
An arcane new accounting standard is helping reporters follow the money - danso
https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/corporate-tax-breaks.php
======
UncleEntity
Presumably the tax breaks lead to further taxation through increased economic
activity so it isn't a clear cut case of a library "loosing" $3 million a year
as the article implies.

Mesa, Az gives Honeywell a property tax break and all the highly paid tech
workers drive up the property values and sales tax revenue &etc.

Of course discounting political kickbacks which I'm sure are rampant because,
well, politicians.

------
fjsolwmv
This is an article about a news article.

Original article is here:

[https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-
disclosu...](https://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-disclosures-
show-atlanta-companies-that-profit-from-tax-breaks/yucUJNyGk1ldpKt9wsGeZJ/)

~~~
danso
Sorry but I have to make an objection here. What I submitted is an article
about _several_ articles; its premise is that a relatively unknown regulation
has made it possible to efficiently scrutinize tax breaks in virtually every
jurisdiction nationwide, and that is what some reporters have taken advantage
of.

The AJC article is good, but its intended audience is Atlanta region
taxpayers, and those who benefit or are harmed by regional decisions. It does
not focus on the regulation, or how/why reporters were able to do this story
in the present age. The CJR story is more generally interesting because it
reveals more about the general circumstances regarding (non-)transparency and
impact of tax breaks.

------
marcoperaza
This can be very misleading. Say a city gives Amazon a big tax break to
encourage it to move there. So instead of paying $5 million in taxes it pays
$2 million.

The city didn’t _lose_ $3 million, it _gained_ $2 million + ripple effects of
economic growth - increased costs to administer the city resulting from that
growth . So it’s almost certainly better off.

~~~
danso
Describing it as a simple loss of $3 million is definitely a simplification,
for the reason you mention. But saying this is "very misleading" is perhaps
even more of an oversimplification. Unless you are so cynical that you think
the normal tax rates are a complete sham -- i.e. that the official tax rates
have no basis in reality, such that there is no impact whether a city charges
$5M or $0.

But if we assume that that $5M is somewhat tied to the actual costs to the
city to administer services and regulation, then offering a $3M tax break is
done with understanding the potential opportunity cost, and believing that
Amazon's business will more than make up for that $3M that the city might have
reaped otherwise.

The point of these stories is that, in the past, there was basically no easy
way for the public to evaluate these tax breaks. A situation like Amazon seems
like a sure net win. But there are many, many more American jurisdictions than
the city that happens to get Amazon's business.

~~~
marcoperaza
Like I said in reply to another comment, the marginal increase to the cost of
administration is probably a good deal lower than the resulting average cost.

