Cities and states are not fungible. Otherwise they could never charge significantly different tax rates and still expect to retain any businesses, which is obviously not the case. The taxes in New York are higher than they are in South Dakota because at the same tax rate most companies would rather be in New York.
That cities run near breakeven is no surprise because if they were running a surplus then the citizens would immediately demand that it be used to fund programs or lower taxes. But that doesn't tell you anything about whether the programs are necessary or efficient. New York has been well known for massive government waste and corruption for decades and it hasn't made them uncompetitive because of their other advantages (a huge one being population density). Which means the number of tax dollars needed to cover the incremental business is much lower than the amount the average business is currently paying, since the remainder is going to waste and corruption.
Or, for that matter, to other programs that aren't correlated with or are inversely correlated with the number of local businesses. If a new business comes in, the amount the government has to spend on subsidies for low income people doesn't increase, so so the new business imposes no incremental cost. And if the new business hires local people, people who were unemployed or underemployed may get better jobs and reduce the cost of such programs by reducing the number of people who require them.
There is certainly a point where lowering taxes below it means that companies aren't paying their own cost, but the idea that less than half of what they're currently paying is actually going to the additional services they require the government to provide is not at all ridiculous. Especially in places with higher tax rates to begin with.
> But that doesn't tell you anything about whether the programs are necessary or efficient.
That’s irrelevant, if a city spends more money on services for a company than it collects from that company it’s a net loss. Sure, you can argue that they should be more efficient, but collecting less money is not going to help.
> so so the new business imposes no incremental cost.
Every business adds incremental costs associated with transportation etc. Infrastructure is expensive to maintain and becomes more expensive with increased useage. On top of that you have things like food safety inspection which directly relate to business. Suggesting the incremental cost is zero simply demonstrates you don’t understand the specifics.
That cities run near breakeven is no surprise because if they were running a surplus then the citizens would immediately demand that it be used to fund programs or lower taxes. But that doesn't tell you anything about whether the programs are necessary or efficient. New York has been well known for massive government waste and corruption for decades and it hasn't made them uncompetitive because of their other advantages (a huge one being population density). Which means the number of tax dollars needed to cover the incremental business is much lower than the amount the average business is currently paying, since the remainder is going to waste and corruption.
Or, for that matter, to other programs that aren't correlated with or are inversely correlated with the number of local businesses. If a new business comes in, the amount the government has to spend on subsidies for low income people doesn't increase, so so the new business imposes no incremental cost. And if the new business hires local people, people who were unemployed or underemployed may get better jobs and reduce the cost of such programs by reducing the number of people who require them.
There is certainly a point where lowering taxes below it means that companies aren't paying their own cost, but the idea that less than half of what they're currently paying is actually going to the additional services they require the government to provide is not at all ridiculous. Especially in places with higher tax rates to begin with.