[bastawhiz]

> and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers

This is the same trickle down economics principle that has proven not to work over, and over, and over again. There's exactly zero reason to believe these businesses would pass on the savings to consumers.

Consider! Ingles (a supermarket brand here in NC) is criticized for holding huge amounts of abandoned/vacant/dilapidated properties [0], which stifles competition and lets them hold an effective monopoly and makes neighborhoods objectively worse. It's not about the taxes. Don't underestimate a chain's ability to eat costs by maintaining their market position.

[0] https://avlwatchdog.org/opinion-ingles-markets-often-raises-...

[wenc]

You're thinking a tax break which is an unconditional subsidy. That relies on the business passing savings through which folks are right to be skeptical about.

But that's not all subsidy mechanisms. The best ones are where pass-through is enforced, not assumed.

You already know of one that works: WIC. It lowers the effective price for customer, which the store receives as reimbursement.

It's not about trickle-down -- that's ideology. It's more about designing the right mechanism.

[halflife]

I didn’t specify on the subsidies themselves.

You can create subsidies which are inverse to the stores income. It doesn’t HAVE to go to large chains. There are many way to encourage small businesses to open. Competing with them is not one.