Argument 237 by 吕男

huashiyiqikeUID: 2674177

In this argument, the speaker suggests that Beauville(B) should provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here in order to boost the economic development and reduce unemployment. to bolster the suggestion, the speaker cites a government report last year the city of Diltion(D).However, a close scrutiny reveals that it is
problematic in several critical aspects.

In the first place, the speaker cited the report to support the suggestion on the assumption that D and B are roughly in the same condition. However, D and B can be very different in the location, the percentage of unemployment, the economic condition and so on. If the speaker cannot prove that the politic that suits D well can in the same way helps B, the suggestion can be worthless.

Secondly, the report itself is not convincing as it stands. first, the former corporate tax rate is not revealed. It can be very small, thus the 15 percent elimination weighs little in the companies' decision, and the reasons for the campanies' coming can be interpreted by a lack of competition, or simply expansion for areas that it did cover, or a relatively cheaper workforce,ect.the elimination in the tax may not necessarily bring in private companies to locate in the city. Second, even if decreasing tax can encourage private companies to come, the time spent (18 months) and the number of the unemployed to be hired (300) may not be optimistic.
for 18 months, the government can do a lot to solve unemployment rather than waiting for factories to come; and of the 300 workers, the percentage of the people who in fact just changed job is not told. Maybe many had already got a job before. Without ruling out all the possibilities and giving the necessary information, any suggestion built on it is groundless.

Last but not least, whether providing tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here is the fastest way to boost the economic development and reduce unemployment is dubious. the government can do a lot such as hiring some specialist in job advising to help the unemployed, or set up projections for the community which needs workforce, all these or more can prove the be more efficient. without taking all these into account and make a fair comparison, the speaker cannot convince me that provide tax incentives and other financial inducements is the fastest way to solve the unemployment problem.

In conclusion, the suggestion is not logically convincing for the reasons list above. To better evaluate the suggestion, we need more information about the similarities between D and B, and evidence that can prove decreasing tax is the fastest in comparisons with other alternatives.