It is obvious. It's also not a problem, at least not an unnatural one.

What part of free enterprise do you fail to grasp? There are always competing priorities and a quest for balance. You can't have it all.

As far as market manipulation you're in left field there. That is utterly irrelevent to this topic. Letting the market decide is how the system works, and without federal interference the states are left to craft their own and compete for new businesses. How is that market manipulation? It's not, other than on the lowest semantic level. Manipulation infers some controlling unified force, not casual (rather than causal) relation.

Sure the state takes in less taxes. But it gets a new business that wasn't paying taxes before it started operations. It gets jobs. It gets commerce, associated trade and businesses.

I would have thought THAT was obvious.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had a legitimate claim that made sense. I sometimes forget that for all your eloquence you are really rather simple at heart.

The thing you are complaining about is not a problem for "all of us." I live in CA, you think I don't know how business environment can hurt a state? Everything is a trade off. Let me guess, you also complain about losing jobs overseas while thinking US states should not have to work to attract businesses.

I've done research on new plants. The incentive packages are large and complex and usually involve tax incentives with an expiration date. People do ROI calcs. These things pay for themselves. RTP in NC as an example. That is way into the positive column at this point.

You're right though, your point is simplistic enough. It's also one sided and irrelevant to the overall discussion. States have always done this. It's yet another facet of a free market economy. This is not a problem, it's an economic reality.

US companies going overseas is a problem I will grant you but what do we do there? Telling the states not to use tax incentives is not going to help. State Commerce Benefit programs are not the problem.

 

-----signature-----

So an appeal to what is "natural" then tradition and then to top it all of a claim that government creating incentives is "free enterprise."

I agree with only one point and that is that the US needs to consider global implications but that argument suggests that incentives are done at the Federal level not at the state level.

Even at the Federal level there are serious issues that come about that result in inefficiencies and an erosion of taxation authority.

Inefficiencies include things like corruption or the government investing taxpayer money into bad investments or propping up less efficient businesses at the cost of more efficient ones.

The erosion of tax authority should be straight forward even for you.

 

-----signature-----

I never said anything about tradition, it's natural for states to want to attract businesses. This is a normal and expected aspect of a free economy and our state system.

Now tell me what part of states openly competing for businesses actually is free enterprise don't you get? You say "The Govt" like Brother Tempus, like it's all one big brother. Each state is a separate entity vying to attract businesses with whatever resources they have available. That is free enterprise, is it not?

And by making concessions they gain by attracting said businesses who bring commerce, jobs and new tax revenue.

Anything else WOULD be government interference. You're throwing the flag in the wrong place. What's happening now is the natural progression of a free market. Changing that would be interfering.

 

-----signature-----

No. You are confusing state govt as one solid entity and not realizing that every state has always had it's commerce board and that it has always been something states do to create an attractive environment for business. Your inability to separate your dislike for govt means you fail to understand this is natural economic behavior for a company or a state.

States have always done this. Why have they done this? Because encouraging business is smart.

Usually so are you. Here, not so much.

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

Well maybe you can explain how you lose tax revenue by adding a new business to your state or region.

Or explain precisely what the state and local governments are "interfering" with by encouraging business growth.

 

-----signature-----

If the business is moving from another state or would have located in a state anyway then it doesn't actually help the country. In the end the states just end up taking from one another which results in no gain to the country.

The calculations done at the state level don't take this into account.

The governments are interfering by treating them differently. In many cases it is a flat out subsidy.

The issue at hand is not encouraging growth by lowering taxes. The issue is selectively choosing businesses to support with tax breaks and other benefits. This process has become very competitive to the point that it has become detrimental. Like I said earlier I am all for infrastructure improvements and broad based support.

For example a company is looking to open up a new corporate headquarters in the NY metropolitan area. They go to NY, NJ, and CT and look for the best deal. This puts all three states on a race to the bottom. The state ends up subsidizing this business arbitrarily and there is large economic incentives for them to do so. Over time each state will increase their benefits to extreme degrees distorting markets and undermining their tax authority. Not to mention inviting corruption.

 

-----signature-----

Yes it is. That's why states do that. It's a natural process in a free market. The fact that the pie might be smaller right now doesn't change this. You are doing one of two things; whining without a solution (or even a coherent problem statement) or calling for the government to step in and stop states from participating in the natural competition of attracting businesses.

In most cases, if not all, states are not favoring one corporation for another for anything other than economic reasons.

Which...repeat after me....is a natural phenomenon in a free market economy.

 

-----signature-----

You just repeated your appeal to it being "natural"

That is an illogical argument.

I am not denying that they have an economic incentive but that incentive only really works in isolation and even if it did work for a state it doesn't work for the nation.

The idea that it is somehow part of the free market is comically stupid. Your entire attempt at making an argument is full of fail but you do seem to be trying which I give you credit for. You are hardly the only person to fall for this train of thought and states are put in a tough spot. They are screwed if they play the game but they are more screwed if they don't. The only solution is to stop the game from being played.

 

-----signature-----

In other words Government intervention.

You're an imbecile.

 

-----signature-----