Then who would grow the food? This may come as a surprise to you but the majority of food production in this country is done in the middle of nowhere and city folk are not willing to pay the real cost of food production. You need to sell that concept to the urbanites before you cut off the flow of money to the people that feed them.
No surprise here. Clearly a farme living on the outskirt of town would have a clear advantge over one living in the middle of nowhere. Also, if the lands surrounding a town are fertile, that would give farmers an incentive to move there. If not, then food costs would jump in that town (and people would still pay because they have to eat),and so some people (eg.retirees, those who work from home online, etc.) would likely be tempted to move out closer to where the farms are.
If city folk don't want to pay for the real costs of food production, then it sucks to be us (I'm a city-slicker too). Why should farmers' taxes subsidize our food costs? If we choose to live far away from where the fertile lands are, then that's our fault, not the farmers'. If we're smart enough to move to a town with fertile lands nearby, then we ought to be compensated for our efforts. Why should we subsidize people who are not willing to relocate (either way, be it from town to country or vice versa) so as to be closer to the resources they consume?
If we did that, I can guarantee suburbs would become less popular over night, thus resulting in more efficient long-term development over time.
Spending money on having fun is not a waste.
Sure, as long as it's not being subsidized, directly or otherwise. Afterall, you need to build lot's of roadway around a golf course, and because of the space it takes, it also preads the population out more, making it take longer for everyone to get everywehre. So if they're paying the real costs of the real estate the golf course is on, I see no problem with it. Now for all I know, maybe that is the case, I just hope that it is.
