> huge amounts of money are taken from those cities to fund the suburbs.
Isn't this just a more crude representation of "we live in a society"? In my city I pay a tax that allows people to have child day care despite being childless. I pay a tax that funds local schools despite not attending one and not having a kid. I pay a tax that goes to make agricultural products cheaper. I pay a tax that subsidizes medical care. Would you object to those as well, or are those okay? Additionally, many of the things you've described as subsidizing suburbs also subsidize cities. HUD would need to exist even if we lived in dense urban areas. USDA, the US Department of Agriculture, would still need to issue loans to farmers unless you believe that only massive farm operations should exist, and grants still fuel much of city development: https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/hu....
In my view cities, suburbs, and rural areas are an intertwined ecosystem that cannot exist without each other. Try to remove one or expand one too much without the other and bad things happen. This argument that cities subsidize everybody else ignores that cities are largely reliant on goods, services, and workers from outside of said city.