4 ms·

The idea of those incentives is to lessen the difficulties of expanding into your city and in return they are moving to your city. For a small company these mig

The idea of those incentives is to lessen the difficulties of expanding into your city and in return they are moving to your city. For a small company these might be large difficulties, for a company the size of amazon they are very small in comparison. Thus, the only reason it is "in your best interest" is a prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Any city has two options: A) hurt yourself by making big concessions, B) don't do that. (Obviously also various degrees of A, but that does not matter in the following). Ideally for your city and all cities, every city goes with B) and you get the deal by virtue of what should matter (existing infrastructure, location,...). However, if another city "caves" and offers A) they improve their chances, so what happens is that all cities offer A). That decision is "in your own best interest", but everybody is worse off than if nobody did that (same for bribery and paying "protection money" to the mafia). Thus, yes I am opposed to Amazon receiving the benefits of these programs. However, instead of repealing them outright, they should include a ceiling.

whack 8y ago
Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. NYC charges all residents an income tax to live in the city. Most other cities don't have such a tax, and this leads to the same prisoner's dilemma. Hence, every city should now be morally obligated to charge the same income tax that NYC does. Similarly for state income taxes as well. If that sounds absurd, I certainly think it is. Local governments shouldn't be trying to "profit" by taxing its residents and companies. The whole purpose of local taxes is to best serve local residents and companies. If a city/state can better serve its people by lowering its taxes or by offering tax credits for specific programs, it should certainly do so, even if there's no competition involved. There is no prisoner's dilemma here.

whack 8y ago

Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. NYC charges all residents an income tax to live in the city. Most other cities don't have such a tax, and this leads to the same prisoner's dilemma. Hence, every city should now be morally obligated to charge the same income tax that NYC does. Similarly for state income taxes as well. If that sounds absurd, I certainly think it is. Local governments shouldn't be trying to "profit" by taxing its residents and companies. The whole purpose of local taxes is to best serve local residents and companies. If a city/state can better serve its people by lowering its taxes or by offering tax credits for specific programs, it should certainly do so, even if there's no competition involved. There is no prisoner's dilemma here.