Larger stores, compared to smaller stores, have access to more methods to reduce their tax burden. For example, they have the capital to build a dedicated stor

Larger stores, compared to smaller stores, have access to more methods to reduce their tax burden. For example, they have the capital to build a dedicated store for their needs, then place deed restrictions on resale use to prohibit competition, and to have those former sites - which essentially always pay lower tax rates - included as comparables for tax assessment purposes. Eg, https://ilsr.org/dark-store-tax-tactic-makes-big-box-stores-terrible-deal-for-cities/ https://ilsr.org/dark-store-tax-tactic-makes-big-box-stores-... . For another example, a store with the name "PandaMan" may not actually own the trademark to "PandaMan" but instead pay "PM Trademark Holdings", a Delaware LLC, for trademark use. This is a business expense, which reduces the local taxes, and the choice of state LLC can be chosen to reduce overall taxes. Delaware does not charge income tax on royalties. https://troyandschwartzlaw.com/2020/09/holding-companies-strategy-ip-asset-protection-understanding-pros-cons/ https://troyandschwartzlaw.com/2020/09/holding-companies-str... These are called "loopholes" and are of course completely legal. As a result, big box stores pay far than smaller stores in mixed-use areas , when measured in net tax revenue acre. ("Net" is important since it costs the government money to provide the roads, water, sewer, etc.) For example, from https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/11/how-mixed-use-development-can-raise-tax-base https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/02/11/how-mixed-use-de... regarding Carmel, Indiana: > When left to the market to allow developers to build what they build,” the result is strip centers, he says. “Even nice retail, like the Target on the west side, generates a half million in assessed value per acre.” Stand-alone office buildings generate $1 million to 1.5 million in assessed value per acre, he explains. > “Then you look at redevelopment projects that the mayor and council have done together,” he says. “Instead of a million or a half million per acre, we are netting $23 million in assessed value per acre, $20 million in assessed value per acre. Twenty times the assessed value from redevelopment projects. That locks us into a positive tax generating position for the next hundred years. This is smart planning.” This has been true for a long time, like this 2008 summary of a report from 2003, at https://cdn.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bbtk-factsheet-publiccosts.pdf https://cdn.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bbtk-factshe... , which shows a net-negative revenue for big box stores, due to the lower tax revenue per acre and higher infrastructure costs than specialty retailers, which had a net positive tax revenue. So maybe the government should say the existing costs to subsidize Walmart are high enough, that government-provided police protection is too much, and if Walmart's business model can't afford additional internal security then it's time for Walmart to leave the area, and let the government support other businesses which both need less subsidizes and provide higher tax revenue.