Ah, so that's why you're living in the States. You publically spoke out against equalization payments and Ottawa showed you the door. Frankly, the idea of having the richer parts of the country partially subsidize the poorer makes a certain amount of sense in order to help those poorer parts retool or simply hang in there when their economic niche fails. Not to mention it's something that does a good deal to help national cohesion which is also something federal governments like to, and ought to, promote.
As a principle, I agree, but there is a question of scale.
In my immediate city, I'd like to have the homeless people get checked for diseases and given a place to wash. Because y'know what, I ride the bus with them. Similarly, I don't want there to be a ghetto. People right on my doorstep who resent me due to a large economic disparity, and around whom more crime centers than it would if the city didn't have a ghetto is...not ideal.
However, the effect gets less and less noticeable the further afield you go. First thing I do when moving is find a safe, clean neighborhood, much moreso than a safe, clean city. Is it important that surrounding cities be also safe and clean? Yeah, because there's going to be some trickle-over effect from other cities (but they're not as important as the places I live and work). Is it important to me that cities further afield are clean? Sure, I do some business trips outside of the city in which I live; usually not more than a 40 minute flight. Does it affect me for Alabama to be modernized. Well...maybe. If they do pick up steam and become a modern mecha, it broadens my options for places to live, and may attract investment into the country, which would benefit me. Does it benefit me that Iraq has changed to a probably better regime? Not much at all.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of redistribution of wealth and all that, but the value of it becomes less and less obvious the wider you draw your sphere of influence.
