> Why should mom-n-pop have a higher fiscal hurdle than MegaCorp? They don't. They have normal taxation. They wouldn't even have the opportunity to make profit

> Why should mom-n-pop have a higher fiscal hurdle than MegaCorp? They don't. They have normal taxation. They wouldn't even have the opportunity to make profits, and hence be taxed, if the clientele never moved into the area. > Then MegaCorp shouldn't have any qualms about entering into a binding agreement that the economic bounty will come, or else MegaCorp pays a penalty equal to that bounty. I wonder why they don't do that? Because they're not shitty businesspeople? Remove the incentive and there's no motivation. It's basic behavioral economics.