News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Amazon HQ2 finalists should refuse tax breaks, say nearly 100 economists. Parent comment

Re:Amazon HQ2 finalists should refuse tax breaks, say nearly... by tptacek on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @11:12AM (#16274914)
The law you posted prohibits the state of California from requiring that any of its own employees travel to a discriminating state, excepting a very broad list of essential purposes. I don't see the contractor thing you're referring to.

You also seem to be describing a case where California is a direct market participant (they're paying the contractors). States are allowed to discriminate in favor of their own citizens (or, I guess, anyone else) when they themselves participate in the market.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon HQ2 finalists should refuse tax breaks, say nearly... by danielvf on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @11:22AM (#16275000)
Yes, possibly legal. Still a form of economic sanctions though.

It's not just that they don't require employees to travel there, they also don't pay for trips "This bill would prohibit a state agency from ... approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to ..."

The bill doesn't explicitly forbid government employees (and by extension, the government of California) from doing business with North Carolina - it just adds personal, out-of-pocket cost for doing so. (which probably amounts to the same effect.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Amazon HQ2 finalists should refuse tax breaks, say nearly... by tptacek on Wednesday January 31, 2018 @11:48AM (#16275223)
In the scenario you propose, California isn't prohibited from paying to fly NC contractors to CA.

Travel from a prohibited state, including the return flight back, shall be construed as travel “to” the original destination.

[ Parent | on HN ]