Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (213153)	12/31/2012 11:27:42 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 541735

I was strictly talking about the county and areas within the same county. I suppose that those who pay more for federal than they "take" would have similar feelings of inequality. It is hard to calculate this because federal employment and funding may change over time - is that counted and is it counted correctly? Hard to say. Even the chart you have may change over time and from year to year as natural disasters and various initiatives and emergencies work their way through the system. At my county level there is an exploitative nature to it because the suburbs have more money and land. When they want a park, garbage heap or an increase in revenue - they come to the same people. I like the open space parks (which are not used as much by those in the Urban Core) but not the garbage heaps where there may be a higher participation in waste separation and compliance. In the city I suppose the same Balkanization of the tax base occurs - poorer areas being supported by richer areas. They don't go to Beverly Hills when they want to build a new sports park. They go to a blighted area. I really don't think sports areas do that much to improve the lives of people where they are - increase in traffic and part time minimum wage jobs, for the most part.