Just the opposite -- they cost more in absolute terms, but dense urban infra costs less per person or per square mile and should only weakly increase with the property values (due to the labor costs increasing slightly with costs of living).

Imagine:

- The cost of running a pipe to 200 families in one building vs to 200 detached homes

- The cost of hauling away 200 people's trash from one building vs to each of 200 buildings.

- Having a dedicated full time road repair crew vs hiring out a contractor sporadically.

- Dispatching enough patrol officers to have line-of-sight to every outside public place in a 200-home person neighborhood, vs the block outside the 200-person building.

And so on. That's why legit environmentalists (like the national Sierra Club) strongly favor urban over suburban growth.

But are the costs in-line with what they should be? I'd think that suburban neighborhoods would require even more infrastructure (more pipes, more roads, more power poles), yet they don't seem to suffer the same high tax rates.

I don't think the average person should be giving well more than 50% of their paycheck to Uncle Sam. Which a typical worker in Manhattan easily can be. (rental property tax + federal income + state income + city income + sales tax easily tops 50% for someone making median NYC income).

It's not actually criminal, obviously. But it should be. Local politicians stealing from their constituents.

Author here. That's the kicker: it's not like we don't have to pay for out subway rides. It's not like the bridge tolls and gas prices (which are affected by tax rates) are not astronomical if you drive. And as mentioned, a transit surcharge is applied to taxi rides.

It truly begs the question: what are we getting for our taxes?

let me know when you spot that government that doesn't "need" more money.