3 ms·

It's also the tax breaks. >Of the billions in tax incentives granted to US companies every year by cities and states, many agreements require workers to come i

It's also the tax breaks. >Of the billions in tax incentives granted to US companies every year by cities and states, many agreements require workers to come into the office some of the time, or at least live in the region. For companies receiving these incentives, relaxing in-office attendance could be costly. >The state [New Jersey] said it will revoke benefits granted under the multibillion-dollar Enterprise Zone Program to companies whose employees no longer work on site at least half the time. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t... https://archive.is/eOeIv https://archive.is/eOeIv

logicchains 3y ago
I wonder why that is? I suppose the governments of states with big cities stand to lose a lot of tax revenue if employees no longer need to go to those big cities to do their jobs, and can instead work from (and pay tax to) states with lower cost of living.
- tyingq 3y ago
  The "zone" programs are for specific, limited, areas where the government entity wants to see the company employees spend their money. Generally areas that neThe tax break to the business is because their employees are spending money in the area where the office is located...some area in need of renewal/spending. With WFH, the employees stay at home in their upscale suburb areas that don't need artificial incentives to attract money.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Exactly. The government of an area could spend $3m (say) to try to revitalize an area of town, but that might not even pay for redoing the sidewalks or whatever. So instead they give a $3m tax credit to a largish company to locate in that area, which brings in X number of employees each day; and those employees will eat lunch nearby, etc. And then stores begin to open around that area because the demand is there. If done right, the government gets way more than $3m worth of redevelopment, and more than $3m in increased incidental tax revenue (sales tax, etc). If done wrong it's a horrible flop, but they're usually just out tax money they wound't have received anyway. This is why you see it being done so often. WFH is disrupting this strategy.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The whole point is these states/locales offered big tax incentives to companies to open offices in their states, with the benefit being that companies would bring jobs and tax revenue to those states. With remote work the primary benefit to those states is lost. Perhaps one other benefit to remote work is states will stop with this "race to the bottom", where big, rich companies pit states against each other for bigger handouts. Remember the whole "Amazon HQ2" fiasco from a couple years back where all these states got totally played by Amazon? With increased remote work an "HQ2" makes even less sense.

logicchains 3y ago

I wonder why that is? I suppose the governments of states with big cities stand to lose a lot of tax revenue if employees no longer need to go to those big cities to do their jobs, and can instead work from (and pay tax to) states with lower cost of living.

tyingq 3y ago
The "zone" programs are for specific, limited, areas where the government entity wants to see the company employees spend their money. Generally areas that neThe tax break to the business is because their employees are spending money in the area where the office is located...some area in need of renewal/spending. With WFH, the employees stay at home in their upscale suburb areas that don't need artificial incentives to attract money.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Exactly. The government of an area could spend $3m (say) to try to revitalize an area of town, but that might not even pay for redoing the sidewalks or whatever. So instead they give a $3m tax credit to a largish company to locate in that area, which brings in X number of employees each day; and those employees will eat lunch nearby, etc. And then stores begin to open around that area because the demand is there. If done right, the government gets way more than $3m worth of redevelopment, and more than $3m in increased incidental tax revenue (sales tax, etc). If done wrong it's a horrible flop, but they're usually just out tax money they wound't have received anyway. This is why you see it being done so often. WFH is disrupting this strategy.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
The whole point is these states/locales offered big tax incentives to companies to open offices in their states, with the benefit being that companies would bring jobs and tax revenue to those states. With remote work the primary benefit to those states is lost. Perhaps one other benefit to remote work is states will stop with this "race to the bottom", where big, rich companies pit states against each other for bigger handouts. Remember the whole "Amazon HQ2" fiasco from a couple years back where all these states got totally played by Amazon? With increased remote work an "HQ2" makes even less sense.