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.
Your land is prime land for raising crops. You, however, do not want to be a farmer and decide that you have no interest in developing your land. Perhaps you want to do something else with it. Maybe you like it the way it is. The rest of the community has decided that they want the tax revenue and goods that would be brought to market if your land was developed and they then decide that property rights no longer belong to you. Just to everyone else. They are allowed access to equal law but have decided that because things would be ‘better’ you don’t. It would be in everyone’s best interest if we simply remove you from your land and take what is on it. That is the exact same ‘logic’ that you have used to justify charging everyone else one rate but giving another entity a different one.
You are willing to give one business a rate that is lower or other incentives to move into an area but then that same rate is not applied to local competition. What you have done, in effect, is allow company X to price their products lower than the others that are already there essentially limiting competition from other companies. How can you think that is a good practice? That is the very heart of government picking winners and losers. It is how the government practices favoritism.
Your logic is the EXACT same logic that justifies Solyndra, Halliburton and a thousand other crony institutions that the government has backed. Are you really comfortable supporting those endeavors?
You state that the practice costs nothing. In that you could not be more incorrect. It does not cost tax dollars up front but that is as far as you are looking into it. What it does cost is competition and law.
It changes the purpose of government from enforcing law to picking those that law is applicable to. It is the heart of why the government has moved into economic matters and as long as that practice remains there will ALWAYS be government right there bailing out banks and giving loans to campaign donors. As long as government retains the ability to give business the edge over its competitors then those businesses will continue to corrupt government in order to gain those favors from them.
