I don’t think the officials handing out the tax breaks have bad intentions, but the system itself seems corrupt.
Sometimes in the discussion about this I get counterarguments about how it’s a “win win” (company gets subsidy, area gets jobs) or how it’s a net gain for the area (without the subsidy you get nothing, and with the tax break you get the jobs so at least it’s something).
But yes, anything more than the minimum required to perform public functions is inequitable.
Governments obviously will always need to enter contracts with businesses to provide the services it wants to provide.
For example, people will sometimes use "subsidy" to describe the government purchasing defense research and products.[1]
But it's apparent you weren't considering all forms of government paying private companies to be "subsidies".
https://www.thenation.com/article/heres-where-your-tax-dolla...
Anand Giridharadas recently gave an a great talk[1] (at Google!) in which he explains how "win win" is a charade used to set the framing of the conversation.
Framing a plan (like a subsidy) as something that benefits everyone has good optics, but it implicitly creates a framing that only considers that plan. (it's either this plan or "you get nothing"). Without the restricted framing, the choice isn't a binary "subsidies or nothing"; there are many ways that money could be spent. (e.g. maybe going without that business and investing in education or infrastructure would provide a greater benefit).
It seems part of the problem is we're in a new world where such subsidies are counter productive because too many people rely on them. In this case, it shouldn't even be legal to use taxes to subsidize any singular private businesses -- and those that require subsidy to function should be nationalized (they're not functioning on the market system).
Does this apply to green industries as well? How about industries that pollute? Should there just be one flat tax for every business regardless of revenue/income? How about valid business deductions? Should all capital equipment depreciate the same as well? Should payroll taxes be the same regardless of the number of workers and their incomes?
It's nice to say there should be no subsidies on businesses or industries and I agree with the sentiment, but in actuality there is a lot of complexity in the tax code and a "level playing field" would be a drastic change to what we have now.
For instance, you could think businesses should be taxed progressively on income. So now you have to define revenue and expenses, which can leave a lot of arbitrary distinctions and vast differences among businesses and industries.
> Allowing it just means businesses can play states out against each other and it becomes a race to the bottom
There's already competition among cities, states and countries and its generally a good thing. Some states offer differences in taxes (e.g. rates, income vs property, etc), regulations (e.g. zoning, employment), benefits (e.g. state sponsored insurance), infrastructure (e.g. roads & bridges). This is thought to be a great benefit as smaller political entities can experiment to lure people and businesses. Not to mention it makes. Having a top down approach doesn't really make sense. I don't think its a race to the bottom, it's competition and states and cities should have to compete to provide its residences and businesses the best deal.
The best form of charity is luggage. People escape poverty and leave places with poor governance to greener pastures.
This is just legalized corruption, but of course people in developed countries don't like to use that dirty word, so they call it "tax breaks" or "campaign contributions".
After spending 2.5 years through 30 countries in Africa, I can tell you there is no difference. It's corruption.
It's legal because the people making the laws are the people making the laws.
It's a "who watches the watchers" sort of situation.
Besides electing people that just don't do this, how might you imagine this being "illegal"? Some constitutional item that can't be overridden by the legislature?