[nurino]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a government tipping the playing field towards local companies.

[mr_toad]

There’s totally something wrong with favouring local businesses owners at the expense of local consumers. The benefits accrue mostly to people with incomes far in excess of the average.

[djrogers]

Local business owners hire local employees.

[module0000]

Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product. That's the government taking (additional) money away from you, and handing it to a local company.

If that doesn't make sense, an example could help when you want to buy a hypothetical WidgetBox.

Amazon WidgetBox: $100.00

Local WidgetBox: $102.00

After the added tax on Amazon, now you have no choice but to pay $102.00 for something you could previously pay $100.00 for. In business speak, it's call "screwing you" - in the article it's dressed up as "helping local businesses (screw you)".

[mattmanser]

Apart from the local company's payroll makes up $50 of that cost, of which $20 goes to taxes, so society is still up $18.

It's far more complicated than you make it seem.

[ionised]

> Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product.

I don't see why ever-decreasing prices seems to be your metric for good here.

I voluntarily pay more for certain things because it is a more ethical choice in those cases.