3 ms·

Yes, yes I have heard this explanation a million times, but it's utter nonsense. The whole system was designed with what you said in mind. The company is suppo

by grecy 9y ago

Yes, yes I have heard this explanation a million times, but it's utter nonsense. The whole system was designed with what you said in mind. The company is supposed to pay their taxes (foo) AND the city is supposed to collect the taxes from employees (bar). The whole system needs everyone to contribute their right amount so there is enough money for schools, health care, police, roads, libraries, etc. etc. Yes, Amazon's foo is very large, because they make a massive amount of profit!! Also the bar they create will be very large, because they have a lot of employees. The fact it's a large amount changes nothing. The city they are in needs BOTH of those to function correctly. With all those massive buildings and employees the city will need new schools, roads, more police, more libraries, etc. etc. Amazon get to use the roads of the town, the water infrastructure, the elec infrastructure, the education, the police, etc. etc. to make their massive profit. Who do you expect to pay for all of that, other than Amazon through their foo tax? That's precisely why the foo tax exists, and amazon get to avoid paying it they can make massive profit without paying for the basic stuff - so now the regular citizens need to! The whole thing requires the full amount of foo+bar to pay for all of that stuff. But of course we all know America has terrible tax-payer funded services compared to the other OECD countries.

i_cant_speel 9y ago
That would be something that goes into the calculation of the tax incentives. If the added infrastructure is going to cost more than the bar tax, than it wouldn't be worth it. What makes you say that the bar tax would be insufficient to cover the extra costs?
strictnein 9y ago
Your understanding of how things are funded in the US is very flawed. It's not surprising, since a lot of people outside of the US have very flawed views on how things work here. The rest of what you're saying is also rather inaccurate as well.
- tabeth 9y ago
  Why don't you correct them if you believe it is inaccurate?
  - strictnein 9y ago
    Because I have far more important things to do than correct paragraphs of inaccurate statements.
maxerickson 9y ago
If you go look at the "design" documents for US municipalities, the various incorporation documents, you will see that they speak directly to abating taxes to incentivize development. Here's an example from 1898 (not sure if this charter is still in effect in the Baltimore): https://books.google.com/books?id=UVuiQ5HKgqoC&lpg=PA152&ots=Wh7Uhuo4dr&dq=baltimore%20charter%20incorporation&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=baltimore%20charter%20incorporation&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=UVuiQ5HKgqoC&lpg=PA152&ots... So there are in fact legal mechanisms, deeply rooted in the laws of municipalities. The stuff you are claiming is foundational to making the system work is just wrong. I didn't go digging for an example that would prove my point, I searched for a city I recalled competing for the HQ2 and went with the second one I searched (The first page of results for Austin didn't turn up an obvious document).
- namelost 9y ago
  When the EU decided that Apple had not paid enough tax to Ireland, they made Ireland collect the extra tax. Giving tax discounts to favoured corporations is anti-social, and has long been punished at an international level (e.g. via countervailing duties). The amount of double-think required to accept it at a domestic level is astounding.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Sure, favoring particular businesses is ripe for corruption and difficult to justify. But the other poster is making an argument that tax abatement is somehow against the system, something that is pretty obviously wrong. They don't want to stick to arguing that it is anti-social or foolish or whatever, they've decided that abating taxes is illegal (even though it is legal) and that it is contrary to how cities are supposed to fund themselves (even though it is written into the foundational documents of many municipalities).
ballenf 9y ago
One question because I respect your position: do you believe that cities should have any tools available to incentivize "preferred" companies to come to the city? I'm guessing your answer would be it can design its tax code so long as the tax code applies to all comers that meet the agnostic definitions therein. The problem, however, is that opens up the question as to how fine-grained the definitions can become. It's not very hard to write tax regulations that are so narrow they only apply to one company while still on the surface appearing to be agnostic and naming no company. IMO, it's a sliding scale of specificity and maybe you're right that there is a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed, but it's more difficult than you suggest to figure out and describe where that line should be.
mindcrime 9y ago
But of course we all know America has terrible tax-payer funded services compared to the other OECD countries. That's a feature, not a bug. Quite many of us, including many of the Founders, believed/believe that the proper scope for government is very narrow, basically just "protect individual rights". Quite a few of us think, to this day, that the government is involved in too many taxpayer funded services as it is. You are, of course, free to disagree with that position. But understand that things (w/r/t taxpayer funded services) operate the way they do here for a reason and not just due to happenstance.
- scarmig 9y ago
  The "Founders" can go fuck themselves. Most of them believed in using state violence to enslave, rape, and murder non-whites, among countless other atrocities.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    The "Founders" can go fuck themselves. Most of them believed in using state violence to enslave, rape, and murder non-whites, among countless other atrocities. I actually agree with you on that. My point was just that the US stance with regards to tax-payer subsidization isn't some accident. And, again, one can choose to disagree with those Americans who want an extremely limited government, but one has to acknowledge that this is a position that is held by many people, for very rational reasons.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Most of them believed in using state violence to enslave, rape, and murder non-whites, among countless other atrocities And the rest of them believed that institutionalizing protection of the ability of the first set to do that was an acceptable cost of unity, such that the Constitution is riddled with elements contrived largely for that purpose, only some of which have since been purged by more enlightened successors to the Founders.

by grecy 9y ago

i_cant_speel 9y ago

That would be something that goes into the calculation of the tax incentives. If the added infrastructure is going to cost more than the bar tax, than it wouldn't be worth it. What makes you say that the bar tax would be insufficient to cover the extra costs?

strictnein 9y ago

Your understanding of how things are funded in the US is very flawed. It's not surprising, since a lot of people outside of the US have very flawed views on how things work here. The rest of what you're saying is also rather inaccurate as well.

tabeth 9y ago
Why don't you correct them if you believe it is inaccurate?
- strictnein 9y ago
  Because I have far more important things to do than correct paragraphs of inaccurate statements.

maxerickson 9y ago

If you go look at the "design" documents for US municipalities, the various incorporation documents, you will see that they speak directly to abating taxes to incentivize development. Here's an example from 1898 (not sure if this charter is still in effect in the Baltimore): https://books.google.com/books?id=UVuiQ5HKgqoC&lpg=PA152&ots=Wh7Uhuo4dr&dq=baltimore%20charter%20incorporation&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=baltimore%20charter%20incorporation&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=UVuiQ5HKgqoC&lpg=PA152&ots... So there are in fact legal mechanisms, deeply rooted in the laws of municipalities. The stuff you are claiming is foundational to making the system work is just wrong. I didn't go digging for an example that would prove my point, I searched for a city I recalled competing for the HQ2 and went with the second one I searched (The first page of results for Austin didn't turn up an obvious document).

namelost 9y ago
When the EU decided that Apple had not paid enough tax to Ireland, they made Ireland collect the extra tax. Giving tax discounts to favoured corporations is anti-social, and has long been punished at an international level (e.g. via countervailing duties). The amount of double-think required to accept it at a domestic level is astounding.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Sure, favoring particular businesses is ripe for corruption and difficult to justify. But the other poster is making an argument that tax abatement is somehow against the system, something that is pretty obviously wrong. They don't want to stick to arguing that it is anti-social or foolish or whatever, they've decided that abating taxes is illegal (even though it is legal) and that it is contrary to how cities are supposed to fund themselves (even though it is written into the foundational documents of many municipalities).

ballenf 9y ago

One question because I respect your position: do you believe that cities should have any tools available to incentivize "preferred" companies to come to the city? I'm guessing your answer would be it can design its tax code so long as the tax code applies to all comers that meet the agnostic definitions therein. The problem, however, is that opens up the question as to how fine-grained the definitions can become. It's not very hard to write tax regulations that are so narrow they only apply to one company while still on the surface appearing to be agnostic and naming no company. IMO, it's a sliding scale of specificity and maybe you're right that there is a line somewhere that shouldn't be crossed, but it's more difficult than you suggest to figure out and describe where that line should be.

mindcrime 9y ago

But of course we all know America has terrible tax-payer funded services compared to the other OECD countries. That's a feature, not a bug. Quite many of us, including many of the Founders, believed/believe that the proper scope for government is very narrow, basically just "protect individual rights". Quite a few of us think, to this day, that the government is involved in too many taxpayer funded services as it is. You are, of course, free to disagree with that position. But understand that things (w/r/t taxpayer funded services) operate the way they do here for a reason and not just due to happenstance.

scarmig 9y ago
The "Founders" can go fuck themselves. Most of them believed in using state violence to enslave, rape, and murder non-whites, among countless other atrocities.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  The "Founders" can go fuck themselves. Most of them believed in using state violence to enslave, rape, and murder non-whites, among countless other atrocities. I actually agree with you on that. My point was just that the US stance with regards to tax-payer subsidization isn't some accident. And, again, one can choose to disagree with those Americans who want an extremely limited government, but one has to acknowledge that this is a position that is held by many people, for very rational reasons.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Most of them believed in using state violence to enslave, rape, and murder non-whites, among countless other atrocities And the rest of them believed that institutionalizing protection of the ability of the first set to do that was an acceptable cost of unity, such that the Constitution is riddled with elements contrived largely for that purpose, only some of which have since been purged by more enlightened successors to the Founders.