Amazon Leaves South Carolina...Tea Party OPPOSED Tax Breaks?

[AGRP]

Most Midlands lawmakers supported the exemption, but opposition fanned by a coalition of small merchants, national retailers and Tea Party activists proved insurmountable, even as Misener came to lobby lawmakers Wednesday in a last-ditch bid to save the proposal.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/28/113086/amazon-packing-after-south-carolina.html

[sailingaway]

anyone can call themselves Tea Party.

[AGRP]

anyone can call themselves Tea Party.

So, I'm reading it right? The "Tea Party" taxed Amazon out of their state?

[RCA]

Good for Amazon!

[jmdrake]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism. It burns me up to see these bought and paid for politicians raise taxes on small business while "targeting" tax breaks to big corporations just because it brings in a lot of jobs at once and they get a photo op. To hell with Amazon. Give the tax break to everyone or give it to no one. Anything else is stealing.

[UtahApocalypse]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism. It burns me up to see this bought and paid for politicians raise taxes on small business while "targeting" tax breaks to big corporations just because it brings in a lot of jobs at once and they get a photo up. To hell with Amazon. Give the tax break to everyone or give it to no one. Anything else is stealing.

wow I was thinking I was on the wrong forum until I got to your quote.

[JamesButabi]

I think Amazon is awesome for doing what they are. I only wish Rhode Island wasnt one of the ones who was pushing them out.

[FrankRep]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Taxes = Capitalism?


Amazon.com will find another state that will appreciate them I'm sure.

[VIDEODROME]

Supposedly Rick Snyder is shifting the taxes around trying to achieve that in Michigan. He said he doesn't believe the government can pick the winners and losers in the economy so he wants a tax break for all businesses.

So please send Amazon our way.

[jmdrake]

Taxes = Capitalism?

An even playing field equals capitalism. Cutting taxes for certain businesses while leaving them high for others an unjust transfer of wealth = fascism. Why do you want the government to pick winners and losers just because they've disguised it as a "tax cut"?



Amazon.com will find another state that will appreciate them I'm sure.

Yeah. Until that other state's residents figure out what a rip off targeted tax cuts are.

I saw this in the comments section in response to someone who said they hoped Amazon moved to Texas.

They were in Texas, Then your state tried to collect millions in sales tax from Amazon, so they left.

[specsaregood]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism. It burns me up to see these bought and paid for politicians raise taxes on small business while "targeting" tax breaks to big corporations just because it brings in a lot of jobs at once and they get a photo op. To hell with Amazon. Give the tax break to everyone or give it to no one. Anything else is stealing.

And we have a winner!

[jmdrake]

I think Amazon is awesome for doing what they are. I only wish Rhode Island wasnt one of the ones who was pushing them out.

It's the job of Amazon to seek the lowest possible tax rates they can get. It's the job of state government to make sure that tax rates are fair and not to give special tax breaks to certain corporations just because they hire more workers. I'd rather have 200 mom and pop bookstores that each hire 10 workers than 1 Amazon hiring 2,000 workers. All of the mom and pops are unlikely to fail or leave the state all at once. It floors me that some people think it's okay for the government to overtax certain businesses for the sake of others.

[jmdrake]

Supposedly Rick Snyder is shifting the taxes around trying to achieve that in Michigan. He said he doesn't believe the government can pick the winners and losers in the economy so he wants a tax break for all businesses.

So please send Amazon our way.

That's the way it should be done! Tax breaks for all. But I wonder if Amazon would be satisfied with that?

[AGRP]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism. It burns me up to see these bought and paid for politicians raise taxes on small business while "targeting" tax breaks to big corporations just because it brings in a lot of jobs at once and they get a photo op. To hell with Amazon. Give the tax break to everyone or give it to no one. Anything else is stealing.

Corporatism wouldn't exist if the Tea Party demanded across the board tax breaks.

In a perfect world, they should have allowed Amazon the tax breaks and then the "small businesses" should have threatened to take their business out of state/protest/etc. if they didn't receive the same treatment as Amazon.

[Acala]

Making taxation more "fair" by INCREASING anyone's taxes is a move in the wrong direction and should be opposed. This is why Ron Paul votes for EVERY tax cut that comes along, even if it only cuts the taxes of some people. The Tea Party should have opposed the tax on Amazon and used it as an opportunity to ALSO oppose taxes on other business. ANY money left in the hands of the private sector versus in the hands of government is good for the country.

[FrankRep]

An even playing field equals capitalism. Cutting taxes for certain businesses while leaving them high for others an unjust transfer of wealth = fascism. Why do you want the government to pick winners and losers just because they've disguised it as a "tax cut"?

An "even playing field" will never exist. FYI.

[jmdrake]

Corporatism wouldn't exist if the Tea Party demanded across the board tax breaks.

In a perfect world, they should have allowed Amazon the tax breaks and then the "small businesses" should have threatened to take their business out of state/protest/etc. if they didn't receive the same treatment as Amazon.

That's ridiculous. A small business that's been in the state for generations should have to move just to accommodate Amazon? No. If that's going to happen then the small businesses should band together and secede from the state of South Carolina! I can't believe you would even advocate such an idea.

What should happen is that Amazon and everyone else should pay the same tax rate, whatever that tax rate will be. If Amazon's warehouse catches on fire they're going to want the same fire department that everyone else is paying for to come put the fire out. Amazon's execs want the same quality public schools for their children or workers kids to go to. Amazon execs want to use the same government services as everybody else. But they want other people to pay for it?

If tax rates are too high then spending across the board should be decreased. If tax rates should be zero then government services should be zero as well or paid for by other means. Targeted tax breaks only creates the illusion of a business friendly state. They are immoral. If we as a people accept them then we might as well have stayed with the British and not protested against the East India company.

[jmdrake]

An "even playing field" will never exist. FYI.

That's no excuse for the government to purposefully uneven it! If Amazon puts mom and pops out of business because they have a better marketing strategy or better logistics that's one thing. If Amazon puts them out of business because the government is essentially giving them an illegal bailout in terms of special tax breaks that is something altogether different!

[angelatc]

wow I was thinking I was on the wrong forum until I got to your quote.

Me three. If tax cuts are good, then cut them for everybody.

[AGRP]

Making taxation more "fair" by INCREASING anyone's taxes is a move in the wrong direction and should be opposed. This is why Ron Paul votes for EVERY tax cut that comes along, even if it only cuts the taxes of some people. The Tea Party should have opposed the tax on Amazon and used it as an opportunity to ALSO oppose taxes on other business. ANY money left in the hands of the private sector versus in the hands of government is good for the country.

Exactly.

Taxes are a form of punishment.

Screaming bloody murder because the bigger guy up the street won't get punished simply because you're getting punished isn't going to solve anything. No one should be punished if they did nothing wrong.

[FrankRep]

That's no excuse for the government to purposefully uneven it! If Amazon puts mom and pops out of business because they have a better marketing strategy or better logistics that's one thing. If Amazon puts them out of business because the government is essentially giving them an illegal bailout in terms of special tax breaks that is something altogether different!

You should celebrate, then!

South Carolina is freeing itself from the evil Amazon.com and the evil jobs they created.

[jmdrake]

Making taxation more "fair" by INCREASING anyone's taxes is a move in the wrong direction and should be opposed. This is why Ron Paul votes for EVERY tax cut that comes along, even if it only cuts the taxes of some people. The Tea Party should have opposed the tax on Amazon and used it as an opportunity to ALSO oppose taxes on other business. ANY money left in the hands of the private sector versus in the hands of government is good for the country.

Ron Paul has never voted for a tax cut that was targeted to a specific business. If you're going to make such a bogus claim then back it up with documentation. It's one thing to cut tax breaks for a class of businesses. But it is immoral to cut taxes for a specific business. And you are dishonestly framing the question. This isn't about raising taxes on Amazon. It's about not giving them a tax BREAK that is not being offered to everyone else. Nope. The Tea Party did the exact right thing here. For far too long states have been cutting taxes for special interests while raising them on everyone else. Now that the Amazon theft has been blocked, the Tea Party can make the case why everyone's taxes should be cut.

[angelatc]

Supposedly Rick Snyder is shifting the taxes around trying to achieve that in Michigan. He said he doesn't believe the government can pick the winners and losers in the economy so he wants a tax break for all businesses.

So please send Amazon our way.

Won't happen as long as the unions hold the labor market hostage.

[jmdrake]

You should celebrate, then!

South Carolina is freeing itself from the evil Amazon.com and the evil jobs they created.

I take it you celebrated the Obama bailout to GM? Because that's essentially the same thing and the same argument. Oh we have to give GM taxpayer money because if we don't we'll lose more jobs. Oh we have to give Amazon.com special government favors because if we don't we'll lose more jobs. Nonsense! Small business creates most of the jobs in the country. If the tax break that was being offered to Amazon was instead folded into a general tax break for all businesses that would create far more long term prosperity.

[FrankRep]

I take it you celebrated the Obama bailout to GM? Because that's essentially the same thing and the same argument. Oh we have to give GM taxpayer money because if we don't we'll lose more jobs. Oh we have to give Amazon.com special government favors because if we don't we'll lose more jobs. Nonsense! Small business creates most of the jobs in the country. If the tax break that was being offered to Amazon was instead folded into a general tax break for all businesses that would create far more long term prosperity.

Bailouts do NOT equal Tax breaks.

[demolama]

Money taken from Alaska to pay a for a corporation and its plant in Michigan is not a good analogy. Nothing is loss nor gained by having Amazon leave SC other than the jobs they could have created... but the government would rather keep spending and collect money than help in economic recovery

[AGRP]

Ron Paul has never voted for a tax cut that was targeted to a specific business. If you're going to make such a bogus claim then back it up with documentation. It's one thing to cut tax breaks for a class of businesses. But it is immoral to cut taxes for a specific business. And you are dishonestly framing the question. This isn't about raising taxes on Amazon. It's about not giving them a tax BREAK that is not being offered to everyone else. Nope. The Tea Party did the exact right thing here. For far too long states have been cutting taxes for special interests while raising them on everyone else. Now that the Amazon theft has been blocked, the Tea Party can make the case why everyone's taxes should be cut.

I see your point.

What now? Will small businesses now protest for lower taxation because they now see it's possible for a tax break such as Amazon's?

It seems there's a lot of business tax envy and people don't realize they shouldn't be taxed so much to begin with.

[jmdrake]

delete

[FrankRep]

Amazon.com, please come to Texas.

:)

[jmdrake]

I see your point.

What now? Will small businesses now protest for lower taxation because they now see it's possible for a tax break such as Amazon's?

It seems there's a lot of business tax envy and people don't realize they shouldn't be taxed so much to begin with.

That's up to the local Tea Party. If they have enough strength to overcome a targeted tax break (which frankly I have never seen happen before) then they have enough strength to demand tax breaks for everyone. Hopefully that's what they'll do. Of course doing this means finding ways to cut government spending. (Yeah I know that long term tax cuts increase revenues, but you've got to make it through the short term to get there). I don't know where I would start in SC, but there are a lot of places to cut the fat out of the budget here in Tennessee. For example:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/2010/08/this-money-train-has-few-riders/

[jmdrake]

Amazon.com, please come to Texas.

:)

Sorry, but they already left because they couldn't get their way on taxes.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/10/amazon-close-distribution-center-texas-tax-dispute/

[jmdrake]

Bailouts do NOT equal Tax breaks.

Targeted tax breaks = state created monopoly = the reason for the American Revolution in the first place.

[jmdrake]

Money taken from Alaska to pay a for a corporation and its plant in Michigan is not a good analogy. Nothing is loss nor gained by having Amazon leave SC other than the jobs they could have created... but the government would rather keep spending and collect money than help in economic recovery

:rolleyes: Liberal governors and state legislatures do these flim-flam "Amazon" type targeted tax cuts all the time while raising taxes on small business. That's because the average voter is so stupid that he only sees the 1,000 jobs created by companies like Amazon all at once and pays no attention to the 10,000 small business jobs LOST in the process. It's this same "We must help out the big corporations to the exclusion of everyone else" mentality that led to the bailouts.

[specsaregood]

I just want to say that jmdrake is right on target in this thread. Way to go SC.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I agree with you JMD, but what I find VERY amusing about your post... You're quoted line below is exactly what all the corporate/special interest hired lobbyist thugs say to members of Congress(Incentives, Earmarks, Tax Breaks/Credits, Subsidies, etc) and a matter of fact, to all 3 branches of government, one way or another, to steal. seven days a week.

"All we want is an even playing field..." aka if you want huge campaign donations or a 6-7-8 figure job after government, or your friends and family need jobs, moving our business out of county, state, country... etc etc


An even playing field equals capitalism...

[demolama]

a warehouse is not the same as a physical store such as Walmart. Your argument about the small business job creation loss could be said about any internet based company not just Amazon.

[AGRP]

Is the problem that SC businesses are willing to be taxed so much to begin with?

[specsaregood]

Is the problem that SC businesses are willing to be taxed so much to begin with?

Or Perhaps they didn't have as much money to grease the politicians.

[Melissa]

Sorry But I am siding against the "tea partiers" in this case. I understand that people want things to be "fair" but that is not the government job.. it is to get out of the way and protect private property. The tea party should have allowed amazon to stay and USE this to lower taxes for other business or give them tax breaks also..now what leg do they have to stand on...alll they did was lose jobs and gained no tax breaks and keep their current rates, so what did they really win by opposing this?

[specsaregood]

Sorry But I am siding against the "tea partiers" in this case. I understand that people want things to be "fair" but that is not the government job.. it is to get out of the way and protect private property.

Sure it is. To have fair courts and equal protection for example. What this tax break does as jmdrake so excellently explained was give Amazon special privileges over other businesses. You support govt granting special privileges to specific businesses?

[Melissa]

Sure it is. To have fair courts and equal protection for example. What this tax break does as jmdrake so excellently explained was give Amazon special privileges over other businesses. You support govt granting special privileges to specific businesses?

Before I answer your question...answer mine...what did SC gain by this?

[specsaregood]

Before I answer your question...answer mine...what did SC gain by this?

Shorterm: The moral high ground? Longterm: perhaps keeping yet another global conglomerate from creating a monopoly with the aid of the government?

[Melissa]

Shorterm: The moral high ground? Longterm: perhaps keeping yet another global conglomerate from creating a monopoly with the aid of the government?

Moral High ground lol but still paying the same taxes...thought the tea party was about lower taxes but ok. We will have to agree to disagree. SC gained nothing but could have used this for lowering taxes on other businesses and then they would have gained but I guess the moral high ground is enough for them.

[jmdrake]

a warehouse is not the same as a physical store such as Walmart. Your argument about the small business job creation loss could be said about any internet based company not just Amazon.

Yep. It is true about any Internet based company. That doesn't mean it makes sense. I live in Tennessee. If I were to order a Dell I have to pay sales tax because the Dell manufacturing center is in Tennessee. But if I have someone in Kentucky buy the Dell and ship it there then ship it to me I save on the taxes. Maybe that's worth it, maybe it's not. But what most people don't realize is that technically when you buy from Amazon or any other Internet retailer, you're supposed to contact your state sales tax office and pay them the tax. Of course nobody does that. What states need to realize is that in the days of e-commerce, sales taxes make less and less sense. Of course any state politician that says he wants to get rid of the sales tax and replace it with, say a state income tax will be politically reamed and rightly so. Long term if people want out of this quagmire they have to do tough things like figure out how to dramatically reduce the size of government and/or come up with funding mechanisms that don't involve taxes. But reactionary measures like "Let's cut taxes for one sector because cutting taxes is good" won't get you there.

[jmdrake]

Moral High ground lol but still paying the same taxes...thought the tea party was about lower taxes but ok. We will have to agree to disagree. SC gained nothing but could have used this for lowering taxes on other businesses and then they would have gained but I guess the moral high ground is enough for them.

Except that I've seen this same pattern repeated over and over again in other states. The taxes never go down for other businesses. They always always go up to make up the "difference". Liberal politicians love these kinds of "tax breaks" because they can stand up on the campaign trail and brag about how they "brought X number of jobs to the state" while ignoring all of the small business jobs lost on their watch.

[Melissa]

Except that I've seen this same pattern repeated over and over again in other states. The taxes never go down for other businesses. They always always go up to make up the "difference". Liberal politicians love these kinds of "tax breaks" because they can stand up on the campaign trail and brag about how they "brought X number of jobs to the state" while ignoring all of the small business jobs lost on their watch.

And that is why you elect good people to your state houses. But now SC has gained NOTHING

[FrankRep]

Shorterm: The moral high ground? Longterm: perhaps keeping yet another global conglomerate from creating a monopoly with the aid of the government?

Meanwhile SC is going to lose a bunch of jobs. oh well. heh.

[Fredom101]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism. It burns me up to see these bought and paid for politicians raise taxes on small business while "targeting" tax breaks to big corporations just because it brings in a lot of jobs at once and they get a photo op. To hell with Amazon. Give the tax break to everyone or give it to no one. Anything else is stealing.

This is why small business gets killed in California but all the big guys like Cisco, Oracle, Qualcomm, etc. stick around. They pay the state very little while the little guys get raped, and all the statists go "see, big government is good, look at how well silicon valley does!".

[jmdrake]

And that is why you elect good people to your state houses. But now SC has gained NOTHING

Says you. SC now has representatives who are on notice that they can no longer get away with the fake job creation that comes from targeted tax breaks. It's fake because "job creation" that comes at the expense of competitors is a wash. Now (hopefully) the Tea Party there will turn this same momentum into demanding an across the board tax break for all.

[jmdrake]

Meanwhile SC is going to lose a bunch of jobs. oh well. heh.

It this turns into a tax break for all and an end to targeted tax breaks more jobs will ultimately be created than lost.

[jmdrake]

This is why small business gets killed in California but all the big guys like Cisco, Oracle, Qualcomm, etc. stick around. They pay the state very little while the little guys get raped, and all the statists go "see, big government is good, look at how well silicon valley does!".

Exactly! Targeted tax breaks are simply a way for anti business thugs to appear pro business. Really, I wonder how many people here support the Obamacare "opt out" that he (Obama) gave his supporters?

[specsaregood]

Meanwhile SC is going to lose a bunch of jobs. oh well. heh.

So you want to go on record as supporting corporatism Frank? Because it is the easy choice....heh

[FrankRep]

So you want to go on record as supporting corporatism Frank? Because it is the easy choice....heh
Supporting less taxes doesn't make me a corporatist.

[specsaregood]

Supporting less taxes doesn't make me a corporatist.

Giving specific businesses govt-granted advantages/special privileges over other businesses does.

[FrankRep]

Giving specific businesses govt-granted advantages/special privileges over other businesses does.
We'll have to disagree on this issue.

[AGRP]

We'll have to disagree on this issue.

Do you realize that's crony capitalism?

[FrankRep]

Do you realize that's crony capitalism?

Government sanctioned monopolies and bailouts are crony capitalism. Tax breaks are not.

[AGRP]

Government sanctioned monopolies and bailouts are crony capitalism. Tax breaks are not.

wowsers.

[Stary Hickory]

The thing is I don't support "selective" tax breaks. I think everyone should get the same tax deal.

[Cutlerzzz]

It's amazing that keeping what is theirs is a "privilege". I thought that this was RonPaulforums, not Democratic Underground.


Government sanctioned monopolies and bailouts are crony capitalism. Tax breaks are not
You're siding with private property and on the right side of this issue. But I must say that I don't like to use the word tax breaks, as the word breaks would imply that Amazon owes the government something.

[specsaregood]

It's amazing that keeping what is theirs is a "privilege". I thought that this was RonPaulforums, not Democratic Underground.

So you won't mind then if the state gives your competitors a taxbreak? I'm sure you'll succeed in that environment just fine.

[Cutlerzzz]

So you won't mind then if the state gives your competitors a taxbreak? I'm sure you'll succeed in that environment just fine.

I'm opposed to all theft in all cases. If Amazon belives that the South Carolina government provides services that warrant paying these taxes, they should pay. But they should not be coerced into paying taxes for things they don't want. Amazon deserves a choice here.

[FrankRep]

It's amazing that keeping what is theirs is a "privilege". I thought that this was RonPaulforums, not Democratic Underground.

Democratic Underground would say: "Tax the Rich!"

[Stary Hickory]

It's amazing that keeping what is theirs is a "privilege". I thought that this was RonPaulforums, not Democratic Underground.


You're siding with private property and on the right side of this issue. But I must say that I don't like to use the word tax breaks, as the word breaks would imply that Amazon owes the government something.

Democrats do believe in letting "certain" people keep what is theirs and others making up the difference. I don't like "selectively" applied laws. It breeds corruption and creates and advantage for those who succesfully lobby the state versus those who do not.

Why then to people like you decry corporatism at the Federal Level? If the same thing done at the state level is also not bad. I want low to no taxes for all not just a select few who sweet talk the government.

[Cutlerzzz]

Democrats do believe in letting "certain" people keep what is theirs and others making up the difference. I don't like "selectively" applied laws. It breeds corruption and creates and advantage for those who succesfully lobby the state versus those who do not.

Why then to people like you decry corporatism at the Federal Level? If the same thing done at the state level is also not bad. I want low to no taxes for all not just a select few who sweet talk the government.
You're acting selective, not me. I want every who can be protected from oppression to be protected. I'm not suggesting that this bill is ideal, or that certain individuals(Amazon) should be punished for the sake of "fairness" or for "society". Regardless of what level of government this may be at, it is wrong to force anyone to pay taxes without their consent.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I agree with jmdrake. This kind of government favoritism is why corporations like GE can get away with paying no taxes, and capitalism gets a bad name.

[jmdrake]

Government sanctioned monopolies and bailouts are crony capitalism. Tax breaks are not.

Frank, here's a hypothetical. Let's say you run a car business. Let's say you sell Fords. Let's assume that Obama institutes a new "tax breaks for clunkers" program that lets consumer deduct their total cost of their car purchase from their income tax but only if they buy a GM car. Would you be okay with that? Oh I'm sure you'd ask your congressman to include you in the tax break. But if he tried to amend it and failed would you still be okay with him essentially voting to subsidize your competitors to your disadvantage?

[FrankRep]

Frank, here's a hypothetical. Let's say you run a car business. Let's say you sell Fords. Let's assume that Obama institutes a new "tax breaks for clunkers" program that lets consumer deduct their total cost of their car purchase from their income tax but only if they buy a GM car. Would you be okay with that? Oh I'm sure you'd ask your congressman to include you in the tax break. But if he tried to amend it and failed would you still be okay with him essentially voting to subsidize your competitors to your disadvantage?

Amazon.com will leave SC and take the jobs to another state. Problem solved.

;)

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Well, Amazon lost a 150 dollar order because of this. It's sitting in the cart, and was going to by some LED light bulbs. I won't buy from them anymore, I gave them the benefit of doubt on Wikileaks, but apparently AMAZON is a piece of shit company, that is in love with unequal treatment, now that they have a little weight. So, Fuck em, and Bezos, who talks a good line, but is morally bankrupt.

I won't shop there anymore.

Taxation, should be equally applied without consideration to the individual or company being taxed. Otherwise you advocate taxation based on political influence, and that is completely wrong, and a large portion of the problem with this country.

I really don't get some people up here.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree with JMD and the others. Good on the Tea Partiers in SC for their principled stand in this case. I find it quite funny that Frank is willing to throw out Equality before the Law because the East India.....Amazon.com wants an artificial leg up on all their competition. I wonder how Frank would feel if, instead of giving GM taxpayer money, they instead exempted them from all taxation. Now, America was formed on the basis of equitable Government treatment, that one person, or one group, or one business should not be favored over any others. Principally, it is sound. This is no different than AA or any other preferential treatment.

Either tax cuts are across the board, or, they aren't done at all (and this does not mean increasing taxes). Capitalism is the absence of all taxes, not a fiddling of tax rates. If we want to get to Capitalism, lowering specific peoples taxes isn't going to get us there. I wish Amazon wasn't stolen from, but I wish that for all people and all businesses. If I was in the Legislature in SC I would introduce a bill to cut everyones taxes, instead of this sham of a tax cut.

[LibertyEagle]

Good for the local tea partiers. I'm sorry, but nothing ticks me off more than targeted tax breaks to specific businesses. That's not capitalism, that's corporatism. It burns me up to see these bought and paid for politicians raise taxes on small business while "targeting" tax breaks to big corporations just because it brings in a lot of jobs at once and they get a photo op. To hell with Amazon. Give the tax break to everyone or give it to no one. Anything else is stealing.

+rep

I love Amazon, but JmDrake is right, in my opinion.

[LibertyEagle]

Amazon.com will leave SC and take the jobs to another state. Problem solved.

;)

Frank, you are arguing for special favors for certain corporations? I love Amazon and all, but I do believe that this is the same corporatism that we are fighting against. Or, at least I thought we were.

Government, at any level, shouldn't be playing favorites. It is not their proper role.