Which major U.S. cities funnel the most money away from the rest of their state? (credit, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People from rural Illinois and maybe some other areas are sometimes vocal and take issue with how their lawmakers seem to direct too much of their state's budget to help out financially struggling cities, like Chicago. Are there other states/cities that have this unbalanced relationship? The link above is one example of how state budget cuts affect cities too (I used my,ahem, favorite city of Chicago as an example because I feel they get way too much credit for aesthetics, and not enough ridicule for their infested and extremely corrupt government )
I'd bet that even in Illinois, Chicago probably gives MORE to the state than it gets back win you add in all the state taxes and fees that Chicagoans pay. You'd almost certainly find that true of a lot of states I'd bet that in big cities like Chicago, NYC, LA, Houston, Atlanta, Philly and many I bet it's cities getting the worst of the financial bargain because they're richer and subsidize state spending, not the other way around.
Only time it might not be so is in the case of severely economically depressed cities like Newark NJ or Detroit. Otherwise I'd bet that big cities support rural and suburban areas of a state rather than the reverse.
I'd be interested to see if any cities actually pull in more than they push out. I'm willing to bet Chicago doesn't fit that bill.
In Washington state a Seattle legislator asked the Office of Financial Management for the numbers last session. Guess what the results showed? King County (Seattle and it's Suburbs) got back 59 cents for every one dollar they sent to Olympia. King Co. pays for the rest of the state - is that fair? - seattlepi.com That's right FORTY ONE PERCENT of the revenues generated in King County went out to help subsidize rural areas. Not ONE SINGLE Eastern Washington (ie rural) county paid in more money than they got back. And to add insult to injury, like you, most rural voters are completely ignorant of the income redistribution going on. Taxpayers in Red Counties Not Aware They’re Being Subsidized | PubliCola
So in other words, feel free to post some hard numbers showing that metro Chicago takes in more than it gives out. Until then I'm just going to chalk this thread up to ignorance and envy.
It stands to reason that the biggest cities in the state send the most money to other cities and town. It's the biggest cities that have the biggest economies so raise the most tax $, and when it comes time to divvy up the $ by the state legislature, every legislator makes sure his district gets it's share, no matter how much it contributed or how much it needs. That's the way we play the game in the US.
I'd be interested to see if any cities actually pull in more than they push out. I'm willing to bet Chicago doesn't fit that bill.
In Washington state a Seattle legislator asked the Office of Financial Management for the numbers last session. Guess what the results showed? King County (Seattle and it's Suburbs) got back 59 cents for every one dollar they sent to Olympia. King Co. pays for the rest of the state - is that fair? - seattlepi.com That's right FORTY ONE PERCENT of the revenues generated in King County went out to help subsidize rural areas. Not ONE SINGLE Eastern Washington (ie rural) county paid in more money than they got back. And to add insult to injury, like you, most rural voters are completely ignorant of the income redistribution going on. Taxpayers in Red Counties Not Aware They’re Being Subsidized | PubliCola
So in other words, feel free to post some hard numbers showing that metro Chicago takes in more than it gives out. Until then I'm just going to chalk this thread up to ignorance and envy.
Hi. Hard numbers on what? Chicago corruption? Illinois corruption? Well. All we see is the tip of that iceburg, so.....but i totally see where you come from.. with the auto pilot knee jerk responses of crying "ignorance and envy" Of course, there could be no other feasible reason to discuss such a timely and pressing matter as the financial shape of our states,our farmers,our cities. I posted a link in the op basically showing how city services are affected too, by state budget constraints. I did say that it "seems" to many rural residents that these bloated cities tend to dip/borrow/skim...well....steal....and mishandle far more of those state monies (through massive corruption we see uncovered on a weekly basis in Chicago Illinois and a few other infested cities) but i half heartedly agree..certainly not more than than they are
"supplying" to any rural communities. Or is it? What you see these rural places getting in subsidies is actually accounted for and is fair, they pay appropriate taxes too, and serve a very valuable purpose to Illinois, particularly to Chicago. And since the bulk of corruption and control of illinois lies with politicians from the city of Chicago, that's where the rural peoples issues lay. Where is the corruption and funneling of money happening on a farm?...or in some remote suburb? Perhaps Bessie the cow was corrupted and farmer Joe dipped into the states charity funds again to make it look like Springfield is controlled by a bunch of rubes. Chicago is broke and has enormous influence on state budget decisions. Why Is Illinois So Corrupt? - Chicago magazine - December 2010 - Chicago
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2010/Why-Is-Illinois-So- (broken link)
Corrupt-Local-Government-Experts-Explain/
Last edited by dosequis man; 09-19-2011 at 04:54 AM..
I'd bet that even in Illinois, Chicago probably gives MORE to the state than it gets back win you add in all the state taxes and fees that Chicagoans pay. You'd almost certainly find that true of a lot of states I'd bet that in big cities like Chicago, NYC, LA, Houston, Atlanta, Philly and many I bet it's cities getting the worst of the financial bargain because they're richer and subsidize state spending, not the other way around.
Only time it might not be so is in the case of severely economically depressed cities like Newark NJ or Detroit. Otherwise I'd bet that big cities support rural and suburban areas of a state rather than the reverse.
Exactly! I remember hearing that the Philadelphia metro area accounts for around 60% of Pennsylvania's revenues yet is always short-funded for infrastructure repair dollars (roads and mass transit) because the over-represented rural rubes were always dipping into state funds for some kind of pork project to attempt to show some kind of relevance for existence, and more importantly thumb their noses at the city slickers. It certainly is interesting how disproportionate representation is in many states.
The "rubes" aren't the ones dipping. You don't have to research very far to see who really controls and influences state monies the most. People and politicians from the largest cities, they buy their way in, and now can direct the monies to where its easiest to steal. That's happened for decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
