g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 125,724
- 69,461
- 2,605
Banning tax expenditures would enable a government to lower tax rates for everyone, and that would be enticement enough.It is government picking winners and losers, which is completely antithetical to conservatism and libertarianism.Oh, I see. So just the local mom and pops have to pay the full freight.Why does every other company in the area have to pay the full property tax, and Apple doesn't?
Who says every other company is?
Cities and states offer abatements to attract businesses. They create jobs and new taxation for the city and state.
They are allowing 71% reduction meaning that they are collecting 29% of taxes they would not otherwise collect if the land were to sit there. That's 2,000 acres that they will be paying that 29% on. That's a hell of a lot of money.
That sounds fair...
Sorry, but life isn't fair and neither is taxation.
Only a pseudocon would support this kind of government interference and behavioral control in the markets.
Well I have some bad news for ya, and that is taxes are different in every state, city and town even without abatements. So if a business is concerned about taxation, they will move to a city or state that has lower taxes than the others. You're not going to have a flat state or city tax rate across the country because the federal government doesn't (and can''t) regulate local taxation. So areas lowering their tax rate to be the most business attractive is the only move they have.
Even better, a state could enact a Fair Tax and do away with taxes on production altogether.