This thread is about the income tax so I focused on that, but in my most recent post I said it was about cost vs. the level of services, not just cost. I agree in general that a big city can't compete with its suburbs on purely a cost basis, but my point is that if the City isn't willing to be generally competitive: provide good schools, or good parks, or good public safety, or even maybe some amenities that suburbs tend to lack [[like excellent public transit), then it's ridiculous to be the high-cost provider.

What we have here is a situation where Detroit, compared to just about any of its suburbs you can name:
1. Has by far the highest tax burden
2. Has the worst quality of essential public services
3. Hasn't chosen to provide amenities to its residents that they can't get if they live in a suburb

You have to try to fix at least one of these in order to attract people and stop the bleeding. Okay, don't fix number 1; then fix 2 and 3. Especially 2. But the City government over the past sixty years, so far as I have been able to tell, hasn't made any effort; in fact, I'm not even aware of any discussions in that direction.

Now, I'd be thrilled to be wrong about this. But I don't think I'm wrong.