That's a very handwavey response to a serious question.

If it's true that dense cities are more efficient then it follows that dense cities should be cheaper, when all evidence points to the opposite effect. By the original reasoning Boise and Boulder should have very expensive tax burdens and New York should be nearly free.

At the federal spending it's major metro areas that are funding much of the country. Delaware get's back 1/2 what it puts in and South Carolina get's back almost 8x what it puts in. Those are absolutely massive tax flows which fund things like rural hospitals. But also a lot of infrastructure like new roads.

Even within states if you look at Virginia the DC area provides most of the revenue which is then spread around the state.

But, this ends up far more complex than just the local property tax situation.

And really, your argument implies that people in Japan pay US taxes when they buy Coca Cola. At some point things are indirect enough it's a meaningless connection.

Coming back from the military, I kept the same "look around at all times for threats" and it was absolutely exhausting.

"hyper-vigilance" I think is the term. Still have some of it but it's easier to live with in Norcal than the concrete jungles of the Los Angeles sprawl. Can focus on trees and the tweets of birds instead of innumerable pedestrians and cars and noise...