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

I don't have a cite for my claim that out of state purchases uses less state services, but I do believe it is pretty obvious. My reasoning:

An in-state retailer uses police/fire protection for the entire time the item is sitting on the shelf, local roads to move the item to the store, police/fire protection at the production site if the item was made in-state, and assorted local regulatory services depending on the specific business (e.g., health inspectors).

An out of state retailer only uses local roads as the item is shipped to the customer.

I don't see any plausible way that an out of state retailer could use anything remotely close to the same amount of state services as an in state retailer.

I do believe it is pretty obvious.

Your analysis ignores the fact that in-state retailers pay property taxes, income taxes, user fees, and employ people within the state who in turn pay taxes.

If you convert the traditional cost-benefit analysis into a cost analysis, then you can prove that literally anything is a bad idea. But that's not a serious way to argue a point.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact