted "Homegrown" Tax (Suga) has been elected in Yokohama, that is virtually a part of Tokyo metropolis. This tax system is loved by richer city people because they can get more gifts without additional paying, . It's hated by richer city local govt for obvious reason. I hate this tax system but he is smart to make this system accepted.
This is a relatively common use of the word "voice", I don't think GP "means" anything else. A politician running for election might promise to give a voice to some part of their constituency that so far had been ignored (no political power). In general "the power of the people" ~= "the voice of the people".
I thought so, too, but it didn't make much sense given the context of the article and what they were saying :)
Yes it does, in my opinion. Seems very clear. Canadians outside their three big metro areas feel like their government represents those metro areas and not the rest of Canada. They feel like they "don't have a voice compared to the big 3".
I guess how someone feels and the actual reality of the numbers can be different.
Aren't you essentially doing that already?
The Federal government spends disproportionately outside of cities.
The Federal government spends disproportionately outside of cities.
In the US, this is pretty simple actually. If you set up a charity whose sole purpose is beautifying some region (that will pass IRS's tests), you can donate to it and reduce your taxable income. I imagine Canada has a similar structure.
It'd certainly be more elegant and transparent than the equalization payments with largely similar results (Maritime's getting help from their diaspora).
What the author calls a "beautiful" system to me seems to be bordering on fraud and undermining what the law was originally intended to do. Basically random small towns hire consulting companies who run advertising campaigns asking people nationwide to send them their 40% "hometown donation" and get 20% of it back as a "gift", thus conveniently evading half their taxes? Who exactly is benefiting here?
It's cultural. Japan has a cultural of reciprocal gift giving that underpins this entire exchange.
Basically it's a decentralizing force
It prevents a doom loop where everyone moves to Tokyo because that's where all the resources are because everyone moves to Tokyo as the rest of the country hollows out
It sounds less like fraud and more like gamification of incentives. Fraud requires someone to be defrauded. The rules of a game are laid bare, thus looks to me to be an emergent cultural quirk that benefits everybody.
Had beers with a community college president last week... he shared that there's a problem brewing where Arizona State (and perhaps others...) are going to high schools offering a program where for low tuition rates, kids can pick up some college credits. Sounds great on the surface, but the problems are that a) it means fewer of those students attending programs at the local community colleges, IE: taxpayer dollars going out of state, and b) apparently the credits offered are really only transferable to - you guessed it - Arizona State. It's all part of a disagreement between the school districts and the community colleges over where the kids are spending their time, and thus getting their share of state dollars.
previous discussions:
posted 2018, 249 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18256660
posted 2022, 105 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31152365
Not here to complain about a repost, just mentioning in case someone is looking to dive further and see what people said before.
posted 2018, 249 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18256660
posted 2022, 105 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31152365
Not here to complain about a repost, just mentioning in case someone is looking to dive further and see what people said before.
Thanks! Macroexpanded:
Japan's Hometown Tax (2018) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31152365 - April 2022 (105 comments)
Japan's Hometown Tax - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18256660 - Oct 2018 (249 comments)
(And yes, agreed - such links are solely for those with extended curiosity. Reposts are fine on HN after a year or so - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
Japan's Hometown Tax (2018) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31152365 - April 2022 (105 comments)
Japan's Hometown Tax - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18256660 - Oct 2018 (249 comments)
(And yes, agreed - such links are solely for those with extended curiosity. Reposts are fine on HN after a year or so - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
This was great! One question, on this:
> And there, that’s Japan’s most novel redistribution program in a nutshell.
How is this "redistribution"?
> And there, that’s Japan’s most novel redistribution program in a nutshell.
How is this "redistribution"?
All taxation is redistribution. This is a novel tweak to taxation.
I think all tax payers wherever should get some form of choice in where their tax money goes even if it's only a small proportion of the total.
I think all tax payers wherever should get some form of choice in where their tax money goes even if it's only a small proportion of the total.
And importantly, even if they have a less than altruistic motivation for their decision. It's perfectly OK if someone gives to someone else because they benefit in some way.
Redistribution of taxes, from areas of high densities to lower density prefectures.
Thanks - but isn't this more like "reallocation"? I thought redistribution was more about taking money from some people and giving it to (or spending it on) other people, of which taxation is one method.
You take money that would have ostensibly gone to the citizens of Tokyo and instead provide it to the citizens of town of your choice.
Reallocation and redistribution are synonymous here, one is just used in more headlines (probably because more people use "distribute" more regularly than "allocate"). Nothing different should be inferred by either word choice IMO.
Reallocation and redistribution are synonymous here, one is just used in more headlines (probably because more people use "distribute" more regularly than "allocate"). Nothing different should be inferred by either word choice IMO.
I think that there is a bit of distinction.
Reallocate says that you are changing where the money is going
Redistribute says that you are collecting money then parceling it out.
Reallocate says that you are changing where the money is going
Redistribute says that you are collecting money then parceling it out.
Just because it's a person choosing to do this instead of a bureaucrat doesn't mean it's not redistribution. To use the example in the article, you're taking 40% of your taxes which would go to Tokyo and instead sending them to Gifu.
It's redistribution because it takes tax income that would go to a wealthy area (Tokyo) and distributes it to poorer areas.
It is tax deferment
Taxpayers who contribute more than 2,000 yen can have their income tax and residence tax reduced. The amount deducted is the taxpayer's entire contribution minus 2,000 yen and set amount. To receive the subtraction, the taxpayer files a final tax return
Two initiatives I've thought about:
1. Schools receiving state tax dollars must adhere to percentage-based breakdowns of general tuition use. Basically, only x% of general tuition can be spent on administration costs, sports facilities, etc.
2. Percentage of tuition covered by tax dollars is set by local demand for that degree path and adjusted periodically.
1. Schools receiving state tax dollars must adhere to percentage-based breakdowns of general tuition use. Basically, only x% of general tuition can be spent on administration costs, sports facilities, etc.
2. Percentage of tuition covered by tax dollars is set by local demand for that degree path and adjusted periodically.
This needs clarification. If you can gift it anywhere, can you gift it back to Tokyo (for example)? I would think that the kickback that the place you actually live (services, access to events, etc) would be more valuable to the taxpayer than would be services in a city where you don't live.
> If you can gift it anywhere, can you gift it back to Tokyo (for example)?
If you live in Tokyo, your residence tax goes to Tokyo by default. You don't need to do anything, you don't need to specifically gift it to Tokyo.
If you live in Tokyo, your residence tax goes to Tokyo by default. You don't need to do anything, you don't need to specifically gift it to Tokyo.
The article explains it is an opt-in program; if you live in Tokyo and don't opt-in to gifting your taxes elsewhere, you're paying all your taxes to Tokyo.
Good point. Is Tokyo not participating in the bidding war for people's good will? Perhaps it's not allowed to?
Considering it was an olive branch towards the rest of the country in order to avoid this being set into the national law, it'd probably look pretty bad if Tokyo started to try and outbid the rest of the country.
You can't gift it to where you live (or rather, where you will send your residence tax).
Can you gift it to Tokyo if you live outside Tokyo?
I find it curious that more countries don't do what America does, and tax you wherever you live. While this policy would absolutely screw me over as someone who lives in a very low tax country, I'm not sure what the argument _against_ it for a country like the UK is.
The US can only do this because it has sufficient power to force other countries to report information on how much US citizens make to the IRS. If the UK tried making the same demands, the most likely responses from other nations would be "screw you, no" and "that sounds like a lot of work, pay us."
For one thing, in Europe at least, people are relatively mobile between countries. While it's different legally of course, imagine US states trying to tax you permanently even if you move elsewhere? (Yes, California supposedly tries sometimes but, in general, the idea is silly.)
>US states trying to tax you permanently even if you move elsewhere? (Yes, California supposedly tries sometimes
To clarify, California tax agency will sometimes aggressively audit residents who claim to have moved elsewhere, when evidence indicates they have not actually abandoned their California domicile.
To clarify, California tax agency will sometimes aggressively audit residents who claim to have moved elsewhere, when evidence indicates they have not actually abandoned their California domicile.
A few years ago they tried to impose 10 years of taxes on anyone moving out of state, and make it retroactive to anyone who had already moved in previous years.
Do you have a citation for such an extraordinary claim? Who do you mean by "they" and "a few years ago"?
See 50310(b)(1) on https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
And I meant exactly what I said: there's only one third party in this conversation, California, and 2020 is "a few years ago".
And I meant exactly what I said: there's only one third party in this conversation, California, and 2020 is "a few years ago".
To state that this was a proposal to tax "anyone moving out of [the] state" is patently false. It would have only applied to people over a very high wealth threshold, $30,000,000.
You also omitted that this would be a wealth tax, not an income tax. Big difference. Income is determined on an annual basis and is usually sourced to where it is earned. Wealth is an accumulation over years, including unrealized or unrecognized (for tax purposes) income from various sources (e.g. different states).
Finally, this was a failed bill submitted by a few legislators, which would have required 2/3rds vote in both chambers. It never even made it out of the chamber of origin and so never came up for a full vote. So, "California" in fact did not "try" to impose this tax, since it was never even close to passing under California's rules, let alone being signed into law. And as several commentators elsewhere have observed, it would probably face significant challenges in court even if there was some alternate universe where it was CA law.
See also:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/why-wsj-attacking-dead-...
https://scocablog.com/exit-taxes-in-california-not-so-fast/
You also omitted that this would be a wealth tax, not an income tax. Big difference. Income is determined on an annual basis and is usually sourced to where it is earned. Wealth is an accumulation over years, including unrealized or unrecognized (for tax purposes) income from various sources (e.g. different states).
Finally, this was a failed bill submitted by a few legislators, which would have required 2/3rds vote in both chambers. It never even made it out of the chamber of origin and so never came up for a full vote. So, "California" in fact did not "try" to impose this tax, since it was never even close to passing under California's rules, let alone being signed into law. And as several commentators elsewhere have observed, it would probably face significant challenges in court even if there was some alternate universe where it was CA law.
See also:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/why-wsj-attacking-dead-...
https://scocablog.com/exit-taxes-in-california-not-so-fast/
The US taxing you anywhere you live is only possible because of the premium people place on US citizenship. Even so, some people elect to give it up when they emigrate somewhere else.
You need to have a citizenship. I’m willing to bet that living in another country with a strong passport for long enough to renounce your British one, just so you can move to a tax haven, while losing your right to live in the UK, is a bridge too far for most Brits
Same for Eritrea.
I think it's because there would be an uproar :-) Don't forget the UK is much smaller than the US - over there you can travel a landmass half the size of the whole of Europe and that law wouldn't bite you.
The equivalent law in the UK would mean that if you just moved 60 miles from the UK to France you'd have to pay tax twice. Much more limiting.
Edit: two people have now told me that you get an IRS tax credit for foreign tax payments. I stand corrected - never knew that!
The equivalent law in the UK would mean that if you just moved 60 miles from the UK to France you'd have to pay tax twice. Much more limiting.
Edit: two people have now told me that you get an IRS tax credit for foreign tax payments. I stand corrected - never knew that!
> The equivalent law in the UK would mean that if you just moved 60 miles from the UK to France you'd have to pay tax twice.
To my understanding, that's not how the US taxes work. You have to file a tax return with the US, but you get a credit for the taxes you've paid to other countries [0] so you actually end up paying whichever tax is higher.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
To my understanding, that's not how the US taxes work. You have to file a tax return with the US, but you get a credit for the taxes you've paid to other countries [0] so you actually end up paying whichever tax is higher.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
There is a significant degree of double taxation for overseas Americans, the credit only covers a subset of common cases. It is not uncommon to pay more taxes as an American overseas than you would pay to each country separately if you were only filing in one.
While FTC helps with most things, you can still get knocked for stuff that doesn’t fit into the US tax code. Like stamp duty - you’re taxed in the UK when buying property, then taxed in the US when selling (you’re exempt in the UK on your primary property).
That's correct. But it means even if you move from a high tax country/state to a low tax one (which may provide a very different level of services for the lower taxes--as is often the case with US states) you still get hit.
You don't pay tax twice under the (still ridiculous) American system, the IRS does credit you for whatever foreign taxes you've paid. I'm not sure if it's 1:1 but there is a credit.
I have to pay US taxes past $120k (this year - it was $112k last year) regardless of having already paid taxes on the full amount in Estonia.
You are right there is an inflation-adjusted cap for the exclusion, thank you for the correction!
> I'm not sure what the argument _against_ it for a country like the UK is.
Part of the reason is there are very rich, politically active people who prefer the status quo. Such as the prime minister's wife, the owner of the Daily Mail, and suchlike.
Part of the reason is there are very rich, politically active people who prefer the status quo. Such as the prime minister's wife, the owner of the Daily Mail, and suchlike.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How about... one shouldn't have to pay taxes to a country in which they don't reside and whose services they don't use.
What if you have a passport from that country? You're still technically "using their services" (their diplomatic presence and apparatus) wherever you go, no?
Fun fact! There are only two countries in the world that require expatriates to pay income tax back to their home countries: Eritrea and the United States of America!
And Canada: https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/living-abroad/taxation
>Canadians who live or work abroad or who travel a lot may still have to pay Canadian and provincial or territorial income taxes.
>expatriates : An expatriate, or expat, is an individual living and/or working in a country other than their country of citizenship, often temporarily and for work reasons.
There are other countries as well, Americans just like to complain about it.
>expatriates : An expatriate, or expat, is an individual living and/or working in a country other than their country of citizenship, often temporarily and for work reasons.
There are other countries as well, Americans just like to complain about it.
> There are other countries as well, Americans just like to complain about it.
If you are not an American who lives abroad then, with respect, you don't know what you're talking about. May you never have the experience of a bank in your country of residence refusing to do business with you because they fear the reporting burden incurred by serving clients of your nationality. Perhaps the Canadian Revenue Agency wishes it could compel banks in foreign lands to report the financial activities of the citizens under its purview, but the IRS actually can, and does.
If you are not an American who lives abroad then, with respect, you don't know what you're talking about. May you never have the experience of a bank in your country of residence refusing to do business with you because they fear the reporting burden incurred by serving clients of your nationality. Perhaps the Canadian Revenue Agency wishes it could compel banks in foreign lands to report the financial activities of the citizens under its purview, but the IRS actually can, and does.
Many people live in countries different from their citizenship. If you have an Indian passport but have lived in Germany for 5 years, should you pay taxes to India?
[deleted]
So on the American model, you’d only pay taxes to India to top up taxes you hadn’t paid to Germany, if German taxes were lower
On the practice of returning 30% of a gift back to the sender as yet another polite reciprocal gift --
Having been to Japan now and having seen the amount of gift wrapping and boxes and packaging of little food items and treats, I wonder if this simple social rule actually drives quite a notable amount of consumer spending and economic activity in the country!
Having been to Japan now and having seen the amount of gift wrapping and boxes and packaging of little food items and treats, I wonder if this simple social rule actually drives quite a notable amount of consumer spending and economic activity in the country!
It's a positive feedback loop for sure, but a diminishing one: you're not expected to reciprocate 100%, and you're not expected to reciprocate 30% of your 30% reciprocation you received.
Americans have a gift reciprocation culture as well, particularly around birthdays and Christmas.
Americans have a gift reciprocation culture as well, particularly around birthdays and Christmas.
Well, I don't know if this is a good system or if a similar system could be applied well in my country, but the article certainly made me smile.
The core concept of Hometown tax is okay, redistribute money to non-rich areas. How it currently work sucks. People chose where to donate by how much gift those local govt return for tax payers. Quite inefficient and nonsense criteria.
> Educating children is incredibly expensive.
So people who've been homeschooled can opt out of that tax right? I mean: that's only logical.
So people who've been homeschooled can opt out of that tax right? I mean: that's only logical.
It's a stupid system. Taxes should go to your current city/state to run the services there. If you're not able to sustain programs on your shrinking tax base then you should start reimagining the existence of your city. If you need temporary assistance you should finance it with debt, or ask the national government for help. This is a silly and inefficient system that pours funds into parts of the country that should be left to die. If you want to revitalize places, you should be investing into industries that can bring youth and life to places, not leach it from others.
Japan's government seems so functional compared to what I'm used to in the US, that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Their governments are building all sorts of things every year while we can't seem to build a railroad track between LA and San Francisco in 20 years. Whatever they're doing over there is clearly working, and we in the US should be focusing on the plank of wood in our own eye and not the speck of sawdust in theirs.
I'll admit that this "hometown tax" system has a certain amount of silliness, but wealth redistribution schemes often do. We're torn between "the weak should perish" and "some help wouldn't be so bad" and twist ourselves into pretzels trying to reconcile between these ideas. Plans like this hometown tax are the result of that, and some of our wealth redistribution efforts in the US probably seem no less strange to outsiders.
I'll admit that this "hometown tax" system has a certain amount of silliness, but wealth redistribution schemes often do. We're torn between "the weak should perish" and "some help wouldn't be so bad" and twist ourselves into pretzels trying to reconcile between these ideas. Plans like this hometown tax are the result of that, and some of our wealth redistribution efforts in the US probably seem no less strange to outsiders.
if it makes you feel better, major construction projects in Japan can also take years and years and years. The difference being that you don't have federalism throwing a wrench in projects halfway through.
It's hard to look at America and not draw the conclusion that federalism is a major mistake. So many problems downstream from fickle localities.
It's hard to look at America and not draw the conclusion that federalism is a major mistake. So many problems downstream from fickle localities.
> It's hard to look at America and not draw the conclusion that federalism is a major mistake. So many problems downstream from fickle localities.
The "fickle localities" that share sovereignty with the federal government is a tradeoff between efficiency and resilience. Totalitarian places can ignore localities and push huge national projects. China now has the world's longest high-speed rail system; but the same country lost 40-80 million people not even a century ago due to huge national projects that didn't pan out so well, under Mao.
The US has one of the highest median incomes in the world; among the top 5, by any measure. It's hard to understand why anyone would look at the system of governance in the US and call it a major mistake.
The "fickle localities" that share sovereignty with the federal government is a tradeoff between efficiency and resilience. Totalitarian places can ignore localities and push huge national projects. China now has the world's longest high-speed rail system; but the same country lost 40-80 million people not even a century ago due to huge national projects that didn't pan out so well, under Mao.
The US has one of the highest median incomes in the world; among the top 5, by any measure. It's hard to understand why anyone would look at the system of governance in the US and call it a major mistake.
Sometimes you can't tell if something is successful because of a distinctive factor, or in spite of it.
There's a lot of weird stuff about the American system of governance. For example, in most countries the legality of abortion would be decided by elected legislators, rather than judges who are appointed for life. And in the US the government can just 'shut down' for some reason, and this is just a normal sorta thing? Pretty weird. And filing tax returns isn't just for people in complex financial situations, practically everyone does it, and they have to pay third party companies? That's pretty unusual.
It's far from obvious how these eccentric features could have influenced the founding of the likes of microsoft, intel, apple, facebook, google etc.
There's a lot of weird stuff about the American system of governance. For example, in most countries the legality of abortion would be decided by elected legislators, rather than judges who are appointed for life. And in the US the government can just 'shut down' for some reason, and this is just a normal sorta thing? Pretty weird. And filing tax returns isn't just for people in complex financial situations, practically everyone does it, and they have to pay third party companies? That's pretty unusual.
It's far from obvious how these eccentric features could have influenced the founding of the likes of microsoft, intel, apple, facebook, google etc.
abortion legality was determined by unelected judges from 1973 until 2022. Roe v Wade was overturned and now we have the situation you consider not weird. Elected legislators in each state determine to what extent abortion is legal
Legislators pass laws, judges (normally) can only strike them down. It is pretty much like other places otherwise, but that process of the government limiting itself is a key feature imho.
The American system isn't without its eccentricities, but that's true for every country, I suppose.
> in most countries the legality of abortion would be decided by elected legislators, rather than judges who are appointed for life
State legislatures are doing that job. That there is no federal law on the issue of abortion reflects both that there is no unanimous consensus on the part of the people, as well as some level of craven political maneuvering (since abortion has been a big draw of people to the polls). At various times in the past 10 years alone, there were periods where both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party had control over the presidency and both chambers of Congress. A federal law of some kind, in either direction, could have been passed at those times (though perhaps subject to constitutional challenge).
High-level judges appointed for "life" (and by this I include age-capped retirement) are not unusual in developed countries. The German Bundesgerichtshof, the Australian High Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada all have this. The point, of course, is to promote the independence of the judiciary from the other parts of government.
> in the US the government can just 'shut down' for some reason, and this is just a normal sorta thing
The power of the purse is in the hands of the legislature. When an annual budget fails to be passed, the executive no longer has authority to spend money, and kind of goes on hibernation until a budget is passed.
Parliamentary systems have a different kind of shutdown, where if no ruling majority forms, then a caretaker government comes in with no mandate from the people to substantially change any policy. This can last much longer than any US government shutdown; Belgium had no leadership in parliament from 2007 to 2011, for example.
> It's far from obvious how these eccentric features could have influenced the founding of the likes of microsoft, intel, apple, facebook, google etc.
Well, sure. You pointed out various frivolous (to economic behavior, at any rate) factors that have nothing to do with entrepreneurship or laissez-faire capitalism. It would be far from obvious to anyone how abortion policy relates to the founding of companies.
> in most countries the legality of abortion would be decided by elected legislators, rather than judges who are appointed for life
State legislatures are doing that job. That there is no federal law on the issue of abortion reflects both that there is no unanimous consensus on the part of the people, as well as some level of craven political maneuvering (since abortion has been a big draw of people to the polls). At various times in the past 10 years alone, there were periods where both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party had control over the presidency and both chambers of Congress. A federal law of some kind, in either direction, could have been passed at those times (though perhaps subject to constitutional challenge).
High-level judges appointed for "life" (and by this I include age-capped retirement) are not unusual in developed countries. The German Bundesgerichtshof, the Australian High Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada all have this. The point, of course, is to promote the independence of the judiciary from the other parts of government.
> in the US the government can just 'shut down' for some reason, and this is just a normal sorta thing
The power of the purse is in the hands of the legislature. When an annual budget fails to be passed, the executive no longer has authority to spend money, and kind of goes on hibernation until a budget is passed.
Parliamentary systems have a different kind of shutdown, where if no ruling majority forms, then a caretaker government comes in with no mandate from the people to substantially change any policy. This can last much longer than any US government shutdown; Belgium had no leadership in parliament from 2007 to 2011, for example.
> It's far from obvious how these eccentric features could have influenced the founding of the likes of microsoft, intel, apple, facebook, google etc.
Well, sure. You pointed out various frivolous (to economic behavior, at any rate) factors that have nothing to do with entrepreneurship or laissez-faire capitalism. It would be far from obvious to anyone how abortion policy relates to the founding of companies.
The difference between the US and China is not a central government which is empowered to make projects and a federalist system which gives undue influence to small interests.
The difference is that the US is a democracy and China is a communist dictatorship. Tens of millions didn't die in china because a huge national projects; they died because they were ruled by a totalitarian dictator who had no regard whatsoever for the value of human life, and who was empowered purely by the threat (or the guarantee) of violence and not by the consent of the governed. There is an ocean of difference between western democracies and communist dictatorships, and it's not how we allocate authority to public works projects
The difference is that the US is a democracy and China is a communist dictatorship. Tens of millions didn't die in china because a huge national projects; they died because they were ruled by a totalitarian dictator who had no regard whatsoever for the value of human life, and who was empowered purely by the threat (or the guarantee) of violence and not by the consent of the governed. There is an ocean of difference between western democracies and communist dictatorships, and it's not how we allocate authority to public works projects
Reductive arguments like this only encourages people to ignore you and whatever point you want to make.
It's reductive to point out that the US has democracy and China does not? These are fundamental differences between the two. The argument the OP posted is like saying that Iran executes gays and apostates because of where power sits in their government and not because that power (regardless of how centralized it is) is wielded by religious extremists
Besides the fact that democracy and dictatorship having become meaningless keywords for good and evil, the difference in governance between US and China is a lot more complicated that democracy and dictatorship. It's an incredibly simplistic way to compare the two countries.
Democracy is only meaningless to those who don't appreciate the privilege of living in one
At least make an effort to not think in simplistic cliches lol.
The US has one of the highest median incomes in the world; among the top 5, by any measure. It's hard to understand why anyone would look at the system of governance in the US and call it a major mistake.
The US is not rich because it has such an amazing system of government, but because it was a sparsely-inhabited continent rich in natural resources when it was settled, just prior to the industrial revolution. Australia is rich for similar reasons, despite having a different system of government. Saudi Arabia is wealthy despite being one of the most despotic countries in the world, because it gained independence right around the time that crude oil took over from coal as the industrial fuel of choice, and SA has crude oil in vast abundance.
It's not that systems of government don't matter, of course some work far better than others. But geography matters a lot, and political theorists and philosophers habitually underestimate it.
The US is not rich because it has such an amazing system of government, but because it was a sparsely-inhabited continent rich in natural resources when it was settled, just prior to the industrial revolution. Australia is rich for similar reasons, despite having a different system of government. Saudi Arabia is wealthy despite being one of the most despotic countries in the world, because it gained independence right around the time that crude oil took over from coal as the industrial fuel of choice, and SA has crude oil in vast abundance.
It's not that systems of government don't matter, of course some work far better than others. But geography matters a lot, and political theorists and philosophers habitually underestimate it.
> The US has one of the highest median incomes in the world; among the top 5, by any measure. It's hard to understand why anyone would look at the system of governance in the US and call it a major mistake
No amount of money beyond being a millionaire gives you nice infrastructure where there was none. I’m not going to say all of the US is messed up but there are many people who choose to move away from the US and to other countries, taking massive pay cuts, because the surrounding conditions are nicer.
EDIT: also, Europe built a massive rail network without the cultural revolution.
No amount of money beyond being a millionaire gives you nice infrastructure where there was none. I’m not going to say all of the US is messed up but there are many people who choose to move away from the US and to other countries, taking massive pay cuts, because the surrounding conditions are nicer.
EDIT: also, Europe built a massive rail network without the cultural revolution.
Hard to blame this on Federalism when states had more relative power in the first half of the 20th century and we were able to complete amazing public works projects on reasonable schedules
Our tolerance for deaths during construction was higher, though.
I haven't researched it in depth but I gather a much larger issue is the use and abuse of environmental law by the minority who don't want the projects done
There's a book review about this that suggests it is exactly this abuse of the courts to block governments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-public-cit...
The Japanese government is not a golden beacon of success and efficiency. Their economic stagnation is arguably from their over investment in useless projects, and archaic regulations, leading to the employment ice age. That's ignoring anything about their social policy. They are not so good that they don't deserve criticism.
I think a country can not exist with just big cities, or at least it should not be forced to. Small towns will always be more expensive than cities to maintain, this should not mean that small towns should then get less facilities.
It's the equality vs equity discussion based in geography
It's the equality vs equity discussion based in geography
> Small towns will always be more expensive than cities to maintain, this should not mean that small towns should then get less facilities.
There are certain sorts of facilities which will almost never be available alongside small towns. It's not just "expensive" to maintain something like a Level 1 trauma center - if it were lightly utilized it would be economically unviable. It is something that will not exist away from a city.
That's an extreme example but even more mundane medical facilities end up being very expensive when you push out into rural areas. That those areas tend to be economically depressed, at least in the US, makes the problem that much more serious.
There are certain sorts of facilities which will almost never be available alongside small towns. It's not just "expensive" to maintain something like a Level 1 trauma center - if it were lightly utilized it would be economically unviable. It is something that will not exist away from a city.
That's an extreme example but even more mundane medical facilities end up being very expensive when you push out into rural areas. That those areas tend to be economically depressed, at least in the US, makes the problem that much more serious.
> Small towns will always be more expensive than cities to maintain, this should not mean that small towns should then get less facilities.
Why not? I think it's a natural conclusion of that fact.
Should every small town have a Tier 1 Hospital? A world-class university? A national sports team & stadium? An international airport? A symphony orchestra?
Don't get me wrong, I grew up in a rural area and have a fondness for it, but I do expect that rural areas and small towns should reasonably have less facilities than major cities.
Why not? I think it's a natural conclusion of that fact.
Should every small town have a Tier 1 Hospital? A world-class university? A national sports team & stadium? An international airport? A symphony orchestra?
Don't get me wrong, I grew up in a rural area and have a fondness for it, but I do expect that rural areas and small towns should reasonably have less facilities than major cities.
> Should every small town have a Tier 1 Hospital? A world-class university? A national sports team & stadium? An international airport? A symphony orchestra?
This almost describes Alabama.
This almost describes Alabama.
No one is forcing small towns to stop existing. Young people just don't want to live in them. And yes, I do think they should get fewer facilities because they can't afford them. I'm sure every geriatric town would love a world class cancer treatment center, but they're gonna have to suck it up.
> Young people just don't want to live in them.
That's why the hometown tax exists. Small towns use their residence tax money to raise children then none goes back in when the young adult moves to Tokyo and pays residence tax there instead of in their hometown.
That's why the hometown tax exists. Small towns use their residence tax money to raise children then none goes back in when the young adult moves to Tokyo and pays residence tax there instead of in their hometown.
Schools are funded by the national government in Japan. These families are not a net-loss on the community, as the parents pay taxes and children are a driver of economic activity.
Births are funded by local governments though
Isn't that all covered by the national government and parent?
Contary to the name, Japan National Health Insurance is managed at municipal level.
TIL. Seems like it's a mix between national and municipal funding, but that doesn't really change the overall calculation, as the parents will have most likely paid it back through their own municipal taxes.
> I think a country can not exist with just big cities
Singapore is just a city. Hong Kong for a long time too. The Netherlands is functionally a very large low-density city with some high-density parts. And in some countries, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the small towns are economically non-existent compared to the cities.
Singapore is just a city. Hong Kong for a long time too. The Netherlands is functionally a very large low-density city with some high-density parts. And in some countries, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the small towns are economically non-existent compared to the cities.
I live in The Netherlands and it's not functionally a very large low density city. The main part of the country (de randstad [1]), but the rest isn't. And we need to pay to make sure there are facilities there, the government currently is just draining the natural resources and giving nothing in return.
I don't know how a large country functions, but for the Netherlands there is a clear need to invest more in the rest of the country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad
I don't know how a large country functions, but for the Netherlands there is a clear need to invest more in the rest of the country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad
Bit of devil's advocate here, but would it make more sense to invest heavily in the Randstad so that more people can live there and enjoy the benefits of being in a heavily networked area?
I just moved to the Netherlands (in the Randstad) and it's arguably better for the country that I moved to a place that already is dense and efficient to provide services to. Though it would be nice if it were above sea level.
I just moved to the Netherlands (in the Randstad) and it's arguably better for the country that I moved to a place that already is dense and efficient to provide services to. Though it would be nice if it were above sea level.
I don't live in the Randstad but I'm sure in some years everything will have closed up.
One thing I will say though is that the area outside of it - pick any direction - is idyllic and doesn't seem to be struggling economically. Loads of local businesses, loads of people just going about their day, buying houses, having kids, etc. It's idyllic and I don't really understand why all the activity seems to be in the Randstad.
I mean I do get it, it's a chicken / egg problem; talent travels to the cities because that's where the best jobs are, the best jobs go to the cities because that's where talent is.
But I would like the government to incentivize more "work where you live" schemes; smaller sattelite offices for larger employers, remote work (obviously), extra income and subsidies if you work remotely (because of reduced office costs and to discourage commuting, since our roads and railways are all full up).
One thing I will say though is that the area outside of it - pick any direction - is idyllic and doesn't seem to be struggling economically. Loads of local businesses, loads of people just going about their day, buying houses, having kids, etc. It's idyllic and I don't really understand why all the activity seems to be in the Randstad.
I mean I do get it, it's a chicken / egg problem; talent travels to the cities because that's where the best jobs are, the best jobs go to the cities because that's where talent is.
But I would like the government to incentivize more "work where you live" schemes; smaller sattelite offices for larger employers, remote work (obviously), extra income and subsidies if you work remotely (because of reduced office costs and to discourage commuting, since our roads and railways are all full up).
I totally agree about how the lower investment in the non-Randstad parts of the country does not seem to have a negative affect. At least the further-away cities/towns that I’ve visited have been absolutely gorgeous. People are friendly, streets are clean, parks are well-kept, public transportation is world-class even in small towns.
I think part of the issue is that if you're a couple there's a huge advantage to being within commute distance from multiple cities.
In this case it's more that almost the entire country is within a couple of hours of the Randstad. The whole country can act as a single economic unit, which isn't doable even in Germany, France, and the UK, let alone Canada or China. You can drive or take the train from Groningen to Eindhoven and back in a single working day with hours to spare; you can't even do that between Toulouse and Marseille, let alone further!
If anything it's a good thing - it means investment in Amsterdam benefits far more people than just those in Amsterdam.
If anything it's a good thing - it means investment in Amsterdam benefits far more people than just those in Amsterdam.
Singapore relies on Malaysia (hmm wonder when and why Malaya picked up that "sia"); Hong Kong relies on China; the Netherlands relies on the EU.
Which of their neighbors do you think Japan is safe to rely on to feed their population?
edit: Note that China just the other day extended their 9-dash line to a 10-dash line
Which of their neighbors do you think Japan is safe to rely on to feed their population?
edit: Note that China just the other day extended their 9-dash line to a 10-dash line
The problem with these examples is they're heavily skewed once a single metric, eg small land area (Singapore, HK, Netherlands) or extreme resource disparity (SA & UAE). Generalizing from outlier examples is rarely a good idea.
Pretty much by definition a country with no small towns in gonna be all city. Those are necessarily outliers.
Why can a country not exist with just big cities?
It can but then they are heavily dependent on external sources of food, water, raw materials, manufactured products, etc. that are outside of its control. This gives the outside nations who are supplying those things larger influence on the domestic and foreign policy of the city-state because they can raise costs of imports or even embargo them to pressure the city-state to align with their own foreign policy goals.
Because you really don't want heavily polluting industries (oil refineries, chemical plants, steel mills, etc) close to a big city.
Name a big city that doesn't have heavily polluting industries nearby.
Portland, Oregon?
I don't know why you'd pose that as a question, but not having been to Portland I did the obvious thing and spent a minute in google maps. You're welcome. It turns out Portland has a steel mill not just nearby, but within its city limits.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the point of my question wasn't to literally determine whether any big cities exist without heavy industry nearby, although that would be sort of interesting if it were the case. The point is that any such city is going to be an exception to the utterly ludicrous statement of the OP, "Because you really don't want heavily polluting industries (oil refineries, chemical plants, steel mills, etc) close to a big city." Big cities have always had this. The people there do not "want" them there any more or less than people in a small town would "want" them there.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the point of my question wasn't to literally determine whether any big cities exist without heavy industry nearby, although that would be sort of interesting if it were the case. The point is that any such city is going to be an exception to the utterly ludicrous statement of the OP, "Because you really don't want heavily polluting industries (oil refineries, chemical plants, steel mills, etc) close to a big city." Big cities have always had this. The people there do not "want" them there any more or less than people in a small town would "want" them there.
Hopefully not too pedantic, but they do have Precision Castparts, which manufactures all sorts of aerospace, wind turbine, and other giant industrial things: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/03/02/court-approves-225-mi...
Why aren't obese people healthy? they have so much (cellular) wealth stored up and such big organs.
Ir's not that different. If you concentrate economic wealth in cites, the periphery starts to suffer economically because it can't exploit local resources effectively, and the population starts selecting for city activity. Over generations, that leaves you vulnerable agriculturally and militarily. If you experience a natural or military disaster that deals a massive blow to one of you key cities, the whole country can collapse.
Ir's not that different. If you concentrate economic wealth in cites, the periphery starts to suffer economically because it can't exploit local resources effectively, and the population starts selecting for city activity. Over generations, that leaves you vulnerable agriculturally and militarily. If you experience a natural or military disaster that deals a massive blow to one of you key cities, the whole country can collapse.
Outsourcing some things can be an existential threat
edit: Note that China just the other day extended their 9-dash line to a 10-dash line
edit: Note that China just the other day extended their 9-dash line to a 10-dash line
Agriculture.
Countries can exist with only big cities, but then they are dependant on other countries.
In small cities you among other things have more agriculture and different forms of industry are also commonly pushed out of big cities.
In small cities you among other things have more agriculture and different forms of industry are also commonly pushed out of big cities.
We're living in the age of Urbanization Plus, where people aren't just moving from rural areas to cities, they're also moving from smaller cities to bigger cities in large numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if we were all trending towards South Korea your situations where half the population lives in the capital (except in the US - there will be a few cities everyone moves to, but probably not DC).
The problem is jobs. People want to move where the jobs are. Now that farming isn't a big job creator and many factories have moved away then it's all about commerce. That requires a large concentration of people. Cities will often not have enough to offer to make a company move to their city instead of some other city. Especially nowadays when people get really upset over a city offering a good deal to some business (eg Amazon and New York a few years ago).
The problem is jobs. People want to move where the jobs are. Now that farming isn't a big job creator and many factories have moved away then it's all about commerce. That requires a large concentration of people. Cities will often not have enough to offer to make a company move to their city instead of some other city. Especially nowadays when people get really upset over a city offering a good deal to some business (eg Amazon and New York a few years ago).
Yes we are probably trending that way, but I don't see how that's a bad thing. The bad thing is that rural and smaller cities were not able to compete thrive. In the end the centralization of the economy will only increase productivity, but if you want to keep them alive you need to invest in them to justify their existence. We should not be going out of our way to keep them alive, unless they have specific national interests.
If you provide policies that benefit those urban cores at the expenses of rural voters, don't be surprised if the Rust Belts revolts against your plans.
> It wouldn't surprise me if we were all trending towards South Korea your situations where half the population lives in the capital (except in the US - there will be a few cities everyone moves to, but probably not DC).
Though the political capital was moved to the South, economically the effective capital of the US remained (and remains) NYC.
Though the political capital was moved to the South, economically the effective capital of the US remained (and remains) NYC.
While NYC is great, and our biggest city, etc., one difference from other countries is that New York State (the whole thing), only represents 8.1% of US GDP. Even if you add all of New Jersey and Connecticut, you get about 12.3% of total GDP.
As states, both California & Texas have greater share of GDP than NY.
So US GDP is much less concentrated than in some other countries.
As states, both California & Texas have greater share of GDP than NY.
So US GDP is much less concentrated than in some other countries.
Yes, the US is much less capital-concentrated than many other countries, even viewing NYC rather than DC as the center of concentration.
Did not mean to suggest otherwise, but it is worth explicitly noting.
Did not mean to suggest otherwise, but it is worth explicitly noting.
Same with South Korea. The capital was technically moved to Sejong in the 2010s, but almost every Ministry that matters is still up north in Seoul.
The problem is amalgamation and the fact that western countries (very mistakenly) decided to deindustrialize and send their jobs to poorer countries to prop up their corporate profits. It is much harder for people to graduate and go get a good job at the local factory, have 4 kids, a house, etc. You need to go to college, get a degree, fight for a job which then become more concentrated in fewer places as they compete for workers.
Hopefully remote work will help push back against this force.
Hopefully remote work will help push back against this force.
The optimal place to grow a child and operate an economic centre has different requirements.
That's not what's happening here. Large metro areas in Japan have fine schools and are fine places to raise a child. They are not like the U.S with sketchy low income urban schools. What's happening is that generational residents are leaving their towns for economic centres, and the population is shrinking, and more importantly, aging.
edit: I have to clarity that the de-populating regional parts of Japan are mostly not what a U.S. or even EU person would see as "rural". These are cities of 300,000+ population with working public transit etc. They OUGHT to be able to support themselves, yet people are still centralizing to Tokyo. I even have a friend in Osaka (pop 3 million) who is considering Tokyo.
I have lived in Tokyo and now I live in a very "regional" area of Japan and have two kids. While the school_s are actually better in Tokyo, I'm still far happier raising my kids here where there are abundant parks, beaches and nature, and would never want to move to Tokyo. I would be really sad if the rest of the country disappeared and everyone had to live in the concrete jungle.
But I work remotely which is the only reason I can live here. The wages for my job are literally 10x in Tokyo than what they are here. That's why people move there. And that's why the schools are better in Tokyo - salaries for daycare workers and teachers here are too low so everyone leaves.
At the same time as the salaries are higher in Tokyo - the cost of raising a family there is also far higher. It's very cheap to be solo or a working couple living in Tokyo. The most affordable large city in the world. Far cheaper than SF. But if you have more than 2 kids (beyond replacement rate), now you need a big car, a big condo, etc etc and it's completely unaffordable. Whereas here in the "inaka" I know people with 3-4 kids on a low salary that are doing "ok".
Being able to even out the salaries in the country with remote work or even satellite offices using remote work technology would help lots.
I have lived in Tokyo and now I live in a very "regional" area of Japan and have two kids. While the school_s are actually better in Tokyo, I'm still far happier raising my kids here where there are abundant parks, beaches and nature, and would never want to move to Tokyo. I would be really sad if the rest of the country disappeared and everyone had to live in the concrete jungle.
But I work remotely which is the only reason I can live here. The wages for my job are literally 10x in Tokyo than what they are here. That's why people move there. And that's why the schools are better in Tokyo - salaries for daycare workers and teachers here are too low so everyone leaves.
At the same time as the salaries are higher in Tokyo - the cost of raising a family there is also far higher. It's very cheap to be solo or a working couple living in Tokyo. The most affordable large city in the world. Far cheaper than SF. But if you have more than 2 kids (beyond replacement rate), now you need a big car, a big condo, etc etc and it's completely unaffordable. Whereas here in the "inaka" I know people with 3-4 kids on a low salary that are doing "ok".
Being able to even out the salaries in the country with remote work or even satellite offices using remote work technology would help lots.
Curious what you'd view as the requirements? We moved to a city (albeit not a large one) specifically so our kids would be able to bike to school and see friends more easily. These are also things that help power an economic centre.
The US Federal Gov't basically bail out all US cities for infrastructure because the cities never have the money to fix infrastructure because they'd have to double the taxes collected at the least to meet the need of replacing infrastructure when it needs it, usually 30 years.
US cities are broken. Majority taxes are collected by residential zip code, and every person who works in the city, lives in the suburbs. The suburbs get wealthier off the economic productivity of the city.
Only in the US would cities like Beverly hills-CA, Brookline-MA, Piedmont-CA exist.
If you want the city to accommodate your suburban commute, (parking requirements, wider roads) and your safety (the homeless are bussed to the downtown core), then you need to pay taxes into the city. If you avail of cheap labor from the city's poor, then you need to be paying taxes into the city.
Only in the US would cities like Beverly hills-CA, Brookline-MA, Piedmont-CA exist.
If you want the city to accommodate your suburban commute, (parking requirements, wider roads) and your safety (the homeless are bussed to the downtown core), then you need to pay taxes into the city. If you avail of cheap labor from the city's poor, then you need to be paying taxes into the city.
> Only in the US would cities like Beverly hills-CA, Brookline-MA, Piedmont-CA exist.
I supposed places like Neilly-sur-Seine outside of Paris don't exist? I fail to see how rich, lower-density suburbs that well-to-do people prefer to live in while working in downtown centers is a uniquely American trait.
I supposed places like Neilly-sur-Seine outside of Paris don't exist? I fail to see how rich, lower-density suburbs that well-to-do people prefer to live in while working in downtown centers is a uniquely American trait.
> Neilly-sur-Seine
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8863259,2.2692631,3a,75y,38....
This does not look like low density suburb to me. The town only gets a commuter rail, and driving into Paris is a total nightmare. Suburbs are no the issue. Destroying cities to accommodate suburbs is.
The suburbs I mention are walking distance to the city's downtown, take advantage of positives of dense urban development near them, while doing everything in their power from letting density touch their own neighborhood. It is selfishness at its worst.
Paris has a population of 2 million, is a neat circle and clearly deprioritizes the needs of anyone outside the peripheral boulevard. You are making my point for me.
Historically, suburbs were low density because an outer donut has more area than an inner circle. In the absence of land development regulation, density reflects the demand per sq/ft. If Americans were so sure of low density suburbs being a natural outcome, then they wouldn't wield every dirty weapon to ban land development in the aforementioned suburbs.
In most American cities, the city does not control its own road or transportation budgets. This means that suburbs get to affect the lawmaking in the city, but cities do not get to do vice versa. I am not even going to address brain-dead laws like Prop 13 or rent-control that further destroy a city's ability to govern itself.
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8863259,2.2692631,3a,75y,38....
This does not look like low density suburb to me. The town only gets a commuter rail, and driving into Paris is a total nightmare. Suburbs are no the issue. Destroying cities to accommodate suburbs is.
The suburbs I mention are walking distance to the city's downtown, take advantage of positives of dense urban development near them, while doing everything in their power from letting density touch their own neighborhood. It is selfishness at its worst.
Paris has a population of 2 million, is a neat circle and clearly deprioritizes the needs of anyone outside the peripheral boulevard. You are making my point for me.
Historically, suburbs were low density because an outer donut has more area than an inner circle. In the absence of land development regulation, density reflects the demand per sq/ft. If Americans were so sure of low density suburbs being a natural outcome, then they wouldn't wield every dirty weapon to ban land development in the aforementioned suburbs.
In most American cities, the city does not control its own road or transportation budgets. This means that suburbs get to affect the lawmaking in the city, but cities do not get to do vice versa. I am not even going to address brain-dead laws like Prop 13 or rent-control that further destroy a city's ability to govern itself.
> Only in the US would cities like Beverly hills-CA, Brookline-MA, Piedmont-CA exist.
> The suburbs I mention are walking distance to the city's downtown, take advantage of positives of dense urban development near them, while doing everything in their power from letting density touch their own neighborhood.
You have an interesting concept of "walking distance." Google Maps shows a 3 hour and 27 minute walk from Beverly Hills to DTLA. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Beverly+Hills,+CA/Downtown+L...
Brookline, MA, has a population density of nearly 9,000 people per square mile, so not exactly low density.
> The suburbs I mention are walking distance to the city's downtown, take advantage of positives of dense urban development near them, while doing everything in their power from letting density touch their own neighborhood.
You have an interesting concept of "walking distance." Google Maps shows a 3 hour and 27 minute walk from Beverly Hills to DTLA. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Beverly+Hills,+CA/Downtown+L...
Brookline, MA, has a population density of nearly 9,000 people per square mile, so not exactly low density.
LA is a misleading because it does not have a proper downtown. LA downtown is effectively a block from Skidrow (US's worst drug addled neighborhood), which means most people never want to be seen anywhere near downtown LA. The next most downtowny/dense areas of LA are West Hollywood, Century City and Santa Monica. All 3 of which are very close to Beverly Hills.
To be honest, LA is such a nightmare of urban design, that no one issue can justify the complete and utter disaster that it is.
North-Brookline is 1 block from the densest neighborhood in Boston (BU, Fenway), but is lined with single family homes because of NIMBY housing policy. It is a dense suburb, but it has no business being a suburb 1 block from 2 of the country's biggest schools (BU,NEU), 1 block from the sports mecca of the nation (Fenway) and 1 block from the center of medical research in the entire world (Longwood).
Brookline gets to conveniently push its homeless out to Mass-n-cass and Packard's corner. They get to enforce increasingly ridiculous parking laws despite people needing to cross Brookline to get to other parts of Boston. They get all the benefits of the MBTA (B-Line, C-line), but refuse to make their own neighborhoods transit friendly [1]. They get access to cheaper-labor because the labor can make the commute from the more working class parts of Boston. When their ""cheap"" nannies have to access subsidized social services, it comes out the coffers of the city of Boston.
Now, I will admit that the city of Boston is pretty badly run, when compared to the neighboring Cambridge, Brookline, Newton & Somerville. But, that's besides my main point.
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/17/opinion/brookline-hou...
My hot-take is that cities should have some level of default jurisdiction over their entire metro area. Land-use around public transportation, pass-through rights for new-transit, etc.
To be honest, LA is such a nightmare of urban design, that no one issue can justify the complete and utter disaster that it is.
North-Brookline is 1 block from the densest neighborhood in Boston (BU, Fenway), but is lined with single family homes because of NIMBY housing policy. It is a dense suburb, but it has no business being a suburb 1 block from 2 of the country's biggest schools (BU,NEU), 1 block from the sports mecca of the nation (Fenway) and 1 block from the center of medical research in the entire world (Longwood).
Brookline gets to conveniently push its homeless out to Mass-n-cass and Packard's corner. They get to enforce increasingly ridiculous parking laws despite people needing to cross Brookline to get to other parts of Boston. They get all the benefits of the MBTA (B-Line, C-line), but refuse to make their own neighborhoods transit friendly [1]. They get access to cheaper-labor because the labor can make the commute from the more working class parts of Boston. When their ""cheap"" nannies have to access subsidized social services, it comes out the coffers of the city of Boston.
Now, I will admit that the city of Boston is pretty badly run, when compared to the neighboring Cambridge, Brookline, Newton & Somerville. But, that's besides my main point.
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/17/opinion/brookline-hou...
My hot-take is that cities should have some level of default jurisdiction over their entire metro area. Land-use around public transportation, pass-through rights for new-transit, etc.
Notoriously, Neuilly-sur-Seine does pay a penalty for its underbuilding (actually, complete non-building) of social housing.
https://www.france24.com/en/20101220-french-cities-rather-pa...
https://www.france24.com/en/20101220-french-cities-rather-pa...
> Only in the US would cities like Beverly hills-CA, Brookline-MA, Piedmont-CA exist
Ever been to Reading just outside of London? Or Richmond in Vancouver? Or Como outside of Milan? Or Icheon outside of Seoul?
Ever been to Reading just outside of London? Or Richmond in Vancouver? Or Como outside of Milan? Or Icheon outside of Seoul?
If you think Como, Incheon or Reading are anything like Beverly hills, Brookline or Piedmont, then I'm not sure you're getting my point.
All 3 of my examples are within 10 minutes walking/driving from the downtown core of the city. Yet, they have carved out a completely isolated township for themselves, so as to avoid taxation from the parent city, while benefiting from every aspects of being geographically inside the parent city. It stops a city from expanding organically, leading to oddly tiny cities (SF) or city boundaries that look like a kids scribbles (LA, Boston).
If you city isn't propagating radially from the downtown core then there better be a good explanation for it.
All 3 of my examples are within 10 minutes walking/driving from the downtown core of the city. Yet, they have carved out a completely isolated township for themselves, so as to avoid taxation from the parent city, while benefiting from every aspects of being geographically inside the parent city. It stops a city from expanding organically, leading to oddly tiny cities (SF) or city boundaries that look like a kids scribbles (LA, Boston).
If you city isn't propagating radially from the downtown core then there better be a good explanation for it.
At least Richmond also has the issue of mooching off of the productivity of Vancouver, though the issue is less pronounced there due to decreased political power allocated to individual municipalities
> Taxes should go to your current city/state to run the services there.
Generally, families in rural areas have more children than families in big cities. There should be some kind of monetary compensation (money transfer from cities to rural areas) for the rural areas than produce more people, who then move to cities and contribute to their economy. This Japanese system sounds good.
Generally, families in rural areas have more children than families in big cities. There should be some kind of monetary compensation (money transfer from cities to rural areas) for the rural areas than produce more people, who then move to cities and contribute to their economy. This Japanese system sounds good.
Why should there be a transfer? Education is already paid for nationally in Japan. Parents pay their taxes while there. The towns are not owed anything. Even if things are a little more murky in other parts of the world, I would be more in favor of nationalizing education than giving wealth to dying towns.
Your comment is ignorant and myopic. The area I come from has switched from being hugely important to completely worthless multiple times over the past few centuries.
Even then, being profitable is not the same as being useful to society.
Even then, being profitable is not the same as being useful to society.
So we should be subsidizing every small town in the hopes that maybe some day they begin contributing back to society? Can I go into the mountains and demand a sewage line and hospital be built next to me?
We could penalize big cities for the negative externalities they cause on surrounding cities.
Seems fair. What externalities?
No, you can make bad faith arguments and get ignored though.
I really want to ignore small towns, so maybe we can compromise!
Did you grow up in one and not enjoy it? You seem extremely passionate about this issue. I can kind of relate, but although I left a small town in favor of city life, I don't think it's necessarily the ideal, or that the richness and complexity of cities makes smaller scales redundant.
[deleted]
There's a better fix for this. Stop measuring success by how far away you have to live from your mum to get a job.
Once we have a Job Guarantee, not only does that mean interest base rates remain at zero permanently (ensuring permanently low mortgages), but it also means you can live where you want in the country.
Business then has to go where the people are if it wants any labour - which of course it largely can in a majority service based economy.
Stars shine not because of gravity, but because of the outward pressure that stops them collapsing in on themselves.
Countries need to adopt similar policies if they wish to shine and not collapse.
Once we have a Job Guarantee, not only does that mean interest base rates remain at zero permanently (ensuring permanently low mortgages), but it also means you can live where you want in the country.
Business then has to go where the people are if it wants any labour - which of course it largely can in a majority service based economy.
Stars shine not because of gravity, but because of the outward pressure that stops them collapsing in on themselves.
Countries need to adopt similar policies if they wish to shine and not collapse.
>it largely can in a majority service based economy
Is your plan here to consolidate all capital in the hands of a few corporations? Because most businesses cannot just move somewhere else because their owners cannot just move somewhere else.
Is your plan here to consolidate all capital in the hands of a few corporations? Because most businesses cannot just move somewhere else because their owners cannot just move somewhere else.
You have a very naive view on this topic.
You can't give eveveryone a Job Guarantee™, because the only natural job guarantee is that your efforts benefit someone else. If your work is not productive someone else pays the cost, you wind up in a zero sum situation.
Also, I fail to see how such a system would mean interest rates remain at zero permanently, or how it ensures permanently low mortgages for interest rates to remain at zero permanently. Perhaps you can elaborate on the mechanism you envision when you talk about this.
You can't outlegalese network effects, all you can do is shift cost around. This is why these sorts of schemes always have unforseen negative consequences, because people naively think they've found a silver bullet. You probably have not.
You can't give eveveryone a Job Guarantee™, because the only natural job guarantee is that your efforts benefit someone else. If your work is not productive someone else pays the cost, you wind up in a zero sum situation.
Also, I fail to see how such a system would mean interest rates remain at zero permanently, or how it ensures permanently low mortgages for interest rates to remain at zero permanently. Perhaps you can elaborate on the mechanism you envision when you talk about this.
You can't outlegalese network effects, all you can do is shift cost around. This is why these sorts of schemes always have unforseen negative consequences, because people naively think they've found a silver bullet. You probably have not.
> Once we have a Job Guarantee
What's a job guarantee? Anyone who wants a job can get one.
What's a job guarantee? Anyone who wants a job can get one.
I would love to read more on this.
> Educating children is incredibly expensive. The regions are quite annoyed that they pay to educate their children but that Tokyo reaps all the benefits. This state of affairs has continued for decades.
We see the same problem in USA states. State taxpayer dollars pay for some amount of public college education for state universities. These are typically called "State Appropriations", and varies between 30-80% of the student's overall tuition costs.
Back in the 1980's, taxpayers footed most college tuition using state appropriations, so college was "cheap" for students back then. Now (2023), (at least in my state, Michigan), state appropriations typically cover 20-40% of a college student's tuition.
There is concern with this though, because of what is called "brain drain". Citizens spend all these taxpayer dollars educating youth at colleges, then the graduates from U of M, etc all move out of state to California, Boston, Seattle, etc for big tech jobs.
Then the state of Michigan doesn't see any more tax dollars from those students. Which begs the question, why pay tax dollars for higher education if those who benefit from that education do not contribute back?