Cities eat up tax dollars too. Boston's Big Dig was basically a $10 billion or so gift to Boston from, not only Western Massachusetts taxpayers but the rest of the country. (The Speaker of the House was from the Boston area.)
> As a rural tax payer I'm paying for some city dwellers to sit around all day doing nothing. All the benefits you enjoy as a result of living in a modern society have been paid for by someone other than you.
No part of that is right. Economically rural areas are a drain justified only by farming, votes, and a charitable desire to serve our fellow man. The idea that a handful of farmers are somehow paying for the teeming masses in the city to sit on their hands is wrong on its face.
"Basically, if we didn't need to eat, we'd be better off of our digestive system didn't exist."
What a hilariously strange world view. There are comparative advantages for both urban and rural areas, and both are vitally important.
Urban areas optimize for concentration of labor. Rural areas optimize for land-and-resource-dependent operations.
You won't build a successful large scale R&D lab in a small farm town, but you also won't build a successful mining operation in downtown LA.
(Also as an addendum, there are so many industries dependent on land and resources other than just agriculture).
Basically unless you grow food the city folks would be economically better off if you didn't exist. Your world view is exactly the opposite of reality.