There is a broader issue though. Giving a tax break to a sole proprietor who will at most hire a half dozen employees is not a judicious use of the people's funds--the return to the overall economy does not justify it.
But a large anchor store is a different matter. It not only provides enough jobs to be an economic boost to the entire community, but the whole idea of an 'anchor' store is to provide a customer base for the smaller stores by drawing more customers into a given area. Large shopping malls cannot survive without those anchor stores, nor will a shopping center do anywhere nearly as well without one or two in its midst. So there can be a prudent justification in the interest of the common good to provide incentive for those anchor stores to move in.
No, it’s not a different matter and the justification of such is exactly the same justifications that are used in any number of relative morality arguments that I know you would immediately recognize as false.
Here is the problem, you are advocating that it is proper for the people to use the force of law to assist one person over another for the immediate ‘benefit’ (in this case jobs or money) that the group receives. That relativistic way of applying the law sure sounds good now but its corrosive and destructive nature is absolutely unacceptable. Those ‘anchor’ businesses exist without government and will continue to do so. They neither need government nor will provide better benefits by having government support them. The only effect that you get in doing this is enriching the business more than it deserves by fleecing the people.
Simply put – law should apply to ALL equally. Every single entity that it governs. In the same manner that it is not proper for me to steal from you even if I am giving it to the Jones family down the street for all our betterment, it is not proper for me to give a large entity a tax break that I am not offering to another business venture. To do so undermines the entire concept of a nation of laws rather than men.
Not all that many years ago, the state of New Mexico and a barely incorporated Village of Rio Rancho put together a tax break for an Intel plant to establish itself there. Again it didn't take a penny out of anybody's pocket or put a penny into Intel's pocket. It was bait dangled out there to get a very large employer to locate on the high desert with few amenities when it could have chosen a more attractive location. Intel is now New Mexico's largest single private sector employer, pays massive taxes to the State of New Mexico and the city, has donated many wonderful things for the community, and the good jobs it has created have provided a market base for hundreds of other businesses providing a good living for tens of thousands that wouldn't exist without Intel. Rio Rancho is the fastest growing city in New Mexico, and the odds are good that it will be the largest in a few years.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that initial tax break was not a good investment and was not a huge benefit to all, i.e. promoted the general welfare.
A government initiative that benefits only one entity is of course immoral. But one that creates private sector jobs for many hundreds or thousands including providing a market base for many other private sector enterprises is a solid investment.
It costs nobody anything. And the benefits are huge.
