[dntrkv]

> If the lower taxes are good for creating jobs at net gain to the local economy, then the lower rate should be applied equally among all similarly taxed entities.

I agree with the premise here, but in reality, you can see that won't actually work.

You have existing businesses in an area paying a certain amount in taxes. You want to attract a new major business. If you lower your taxes for all the businesses in hopes of attracting the new business, you just lost a huge chunk of revenue for something that might not come to fruition. Whereas if you don't lower your taxes, that new business has no incentive to go with your locale, and will instead, settle somewhere there is an already established talent-base/infrastructure/etc. Furthering the economic inequality between the regions.

I am not a fan of these tax incentives, but I can't blame these places for using them.

[34679]

I believe luring in corporate giants with payouts collected from existing businesses is short-sighted and wrong both morally and economically. There are existing businesses in Wisconsin, and the way I see it, their current collective tax burden is excessive to the tune of at least $80,000,000.

The government is essentially running around to all of the Davids, collecting a few dollars from each to fund the construction of a tower that puts the Goliath beyond the reach of David's sling. I don't want a government that builds mountains for the largest companies while relegating small businesses to the trenches. I want a government that does everything possible to keep the battlefield level. Innovation rarely comes from the established giants.

[hobs]

There's an old phrase "burning down your house for the nails" - so yes, we can blame these places for using them.