2 ms·
> If my city got a second headquarters for Amazon, I would have been ecstatic. Would you have been ecstatic if that came at a cost of $5000 a year (out of your
by bachmeier 8y ago
> If my city got a second headquarters for Amazon, I would have been ecstatic.
Would you have been ecstatic if that came at a cost of $5000 a year (out of your pocket)? There's a really big problem with these competitions in that the world sees the benefits (and even benefits that are more wishful thinking than actual) but they don't see the cost.
Maybe a simpler way to look at the issue is to ask why local governments don't pay people to move into their cities. After all, growth is a good thing, more people means more jobs, more jobs means more income, more stuff gets sold, more tax revenue comes in. All the supposed benefits that come from the Amazon HQ apply equally to paying people to move to the city. Yet it's rare to hear anyone argue for that policy.
- esoterica 8y agoWhy do you think it would cost taxpayers extra money to lure Amazon to their city? Corporations and high-income skilled workers pay far more in taxes than they cost the city in public services. If someone pays $20k in local taxes and uses $5k worth of public services, you can give them a 50% tax break to lure them to the city and still make $5k off them. > Maybe a simpler way to look at the issue is to ask why local governments don't pay people to move into their cities. Vermont is doing that right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/vermont-moving-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/vermont-moving-money.h... . The problem with that approach is that people usually move to where the jobs are, so paying corporations to move is more effective than paying people to do so.