Sure it is. It's more money in Facebook's pocket, and less in the local coffers. Either services get cut, or residents pay more.

If the IRS gives me a 10% tax break, I have more money, and the government has less, right?

▲

newfriend an hour ago | parent [-]

But it's not less in local coffers. If the incentive was not given, the datacenter would not be built there. The state government wants it to be built there to increase economic activity in their state.

Residents aren't paying more for anything and no services are being cut.

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

> But it's not less in local coffers.

The local government is giving a local tax break, which comes out of their tax revenue.

> If the incentive was not given, the datacenter would not be built there.

Objection, your honor, assuming facts not in evidence!

(Nor are the incentives any sort of guarantee. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/foxconn-mostly-abandons-10-b...)

> Residents aren't paying more for anything and no services are being cut.

They are receiving less tax revenue than they would have otherwise had to use on their services.

▲

newfriend 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

You are assuming the datacenter would be built there without the incentive. That is highly unlikely.

▲

ceejayoz 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes, I'm assuming Facebook still needs the datacenter, and that the company that wasted $80B on the Metaverse can pay some taxes.

▲

newfriend 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

There are 50 states in the US and plenty of other locations to build datacenters. "Still needing the datacenter" isn't a reason to build it in this specific location. It's ok to just admit you were wrong.

	▲	ceejayoz 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There are 50 states in the US and plenty of other locations to build datacenters. Yes, and we should ban them from issuing these sorts of race-to-the-bottom sweetheart deal at taxpayer expense to trillion dollar corporations to address that.