3 ms·
To be fair; their biggest example is a company pulling out after functionally going bankrupt. That's more to do with 'be careful who you play ball with' and g
by w0m 9y ago
To be fair; their biggest example is a company pulling out after functionally going bankrupt. That's more to do with 'be careful who you play ball with' and general risk of doing business at all than method used. They complain they aren't getting tax revenue they planned ~15 years later - but that also is compared to not getting any revenue from the company not being located there in the first place.
Do i want my city to give Amazon a huge incentive package? Probably not, I think we're moving in a good direction already. Would I be upset if they promised significant public transit improvements as a lure to Amazon? Not at all; long overdue civic improvements that likely will never get approved else-wise.
- cratermoon 9y ago> not getting any revenue from the company not being located there in the first place This has to be balanced against the cost to the municipality over the years the company would have been there. The tax breaks and incentives may generate revenue, but as the story notes, the fully burdened cost to the government may wipe out any additional tax revenue. It is proper to ask "what additional costs did taxpayers bear that they wouldn't have if the company had not located there?"
- w0m 9y agoAgreed - it's a balance.