This is a myth. Rural areas get more tax money back than they pay out. Rural communities are already subsidized by cities, but their low tax base and inefficiency means they still can't provide the same level of services. That's not to mention that cities can provide services with less environmental impact.

> even for the same size school (the same tax base approximately) This is probably a bad assumption. Rural folks pay significantly lower per capita taxes, on average.

Here are a few relevant sources, but this information is all over the place: https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/817088161906102273 http://www.startribune.com/metro-vs-outstate-which-counties-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/opinion/sunday/why-blue-s...

Not sure where you live, but in the states I've lived, it's the county or municipality that uses property taxes and runs the K-12 schools. Public universities are are subsidized by the state, but those are available equally to all of the state's residents.

In general across the country, less and less public school funding actually comes from local taxes. The state has gotten involved in most states in order to correct discrepancies in school funding between rich and poor districts (with California being one of the most involved states).

Some states still have notable funding issues between districts, though. This gives a pretty good description of the issue: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-school...

Iowa. They do it differently. The state took over decades ago.

Schools are funded largely by local property taxes in most parts of the US, which is why rural areas have less funding for schools. Schools of equivalent sizes rural vs urban absolutely do not have the same property tax revenue.

I thought taxes for education stayed within the school district locally.

If you won't start posting according to the guidelines we'll ban the account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html