Re:Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s ...
by rlanday on Friday February 15, 2019 @10:27AM
(#19171615)
States already compete on the basis of tax rates. That’s a very good thing. If you don’t like paying taxes out your butthole in California or New York, you can move to Texas or Nevada. It would be awful if the federal govenement told every state they had to have the same taxes as California. California can get away with abusing its residents because it has beaches and nice weather, but not every state can do that.
Re:Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s ...
by philipov on Friday February 15, 2019 @10:47AM
(#19171801)
Competing on tax rates that apply equally to everyone is not the same as selling exceptional treatment to the rich alone. That undermines the rule of law in favor of the rule of wealth. It is institutional bribery.
And I think that's where our disconnect here is. Most were advertising this deal at a net +$30bn revenue for the state over 10y, even after this $3bn deal. 25,000 highly-paid people brings serious money. Income tax revenue. Sales tax revenue. 25,000 property tax payments. That's before you consider auxiliary businesses you get serving a campus of 25k.
What I'm not saying is that New York should have made this deal. They would have lost some potential revenue, but that's not the issue. What I'm saying is that no city, no state should be able to barter tax rates. Allowing that means that Amazon is paying less tax on its operations and making them even harder to compete with for SMEs. That hurts the nation at large.