Metro Area Subsidizes Outstate Road and Bridge Construction (2015, subsidized)

[Thedosius]

Metro taxpayers give more than they get back on roads, bridges - StarTribune.com




Most of us here already know this, but there are a few fact-averse individuals that need a reality check.

[demtion35]

Makes sense maybe because it sounds right?

[1stpontiac]

Doesn't surprise me at all, and seems perfectly reasonable. Of course the roads populated by 2 people per miles are subsidized by the areas with 200 people per mile. There is really no way around that. Government and taxes isn't a strictly fee-for-service transaction.

[Thedosius]

I'm not objecting to it. My point in posting this is because in this forum and elsewhere there is a persistent but fact- free meme that outstate Minnesota props up the metro area, whereas the facts are 100% the reverse.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

Metro taxpayers give more than they get back on roads, bridges - StarTribune.com

Most of us here already know this, but there are a few fact-averse individuals that need a reality check.

It's the same everywhere. I've encountered those from eastern Washington all bent out of shape that stadiums in Seattle are funded in part by the state - and they're oblivious to the fact that largess from metro Seattle flows disproportionately east across the Cascades and not vice-versa. Similarly, you can always count on inland Californians to carp about how their taxes are supposedly going to LA and/or the Bay Area, but the coastal counties there send more money to Sacramento that they get in return, while the inland counties get more state money than they provide.

Originally Posted by Thedosius

I'm not objecting to it. My point in posting this is because in this forum and elsewhere there is a persistent but fact- free meme that outstate Minnesota props up the metro area, whereas the facts are 100% the reverse.

I don't object to it, either. But like you, I agree that it needs to be pointed out because most of the time the incorrect assertion is being made by those sorts of people who are always spouting an up-by-your-own-bootstraps mentality in which they claim to be averse to their taxes going to support the welfare of others, yet all the while they're unwittingly benefiting from taxes from elsewhere that keep their small counties and municipalities from going belly-up.

[Glenfield]

Meh. Unless this information is used to refute a point made in a specific post it just looks like a like strawman beat down.

[wamer27]

The picture from the 90's has 4 people riding in a regular cab truck!

[PullMyFinger]

This is life in a Republic. We are a Republic of States. We look out for one another. No county is more important than another, just because the population is different.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Meh. Unless this information is used to refute a point made in a specific post it just looks like a like strawman beat down.

Let's look at the definition of the term 'strawman':

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

That pretty much describes the concept.

Now let's look at the claim of the OP:

Originally Posted by Thedosius

Metro taxpayers give more than they get back on roads, bridges - StarTribune.com

Most of us here already know this, but there are a few fact-averse individuals that need a reality check.

The only way that this could possibly be a strawman is if no one is actually asserting that outstate areas don't underwrite the metro.

Oops...

Openly stating that the Metro couldn't survive without largess from the Iron Range [patently false - see below]:

Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother

How would the Twin Cities ever survive financially without all the money siphoned off there from the Iron Range?

What would Northern Minnesota do if it were to get to keep the money generated in the area instead of losing most of it to the Urban metro?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/44736399-post4.html

Insinuating that taxes disproportionately go towards Metro projects:

Originally Posted by my54ford

wait till the rich boy slaps on that 6 cent gas tax to fix the roads and bridges in the metro....

http://www.city-data.com/forum/38262199-post4.html

More vacuous claims about outstate subsidizing the Metro:

Originally Posted by gearedtowardssalad

If you live in the rural parts of the state, for instance, most of your tax dollars are probably being used to fund and subsidize things going on in the twin cities.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/29327673-post25.html

I could keep going with the examples but I'll stop here - three examples more than refutes your insinuation. Thedosius misrepresented no one. Something isn't a strawman just because the person making the point declines to jump through the hoop of citing various examples of claims that we all know are made over and over.



Again, I have no problem with the Metro subsidizing rural areas. My problems are with those who prattle on endlessly about those they perceive as 'takers', yet... 1) They're wrong about which part of the state is, on balance, doing the taking, and 2) They're happily living their outstate lives subsidized by Metro taxpayers while wrongly bitching that the Metro is 'taking' from their rural paradise.

[mnlife]

It's not just roads. The state subsidizes other infrastructure in small towns like sewer systems.