3 ms·

> It's a race to the bottom but it likely isn't really deeply harmful. What, may I ask, would meet your definition of deeply harmful in an acknowledged race to

> It's a race to the bottom but it likely isn't really deeply harmful. What, may I ask, would meet your definition of deeply harmful in an acknowledged race to the bottom? The bottom, you see, is pretty fucking harmful.

maxerickson 9y ago
Tax relief doesn't do any direct harm and comprises the largest share of most incentives packages. Infrastructure spending that isn't paid for by increased tax revenues is clearly harmful, but people aren't exactly tossing out case studies about how that always happens. The real issue is that local governments have a long history of spending beyond their means. Infrastructure isn't crumbling because of all the businesses that have been granted tax incentives, it's crumbling because taxes aren't high enough in general when you look at the obligations that local governments have entered into.
- harrumph 9y ago
  >Tax relief doesn't do any direct harm and comprises the largest share of most incentives packages. Great, so the extra tax I'm levied to make up for Amazon's skipping on theirs, you'll be paying, I assume? You've said it's harmless, so pay up. >Infrastructure isn't crumbling because of all the businesses that have been granted tax incentives, it's crumbling because taxes aren't high enough in general when you look at the obligations that local governments have entered into. Yes, obligations such as the routine subsidizing of intensely wealthy employers in an acknowledged race to the bottom.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Great, so the extra tax I'm levied to make up for Amazon's skipping on theirs The argument I'm making is that this is largely supposition and that no additional taxes will be imposed as a result of Amazon picking a given city. So sure, if your taxes don't go up at all, I'll gladly pick up that difference. Of course I haven't proven my case that taxes won't go up; but neither has anyone in this thread made a case for them inevitably going up. The incentive packages obviously violate some peoples ideas about what is fair, but that is different than the incentive packages obviously being an economic negative.
    - harrumph 9y ago
      >but neither has anyone in this thread made a case for them inevitably going up. Anyone unaware of the very tired routine by now has no business commenting on the role of private subsidy in public taxation. Not only have you missed that historically, taxes of all kinds as a category overwhelmingly rise, you have forgotten that taxes circulate back to taxpayers in the form of services and infrastructure. You are proposing diverting some chunk of this circulation into Cayman Island bank accounts while you are at the same time pretending there might be no net cost to this diversion for those who depend upon these services that they alone pay for but that all benefit from, not the least of which being beneficiaries such as tax deadbeats like Amazon. You believe in magic, or at least you believe in the proposals of intensely wealthy persons seeking subsidy. Same difference. Subsidizing intensely wealthy employers in an acknowledged race to the bottom may or may not immediately force non-subsidized taxpayers to pay x% more in tax or in now-privatized fees, but sure as shit these non-subsidized persons are forced to receive back less and less for what they pay. That is where and why the crumbling happens, you see: the rich asserting a quasi-divine right to get paid while bridges collapse, social fabric is torn and government is blamed. Enough already. We see through this grift by now.

maxerickson 9y ago

Tax relief doesn't do any direct harm and comprises the largest share of most incentives packages. Infrastructure spending that isn't paid for by increased tax revenues is clearly harmful, but people aren't exactly tossing out case studies about how that always happens. The real issue is that local governments have a long history of spending beyond their means. Infrastructure isn't crumbling because of all the businesses that have been granted tax incentives, it's crumbling because taxes aren't high enough in general when you look at the obligations that local governments have entered into.

harrumph 9y ago
>Tax relief doesn't do any direct harm and comprises the largest share of most incentives packages. Great, so the extra tax I'm levied to make up for Amazon's skipping on theirs, you'll be paying, I assume? You've said it's harmless, so pay up. >Infrastructure isn't crumbling because of all the businesses that have been granted tax incentives, it's crumbling because taxes aren't high enough in general when you look at the obligations that local governments have entered into. Yes, obligations such as the routine subsidizing of intensely wealthy employers in an acknowledged race to the bottom.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Great, so the extra tax I'm levied to make up for Amazon's skipping on theirs The argument I'm making is that this is largely supposition and that no additional taxes will be imposed as a result of Amazon picking a given city. So sure, if your taxes don't go up at all, I'll gladly pick up that difference. Of course I haven't proven my case that taxes won't go up; but neither has anyone in this thread made a case for them inevitably going up. The incentive packages obviously violate some peoples ideas about what is fair, but that is different than the incentive packages obviously being an economic negative.
  - harrumph 9y ago
    >but neither has anyone in this thread made a case for them inevitably going up. Anyone unaware of the very tired routine by now has no business commenting on the role of private subsidy in public taxation. Not only have you missed that historically, taxes of all kinds as a category overwhelmingly rise, you have forgotten that taxes circulate back to taxpayers in the form of services and infrastructure. You are proposing diverting some chunk of this circulation into Cayman Island bank accounts while you are at the same time pretending there might be no net cost to this diversion for those who depend upon these services that they alone pay for but that all benefit from, not the least of which being beneficiaries such as tax deadbeats like Amazon. You believe in magic, or at least you believe in the proposals of intensely wealthy persons seeking subsidy. Same difference. Subsidizing intensely wealthy employers in an acknowledged race to the bottom may or may not immediately force non-subsidized taxpayers to pay x% more in tax or in now-privatized fees, but sure as shit these non-subsidized persons are forced to receive back less and less for what they pay. That is where and why the crumbling happens, you see: the rich asserting a quasi-divine right to get paid while bridges collapse, social fabric is torn and government is blamed. Enough already. We see through this grift by now.