| > A state (or any other local government) shouldn't be allowed to subsidize individual businesses, nor whole industries 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. |