|
|
|
|
|
by gph
4304 days ago
|
|
Finding this unethical or wrong doesn't mean we don't understand economics. Even if this leads to profit for the state through higher tax receipts, I still question whether this is a good thing in the big picture. It's one thing when an entire industry gets a tax break, like how a lot of states have tax incentives for film makers. But to give only this company a singular and specific tax break just seems wrong and anti-free market. It's one step towards a planned economic model. Plus there is an outside chance this blows up in their face. What if some other company has a breakthrough that makes this battery technology obsolete? What if Tesla then goes belly up and the factory is shut down? That is very much a possibility. Should our government leaders be deciding what companies to bet on? It's almost like they are quasi-investors in Tesla now. |
|
It's sort of like giving a really good chef a discount on rent if he moves into your apartment. You think it's worth it because he'll cook some great food for you. If he loses his job and has to move out, you're just back where you started. That you were planning on giving him a total discount of $100,000 over 10 years (for example) doesn't mean you're now out $100,000 whet it didn't work out.
I don't like the idea of localities competing on tax breaks like this, but the downside in my view is simply letting successful companies avoid taxes, not any trouble from extending tax breaks to failing ones.