"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
education spending. Central government support is much lower.

Well if you want to go that route, as a single non married childless
person for years, I subsidised the rest of the population.

So what?

Cities alos benefit you, by making the countryside a nicer place to live
in.

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from cities.
Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as there
wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.


I entirely agree about subsidies however. There are all kinds of them,
including, I hope, one for the cost of providing better broadband in the
country. I was attempting to point out that rural areas subsidise the
cities, and would like a bit back.

You don't.
If you want the facts remember it costs more to provide you with every
service.
That includes schools, transport, fire, police, ambulance, phones and
everything else you want to name.


To pick up the child point, without people willing to devote time and
money to bringing up children there would not be the future earners to pay
for the care of older people. Even if an older person is entirely
self-sufficient on investments, there has to be a thriving economy to keep
up the value of those investments, and this relies on young generations.

Peter