5 ms·

An arcane new accounting standard is helping reporters follow the money

43 points by danso 8y ago

fjsolwmv 8y ago
This is an article about a news article. Original article is here: https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-disclosures-show-atlanta-companies-that-profit-from-tax-breaks/yucUJNyGk1ldpKt9wsGeZJ/ https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-disclosu...
- danso 8y ago
  Sorry but I have to make an objection here. What I submitted is an article about several articles; its premise is that a relatively unknown regulation has made it possible to efficiently scrutinize tax breaks in virtually every jurisdiction nationwide, and that is what some reporters have taken advantage of. The AJC article is good, but its intended audience is Atlanta region taxpayers, and those who benefit or are harmed by regional decisions. It does not focus on the regulation, or how/why reporters were able to do this story in the present age. The CJR story is more generally interesting because it reveals more about the general circumstances regarding (non-)transparency and impact of tax breaks.
UncleEntity 8y ago
Presumably the tax breaks lead to further taxation through increased economic activity so it isn't a clear cut case of a library "loosing" $3 million a year as the article implies. Mesa, Az gives Honeywell a property tax break and all the highly paid tech workers drive up the property values and sales tax revenue &etc. Of course discounting political kickbacks which I'm sure are rampant because, well, politicians.
marcoperaza 8y ago
This can be very misleading. Say a city gives Amazon a big tax break to encourage it to move there. So instead of paying $5 million in taxes it pays $2 million. The city didn’t lose $3 million, it gained $2 million + ripple effects of economic growth - increased costs to administer the city resulting from that growth . So it’s almost certainly better off.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Others pay the full tax, to support the infrastructure they receive. Amazon gets that for 1/4 the price. Meaning the rest of the city is supporting their share. No, its increased burden on the city at a bargain-basement price. No kind of 'better off', at least not the first year or two.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    You’re just filling in my equation with very unlikely numbers. When considering the cost of administration, you have to remember that the the marginal cost of administration caused by the new company is much lower than the resulting average cost. You’re right that there might still be a moral problem though. Perhaps it is unfair that some pay full tax and others don’t. I’m inclined to agree, but the tax code is full of such inequities to begin with: deductions for tuition, mortgages, health care, children; exemptions from sales tax for certain kinds of goods; luxury and sin taxes; wealth taxes on land but not other property; progressive taxation of income; etc. Unless we move to a flat tax applied uniformly, that won’t change.
    - toyg 8y ago
      You are mixing unfairness among theoretically equal actors (regular businesses vs Amazon) and disparities that are supported by societal values. Progressive taxation is a moral imperative to correct excessive disparity; marriage allowances promote fertility and societal stability; and so and so forth. You are free to make the argument that targeted tax breaks can be worth the cost to the rest of society, but you cannot brush off the entirety of tax laws as morally unjust when the exact opposite is true.
      - agensaequivocum 8y ago
        > Progressive taxation is a moral imperative to correct excessive disparity. That relies on the premise that disparity is evil. What is the argument for that?

43 points by danso 8y ago

This is an article about a news article. Original article is here: https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-disclosures-show-atlanta-companies-that-profit-from-tax-breaks/yucUJNyGk1ldpKt9wsGeZJ/ https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-disclosu...

danso 8y ago
Sorry but I have to make an objection here. What I submitted is an article about several articles; its premise is that a relatively unknown regulation has made it possible to efficiently scrutinize tax breaks in virtually every jurisdiction nationwide, and that is what some reporters have taken advantage of. The AJC article is good, but its intended audience is Atlanta region taxpayers, and those who benefit or are harmed by regional decisions. It does not focus on the regulation, or how/why reporters were able to do this story in the present age. The CJR story is more generally interesting because it reveals more about the general circumstances regarding (non-)transparency and impact of tax breaks.

UncleEntity 8y ago

Presumably the tax breaks lead to further taxation through increased economic activity so it isn't a clear cut case of a library "loosing" $3 million a year as the article implies. Mesa, Az gives Honeywell a property tax break and all the highly paid tech workers drive up the property values and sales tax revenue &etc. Of course discounting political kickbacks which I'm sure are rampant because, well, politicians.

marcoperaza 8y ago

This can be very misleading. Say a city gives Amazon a big tax break to encourage it to move there. So instead of paying $5 million in taxes it pays $2 million. The city didn’t lose $3 million, it gained $2 million + ripple effects of economic growth - increased costs to administer the city resulting from that growth . So it’s almost certainly better off.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Others pay the full tax, to support the infrastructure they receive. Amazon gets that for 1/4 the price. Meaning the rest of the city is supporting their share. No, its increased burden on the city at a bargain-basement price. No kind of 'better off', at least not the first year or two.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  You’re just filling in my equation with very unlikely numbers. When considering the cost of administration, you have to remember that the the marginal cost of administration caused by the new company is much lower than the resulting average cost. You’re right that there might still be a moral problem though. Perhaps it is unfair that some pay full tax and others don’t. I’m inclined to agree, but the tax code is full of such inequities to begin with: deductions for tuition, mortgages, health care, children; exemptions from sales tax for certain kinds of goods; luxury and sin taxes; wealth taxes on land but not other property; progressive taxation of income; etc. Unless we move to a flat tax applied uniformly, that won’t change.
  - toyg 8y ago
    You are mixing unfairness among theoretically equal actors (regular businesses vs Amazon) and disparities that are supported by societal values. Progressive taxation is a moral imperative to correct excessive disparity; marriage allowances promote fertility and societal stability; and so and so forth. You are free to make the argument that targeted tax breaks can be worth the cost to the rest of society, but you cannot brush off the entirety of tax laws as morally unjust when the exact opposite is true.
    - agensaequivocum 8y ago
      > Progressive taxation is a moral imperative to correct excessive disparity. That relies on the premise that disparity is evil. What is the argument for that?