Add your comments
DLS Archives
May 2012
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Essential Windows Apps | Do Not Track | Microsoft Office | SayNow | LibreOffice | Zeam Android Launcher | Dead Space iPhone | Firefox 4 Mobile | Firefox 4 Release | PlayStation iPhone App | Excel Tips | Android Launcher | Google One Pass | Dead Space | Google Cloud Print | Songbird for Android | NBA Jam | Internet Explorer 9 | Windows 7 Connector for Mac | Office Mac 2011 | IE9 RC
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
(Unverified)Jul 27th 2007 11:59PM
They probably don't like these types of deals because they favor a single large company and they would prefer to see across the board tax cuts. By giving special deals like this to large out of state companies they have to charge the rest of the citizens higher taxes.
I read a good economic study that found that these types of special tax deals generally don't work out favorably for the state. As soon as the deal expires (generally after a set time like 5-20 years) the company leaves. It is much more effective for a state to have lower taxes for everyone to encourage in-state entrepreneurship and development. I know that CA doesn't have low taxes (so that's not the reason they started in CA) but which state do you think benefited more, CA having Google start in CA and stay there as their headquarters, or NC hiring away a small section of Google and giving them special tax breaks?