[del82]

How? I mean, you can argue against tax incentives for corporations, but you can also argue for them. For example, you could say (as others in this thread have) that $48k per job over 10 years is a good investment, and will likely generate much more than that in economic activity. How is it evil?

[Roritharr]

To me it is evil in the sense that this is taking advantage of the public interest.

For the community on a pure economic sense this might be seen as a good investment, but these kinds of tax incentives just further set apart the position of smaller companies and large corporates.

Imagine a mom&pop bakery with a 20year history receiving a comparable pile of money per job created, soon enough they wouldn't be small anymore.

To me the ability these deals have to further push for monopolys is simply unethical, but I'm german and have different sensibilities I guess.

[somethingwitty1]

You'd likely need to look at the local tax laws to state that they aren't getting similar incentives. I'm not in NYC, but I can speak to where I live and many of the laws, obligations and even taxes that apply to an Amazon-size corporation, do not apply to a mom & pop. For example, food labeling/testing is required (not cheap) for larger corporations. Healthcare options and covered sick days is tied to size of your corporation (again, not cheap). There are also numerous loans and incentives for smaller corporations that the bigger companies aren't eligible for.

I'm not trying to paint this as being equal, but to call it evil is a gross mischaracterization of what is happening here.