4 ms·

> [That] post just described, by definition, a race to the bottom. I agree, though in this context we tend to term that "competition". In this case we are wat

> [That] post just described, by definition, a race to the bottom. I agree, though in this context we tend to term that "competition". In this case we are watching competition between states and localities to improve themselves and their tax bases. This strikes at the heart of how interstate commerce works and what the rights of the States are. Sections of the country competing with one another and taking various approaches to the same problems trying to find better solutions and proving them in practice is kinda fundamental to the American Experiment... Securing infrastructure investments with large corporations is the kind of thing that States are concerned with, and they are supposed to compete for the affection and attention of businesses. Tax code is one of the few levers they can pull in that pursuit.

grecy 8y ago
> I agree, though in this context we tend to term that "competition". And I'm really happy when there is competition between Apple and one of their suppliers. What is really sick about what you're talking about, is that it's competition between trillion-dollar Amazon and regular ordinary tax payers. When Amazon get the upper hand, they get more money, while the tax payers get crappier schools and government programs. You are literally talking about a corporation taking ('negotiating') bread from hungry people like it's a good thing.
- setr 8y ago
  If NY is losing money on this, then what you're saying is correct. If they're making money, then the taxpayers of NY are coming out positively. The tax break doesn't exist on its own: 10% of $1 versus 1% of $1000, and the latter is obviously the better deal. As GP stated, the alternative is that NY doesn't get Amazon's HQ, and gets 0% of $0. >You are literally talking about a corporation taking ('negotiating') bread from hungry people like it's a good thing. If you're going to make such an argument, you might as well claim that they should pay 99% in tax, because any lower a tax rate would be "taking bread from hungry people". Of course, this would be stupid: you'd make more money in year 1, the business would go under, and you're now making squat, and all the poor folks go hungry once more (plus the additional of everyone who just got fired). The percentage is not what matters here. You could argue instead that the overall country is worse off, but the US is a one that encourages state-level competition, and thats how it goes (ideally, states should be efficient with their limited funds, and taxes should be as low as possible to support their various infrastructures; state-competition encourages this, in the same fashion as any other part of the US economy).

grecy 8y ago

> I agree, though in this context we tend to term that "competition". And I'm really happy when there is competition between Apple and one of their suppliers. What is really sick about what you're talking about, is that it's competition between trillion-dollar Amazon and regular ordinary tax payers. When Amazon get the upper hand, they get more money, while the tax payers get crappier schools and government programs. You are literally talking about a corporation taking ('negotiating') bread from hungry people like it's a good thing.

setr 8y ago
If NY is losing money on this, then what you're saying is correct. If they're making money, then the taxpayers of NY are coming out positively. The tax break doesn't exist on its own: 10% of $1 versus 1% of $1000, and the latter is obviously the better deal. As GP stated, the alternative is that NY doesn't get Amazon's HQ, and gets 0% of $0. >You are literally talking about a corporation taking ('negotiating') bread from hungry people like it's a good thing. If you're going to make such an argument, you might as well claim that they should pay 99% in tax, because any lower a tax rate would be "taking bread from hungry people". Of course, this would be stupid: you'd make more money in year 1, the business would go under, and you're now making squat, and all the poor folks go hungry once more (plus the additional of everyone who just got fired). The percentage is not what matters here. You could argue instead that the overall country is worse off, but the US is a one that encourages state-level competition, and thats how it goes (ideally, states should be efficient with their limited funds, and taxes should be as low as possible to support their various infrastructures; state-competition encourages this, in the same fashion as any other part of the US economy).