Do I have to switch sides again just to get a good argument going here?
Sure, some firms have a net positive effect on the local economy, but in some cases they have a net drain on the national economy. Take, for instance, Walmart. While they pay their employees minimum wage, they schedule them and structure the organization such that many people have to take multiple jobs (and try to juggle their schedules without being fired) and if they do not do that, they draw on federal poverty programs. Politicians may give tax breaks to walmart, but when they do so they really only do it for sales tax revenue. Unemployment will technically go down, but poverty may actually increase, not to mention the burden on the local healthcare system for uninsured employees.
Exxon Mobil is a special case. They have vast, worldwide operations, and a business structure that, for instance, allows them to "spend" revenue they make in the US on operations elsewhere in the world so the books show US operations created very little revenue, while operations outside the tax system of the US generated vast amounts of revenue. This revenue is still taxable in the US to some degree (due to the headquarters being located in texas), but not to the degree that it would be if it were "local" revenue.
---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------
I suppose the upshot is that politicians may collectively rail against earmarks and tax breaks, the reality is that they all do it for their constituencies, and what can really be done?
