Or, you'll lose out on all the businesses that won't start or expand there because the baseline level of taxation is too unfavorable for the economy (in either sense of the word) that the city offers.

It's almost like taxing easily-moveable economic activity is a bad idea.

And yet there's a huge number of businesses that do have presences in NYC because the tax revenue funds all sorts of things that make NYC attractive to businesses that can't be gotten elsewhere.

A lot of what makes NYC great (like the 24/7 public transit system, the best in the country) costs serious money to operate. You need to get that money from tax revenue.

And businesses aren't actually easily-movable, not at all.

>And yet there's a huge number of businesses that do have presences in NYC because the tax revenue funds all sorts of things that make NYC attractive to businesses that can't be gotten elsewhere.

Most of which were present there because they set up a long time ago. The current environment makes it so that you pretty much have to get a discount to make it worth starting there, per the famous reddit comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/9wploz/ocasiocortez_bl...

>And businesses aren't actually easily-movable, not at all.

"Where they decide to locate new offices" is.

If that's true, then fix it for all businesses, not just for Amazon. Amazon deserves the white glove treatment the least.

On that point, I agree.

^ For anyone doubting this, Planet Money did an excellent podcast on how this phenomenon played out in Kansas City with corporations like Applebee's, and cost the city millions:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/11/16/668769284/epis...

You could easily argue it put Kansas City on the map.

Kansas City is at least a well known name in the tech world now, when there's plenty of other midwest cities of similar size that rarely get brought up.

Millions would be a steal for the revenue becoming a tech hub would bring in. Even if it does take a more than a decade to be realized.

News to me kansas city is popular in the tech world now.

I didn't say popular.

Cities of similar size: Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Louisville, Oklahoma City (and more).

Out of these, Kansas City comes up more often tech wise. I waste a good bit of time on sites like this discussing tech related matters, and not once have I read an article involving any of these cities.

This is why I said well known and on the map, not 'popular'.

How did giving Applebee's a tax discount put KC on the map for tech?

What's the problem with governments competing? That's not a "race to the bottom" any more than competition is a "race to the bottom" in market economics. It is a forcing function on efficiency and good governance where there would otherwise be no competitive pressure.

The counter-point to race to the bottom, is this is an important aspect of pressure in a democratic capitalism to prevent government as a leviathan. The government has a natural incentive to want to raise more revenue, and increase power. A strong market that can stifle these, at times potentially inefficient taxes, can provide a natural check on this.

Obviously the truth is that there are bad aspects of a race to the bottom as well as positive attributes. Finding the balance requires nuance and grace by the leaders who navigate these uncertain waters.

If a city signs up for a money losing deal, that’s on them. They should have negotiated better.

I mean, clearly we haven't signed up for the money-losing deal, as the deal has been canceled because of opposition and no give-aways will ever be made to Amazon.

I wasn’t referring to the NYC deal specifically.