Wait, what? So now I'm wrong?

Now you are wrong, off topic, and probably retarded.

 

-----signature-----

Fixed for a specific that deserved to be pointed out.

 

-----signature-----

Obviously I am talking about how and why states encourage businesses to locate there. You said that was a problem and are yet to explain why. The Government doesn't pick anything with regards to this topic. You seem to think there is a relation but are unable to articulate it. Competition and free enterprise are why states vie for businesses to locate in their state. Rain or shine this is true. What does that have to do with the original topic? Don't know, don't care. I'm asking you to back up what you said. I see them as two separate subjects and you as someone who blurted out something rather unrelated and unsupportable.

States working to attract businesses is a naturally occurring economic phenomenon. You say it's a problem. I've simply asked you why. So far your response is that states do it because other states do it. That is not an answer. It's a restatement of what you see as a problem. Since it's actually a function of competition and free enterprise I asked you what issues you had with competition and free enterprise.

What part of why is it a problem don't you understand? While you are at it please let me know how States should attract business if not through taxes and other incentives.

 

-----signature-----

By being an attractive location for a business for reasons besides giving them a bunch of money?


You know, things like being in the right location or having a skilled workforce?


Using tax policy to distort the market to lure businesses hurts everyone in the long run. You end up with businesses in places they shouldn't be and you lose efficiency as a result.


It is a classic collective action problem. Each individual state or city thinks they can benefit individually but if they all do it everyone gets screwed.

It always is those things, a combination of factors. It always has been. Tax relief has and always will be one of those factors. You are still restating the same things and not telling me what the problem is. Why does it "distort" the market?

How the fark do you think Research Triangle Park got formed? Or the Boston Biotech corridor? You think those are a problem for those states? Who got hurt and how?

We are talking about an open market. States are free to do what they please. You don't see CA offering as much as other states and they are losing businesses. It's simply math and thss is a naturally occuring economic phenomenon, bull or bear. If you want to talk companies setting up elsewhere to avoid US taxes that is one thing but the idea that states shouldn't court businesses with tax breaks is just stupid.

Particularly since you have no solution to this thing you seem to think is a problem.

I don't think you and SoO know what what you are talking about. Hell, you can't even articulate it so in fact you're not talking about it. You're talking around it.

 

-----signature-----

You're just ignoring it. I've said it twice now. The problem is it ends up hurting everyone in the long run. If a company moves somewehre for tax purposes that means it wouldn't be there otherwise. There's an efficiency loss associated with the move.


It's like having a forest. Each person thinks if they chop down one tree it'll benefit them but when everyone does it you don't have a forest any more and everybody loses.

You are going to have to do better than that. You're basically saying that free enterprise is the problem.

Please tell me how we all lost when RTP was formed in NC. This was an area that they granted special incentives and it was very successful. Who lost again? Georgia, because they didn't get the business? What are suggesting, that govt step in and level the field?

How ironic.

I'm not ignoring it. You're not really saying anything. "We all lose" is not a reason. It's an observation. In fact it's an opinion.

An unsupportable one.

 

-----signature-----

You are seriously so far off the mark I'm not sure we can really have a discussion. The idea it is anti-free enterprise to point out how tax policy skews incentives and ends up hurting efficiency is just laughable. It's like you turned into the Fisted Puma and are living in your own 180 degree world. Your comment about the government "stepping in" and "leveling the field" is truly hillarious and shows you have no clue what you're talking about. The government is stepping in when it bribes people to move stuff one place or another.

Two major reasons, 1) market manipulation by government results in inefficiencies and 2) the practice erodes the state's taxation authority shifting the burden onto other people and entities. I thought that was obvious.

Just to be clear I think there is room in this conversation for things like infrastructure which is the role of the state. In this age infrastructure does include education.

There is also a difference between the federal government and the state government doing something. I would say the primary issue at the state level is whether or not the states are simply competing with other states which results in little to no net benefit to the country.

 

-----signature-----