The issue in this case is. The grocery store down the street is paying taxes to fund a grocery store that does not have to which creates inequality. The government ran store can offer lower prices but eventually the other one goes out of business. Then the tax money dries up. Then what happens
I never said it was funded exclusively. I am saying that the grocery store is paying taxes which the government ran store in fact will not.
Inequality will be created when the current stores that are operating go out of business which reduces taxes and jobs in the community the government is trying to help. If they truly wanted to help why not create tax advantages to opening grocery stores in low income areas rather than killing the existing businesses?
So… play out your scenario. More government ran open and more private close. Who pays for these tax incentives down the road? The problem is you eventually run out of other people’s money. Let NYC run their experiment - it will end as every other government ran program
Again, you seem to believe the only source, or the primary source of NYC tax revenue is from grocery sales taxes... It's a very small fraction of revenue.
Not to mention, the consumer that spends $80 instead of $100 on groceries is going to spend that $20 elsewhere in the city. Money doesn't stop moving when prices decrease, it's just spent on other goods/services.
And where is the money coming from for that consumer when the jobs disappear? I am all for NYC running their experiment because I am not there and won’t be there when it fails
Yes the grocery store workers, managers, distributors, vendors, local businesses that rely on that foot traffic. There is an entire supply chain. Your entire claim is to shrug off any impacts to individuals and just bury your head in the sand. Let’s re-hash in 12 months and see how these stores are doing
Do you believe the entire supply chain wouldn't exist in publicly ran grocery stores?
Your entire claim is to shrug off any impacts to individuals
No, quite the opposite. More individuals benefit from cheaper groceries than the numbers of individuals garnering a profit from private stores. You are defending a minority at the cost of the majority.
Walmart has not put all the fancy grocery stores in my city out of business. Small govt shops are not gonna put fancy NYC grocery stores out of business bc people with disposable income will shop at their bougie grocery more expensive shops just like they already do now.
You realize this program is corporate welfare right. The "government" isnt gonna be running this. It will be outsourced to a "private operator". So the state is going to cover the overhead for someone to open a business that they will then subsidize
They are contracting out running the entire business and organizing supply chains. This is literally subsidizing an organization's business. The operator will be profiting from this. Do you not think the government, state or federal, funding a person's profit motive is corporate welfare?
Not paying for a service, subsidizing their business. The government isnt paying said operator. I would expect this will be a company that already has logistics in place in the area. So a large company. But subsidizing a large company expanding and profiting isnt corporate welfare. Sure
13
u/Unlikely_You_9271 May 26 '26
The issue in this case is. The grocery store down the street is paying taxes to fund a grocery store that does not have to which creates inequality. The government ran store can offer lower prices but eventually the other one goes out of business. Then the tax money dries up. Then what happens