Re:Promising Billions to Amazon: Is It a Good Deal for Cities?
by trgv on Saturday January 27, 2018 @02:03PM
(#16247515)
I feel like you missed my point. I'm not saying this is good or that it should continue.
I'm saying that, in the context of the world as it exists today, if I am the mayor of Boston, it will benefit my city to offer Amazon tax breaks to entice them to build there.
Re:Promising Billions to Amazon: Is It a Good Deal for Cities?
by Anon1096 on Saturday January 27, 2018 @12:09PM
(#16246943)
A city's tax revenue isn't "lower than it should be" with Amazon's headquarters (subsidized by the taxpayer). If they don't attract Amazon, they don't get any money at all. With Amazon, they get increased employment and all the taxes employees are now paying. And all the benefits of having a tech giant centered in your jurisdiction. It's a win-win for Amazon and any cities willing to play.
This has nothing to do with Amazon "playing games" and everything to do with politicians making deals so multi-billion dollar companies can avoid their tax obligations. Hilarious, anywhere else in the world it's called corruption, but in America "It's just business"
>They may very well be making a good decision from their narrow perspective, and the city that Amazon chooses may very well see a net increase in tax revenue.
There is no universe where that is true. It just means all the cities are in a race to the bottom competition. Sure their tax revenue may have net increased, but it will be by a much lower amount than it should be.
"Net increase in tax revenue at all costs" is not the goal here.
What do you think is going to happen when this happens all across America, and every time a monster company does something they get out of paying billions in tax?