The inverse of your claim is also evident even in other dimensions. Both NYC and SV are extremely capital inefficient places to operate your business and scale up an organization relative to other locations. The high cost of living, commercial real estate, and upward adjusted compensation expectations, are a kind of implicit tax relative to other areas, but... that hasn't stopped nearly the entirety of the financial and tech markets from hunkering down in their respective locales for a whole variety of reasons which make that comparative nominal capital inefficiency assumed to be more than worth it by employers and investors.
Can you elaborate and/or substantiate your position?
The world isn't black and white -- there are more factors in the world of business than just city tax policy. Weather, labor supply, image, capital supply, access to global trade, desirability for company decision makers, and other network effects explain NYC and SV. I hope that isn't controversial. For cities that have similar 'intangibles' going for them, I'd imagine city policy makes a big difference.
[0] https://www.geekwire.com/2017/new-bitcoin-regulations-shake-...
Just trying to clarify.
These kinds of tax breaks and incentives between cities create an interesting market that acts as a check against excessive taxation, similar to how consumers force competing companies to lower prices and improve products. In my opinion, the problem is when the policies very clearly benefit a small group of players (or one) and aren't accessible to the market as a whole (which is quite frequent). Some federal verbiage preventing such specialized tax exemptions would go a long way, forcing cities to compete on city-wide tax plans, rather than being able to buy one big company at the expense of smaller taxpayers that have less power to relocate or negotiate.