Your argument implies a race to the bottom in which the only way to "win" is not to play, since otherwise you drive taxes for megarich as near 0 as you can bear

Your argument implies a race to the bottom in which the only way to "win" is not to play, since otherwise you drive taxes for megarich as near 0 as you can bear. I prefer the approach where if we lose them, "tough nuts." Revenue should be robust and diversified, and losing no individual source should be a death blow. Similarly, good services and local effects should be the goal to draw people in, not handouts, as this aligns incentives _far_ better while still maintaining workable bases of revenue. This is not to say "ONLY tax the rich", the parent post seemed to me to be making the wise argument that there's a line here, but the fact that the focus is so much on these few individuals makes me think we're already off in left field, and bowing to them further isn't the direction I want to move in, even if it may cause a temporary revenue hit. So yes, "they (NY) get zilch." But they've also made a strong statement about corporate handouts (my own opinions aside about whether it was a smart choice or not) and will not stop being NY and will not stop being desirable because of this; FLA is not going to supplant them even if amazon decides to go there alongside whatever megarich actually care enough about the taxes to _not be in NY_. (Now, NY's inability to develop infrastructure within reasonable cost may do that over the next hundred years or so, but that's to be seen, and I don't think losing a few billionaires is going to make or break that)