"The only revenue positive portion of nearly any modern american city/town is the dense urban core."
Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds?
"You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins."
I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income.
And of course, most people are no where near the level income that they don't want to make more. We're pretty talking about the 1% ($600k), or maybe the top 5% ($240k). So not particularly useful for designing policy for the other 95-99%. In fact, it could be beneficial for those high earners to drop out and allow new people to take their place.
> Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds?
Did you watch the video? It's short and demonstrates incredibly well through data the problems with our model of urban development.
> I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income.
On the margins, income taxes lower the incentive to work more hours.
Even then most places rely on state and federal grants to make ends meet. Do you have have any examples of cities actually net positive without outside funds?
"You are thinking in absolute terms and not on the margins."
I think my position still stands. The claim was that people would not work because income is taxed. What you describe is reduction in work incentive when you hit the next bracket. I'm saying that in order to not work you would have to value the support systems more than making any income.
And of course, most people are no where near the level income that they don't want to make more. We're pretty talking about the 1% ($600k), or maybe the top 5% ($240k). So not particularly useful for designing policy for the other 95-99%. In fact, it could be beneficial for those high earners to drop out and allow new people to take their place.