Replies

Small business vs big business incorporates so many other struggles, from ‘Kelo v. New London’, regular zoning law, the various laws and regulations based on the number of employees, that it kind of muddies the water.

Let’s just take the last one. Laws and regulations at the state and federal levels are stair-stepped based on number of employees, with greater numbers being more expensive and complicated:

1-14, 15-19, 20-49, 50-99, and 100 or more.

So the larger retail store gets a lot more especially federal taxes and regulations that the small store does not get. So if the state gives them abatement of state taxes to make up for their greater federal taxes, is that an unfair advantage over the small retailer who doesn’t have to pay those greater federal taxes?

Big businesses also have more weapons in their arsenal (moving corporate offices offshore, having money collected offshore, ability to get zoning variances, lower marginal cost to purchase individual politicians), ability to bid on projects with a maze of requirements locking out any small business with no in-house corporate legal staff. Many of these large businesses favor more regulations that affect everybody (e.g. higher minimum wages) as they are able to absorb them better, nowing the burden will be spread.

In the case of a store, I have seen the Macy's in New Haven get $10 million to stay open (I know, it was a gift, not a tax abatement. To Macy's, it looks the same.) They took the money, using it to take business that would have otherwise gone to smaller competitors who are paying for that $10 million. [This is not a special movie project, clothes can be had in New Haven].)And of course, Macy's bailed two years later, just as Pfizer did on New London.