4 ms·

It's interesting that this is true, because (at the state level, not federal) this is table stakes to lure large corporations to locate in one state over anothe

It's interesting that this is true, because (at the state level, not federal) this is table stakes to lure large corporations to locate in one state over another. Just look at some of the pitches cities/states have been making to Amazon for their HQ2, or the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/05/foxconn-package-cost-wisconsin-eight-times-much-per-job-similar-2017-state-jobs-deals/1080214001/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/05/foxc...

throwaway2048 9y ago
This is very negative behaviour in sum, because it becomes a race to the bottom where you either forgo all tax revenue, or you dont attract large companies. Its good the EU has rules in place to prevent this destructive behaviour.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > This is very negative behaviour in sum, because it becomes a race to the bottom where you either forgo all tax revenue, or you dont attract large companies. It's not just that. The race to the bottom isn't really a thing because companies cost states money. They require the state to increase the resources they spend on transit capacity and emergency services etc. The only reason states want companies is because the amount of taxes they pay exceeds the amount of expenditures they require. So there is no race to have zero taxes, the competition is only to tax companies no more than the amount of government services they consume. Which isn't especially problematic. The real problem is that if states make special rules for large companies, it gives them an advantage over smaller companies, which destroys local businesses in favor of international ones. Then next year some other place gives the huge company a better deal and the city is devastated because the company displaced a huge chunk of the local economy and now they're leaving and taking it with them. If states want to compete by having low taxes, great. But nobody should be getting special treatment like that.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  I don't see the negative outcome. Cities know the economic activity of 50,000 highly paid workers makes up for the loss of some property tax revenue. The alternative is no highly paid jobs and no property tax revenue (as the land is undeveloped).
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Then give the same opportunities to all the companies not only to some

throwaway2048 9y ago

This is very negative behaviour in sum, because it becomes a race to the bottom where you either forgo all tax revenue, or you dont attract large companies. Its good the EU has rules in place to prevent this destructive behaviour.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> This is very negative behaviour in sum, because it becomes a race to the bottom where you either forgo all tax revenue, or you dont attract large companies. It's not just that. The race to the bottom isn't really a thing because companies cost states money. They require the state to increase the resources they spend on transit capacity and emergency services etc. The only reason states want companies is because the amount of taxes they pay exceeds the amount of expenditures they require. So there is no race to have zero taxes, the competition is only to tax companies no more than the amount of government services they consume. Which isn't especially problematic. The real problem is that if states make special rules for large companies, it gives them an advantage over smaller companies, which destroys local businesses in favor of international ones. Then next year some other place gives the huge company a better deal and the city is devastated because the company displaced a huge chunk of the local economy and now they're leaving and taking it with them. If states want to compete by having low taxes, great. But nobody should be getting special treatment like that.
macspoofing 9y ago
I don't see the negative outcome. Cities know the economic activity of 50,000 highly paid workers makes up for the loss of some property tax revenue. The alternative is no highly paid jobs and no property tax revenue (as the land is undeveloped).
- Oletros 9y ago
  Then give the same opportunities to all the companies not only to some