Tax Incentives for Offices

Is this true when we include tax cuts given to companies in exchange for having offices / operate in the city?

Assuming they're tax breaks on property taxes (since other than sales taxes, those are the most viable avenues for a city to tax), they would lose tax revenue on whatever property the factory is on (it is not the case that they wouldn't have been able to collect taxes on the business anyway, because the land they use is land they would have taxed had it been owned by someone else). So they may have to tax other businesses more to make up for it, which could drive those businesses away,

I think in some places companies got tax breaks predicated on having so many people commute and spend money in a city or etc?

Also consider that FAANGs (and other firms) likely receive considerable tax incentives from the local or State government for having offices in particular locations and the resulting high-paying jobs it brings. If you suddenly let everyone work from wherever, the government isn't generating the income taxes they bargained for.

Talking to many CEO's of mid size companies, it seems to be an extension of point 2. They have received many tax incentives from the cities in which they are located, based on the employees they have there. With WFH, the cities are threatening those tax incentives.Typically the tax incentives are deductible property tax, except sales tax, or some type of city provided R&D subsidy to help with state level taxes.We received these back in 2010 with a 175 person game studio and we had

Texas for example, threw tons of tax breaks to companies to get people to move to the state. One of the reasons Apple has a Austin campus, for example.The lack of payroll tax (and income tax), is in theory made up for by the increased number of people and businesses in the state. This leads to more people buying houses and cars (property tax), or buying things in general (sales tax). And more bodies in turn create more demand for goods and services, driving the economy more.Now, when th

Cities give tax breaks to corporations and compete over who gets to host their campuses for a reason. If wealthy tech workers abandon the city, it kills the businesses that they patronize. It also lowers the demand for real estate in the city.

These deals are far from short sighted. What the city may lose in corporate taxes is more than regained through the increase in revenue from middle class population growth. Sales tax and automobile tax revenues skyrocket with the all the people moving in. Businesses open to support the new residents and are taxed. More homes are built and property values go up, meaning an increase in property tax.Seriously, people who think giving a subsidy for a large tech company to move to your city is sho

Depends on if those companies are negotiating lower local taxes when opening a local office with the argument of "hiring people". If so, that argument won't hold anymore.

I used to work for a Fortune 500 company and in my case it was obvious that businesses in and around our campus suffered significantly with more people not coming to the office. My guess is the company had tax incentives in place with the city/state on the condition that their being there was a boost for the local economy. People not coming to work and spending money jeopardized those incentives.