Maybe I should have been more clear.  I used TAT distribution to try to illustrate that taxes paid to the state from one county are undeniably already being used in other counties, so the "why should our taxes pay for a thing in another county" argument IS disingenuous.  For the record I hope we all can agree that as a practical consideration the smaller population counties do need more dollars per capita than the big ones. My argument has nothing at all to do with the viability of RAIL, how complex the tax scheme to pay for it is (though honestly it isn't all that complex), how much it's costing, or anything else other than people making the claim that the taxes generated in their county should not be used in another county.  I am fine with people saying they don't want their taxes funding this epic failure of a project.  THAT is a valid reason.

Labels: moderation: safe