Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It’s not corruption to reduce the required nonconsensual payment in your jurisdiction to attract new business.

The alternative, as is being demonstrated, is that you simply don’t get that business, and you lose out. x% of $0 is $0.




>to attract new business

No. Not "new business". "A" new business. It's a sweetheart deal for one company in particular subsidized by the taxpayers. They're not reducing their citywide tax rate to attract Amazon, they're just giving a handout directly to Amazon.

What you're describing is nothing close to the reality. It's the prisoner's dilemma. Cities that participate in this scheme take turns screwing each other over in an attempt to get a minor benefit themselves, but compared to the scenario where nobody played the game to begin with, they all lose.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: