Quote:
Originally Posted by lestatar
^ Agreed. I won't ever discuss politics, especially on forums, but I too found the article interesting - food for thought.
|
It's more economics, than politics. But ok, I guess the distinction is murky nowadays.
Regardless, rules should be universal. There is no reason a state should be able to negotiate to whom its laws apply - including tax laws.
From a purely economic standpoint, it leads to a race to the bottom, the signs of which we have long seen - the press has long been talking about how little the tax bills of the largest companies are in the US. At least part of it is due to the stronger negotiating position of larger firms.
I won't get into the whole taxes-job creation debate. But there is an indirect effect on jobs. The most pernicious consequence of discretionary taxation is on competition - we end up having a tax system that favors the large, incumbent firm, while the smaller, nimble, high growth competitor has to foot the full tax bill. One of the primary roles of the government in the economy is to ensure competition - this is completely the opposite. Smaller firms tend to grow faster and create more jobs. This is trading short-term jobs in your own state for long-term job creation in the wider nation.