Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3089369" data-attributes="member: 277">it seems like you're points (while valid) are mixing issues. Whether a company gets incentives or not is a separate issue (as referenced earlier). Delta was set to receive these incentives before they split with the NRA. The discussion wasn't about fairness of one group over another, it was about using tax breaks to keep a large employer happy. It only became an issue when Delta took a stand on the issue of the NRA. At that point the lawmakers set out to 'punish' delta. The move wasn't about ending favoritism for one business over another, it was purely to teach Delta a lesson. That is the issue i have with it. As i said earlier, doing something like this opens the door to liberal states taking similar actions to 'punish' companies that fail to split with the NRA. Would we be in favor of states offering tax incentives to companies that 'opt' to raise the legal age for ammo purchase to 21 (or higher)? In many respects i see that as being closer to the lois lerner stuff than i do a discussion of the merits of giving (or not) take incentives. Again, it just seems like we are celebrating steps down a slippery slope. But they did it and time will tell if they punished for their actions, as well as if this sets off discussions in other states.</blockquote>