So would these stores have lower prices because of tax subsidies? What prevents rich people from exploiting these subsidies?

Some consumers go to specific stores to purchase specific qualities of brands.

But most do not, especially for convenience products. You get it where you can.

In a highly competitive market, every cost saved would be passed to the consumer, obviously this is simplistic microeconomics and doesn’t actually works this way.

In my city, there’s a supermarket approximately every 150 meters. Food cost is high, but for the entire country. Actually research shows that food cost is higher in low density towns where there is much less competition.

Or it’s just a way to neutralize the ineffectiveness of the management, since it’s not profitable based, who’s going to be fired?

That is why you have loss leader grocers, where they pull people with dramatic discounts on specific items, but the total cart costs the same

Groceries are not one of these. If you have a problem of high grocery costs, there are many better ways to tackle that other opening a government owned store. But it does make for a great photo op.

But economic viability -> competition -> research and development -> economic growth

You can create subsidies which are inverse to the stores income. It doesn’t HAVE to go to large chains. There are many way to encourage small businesses to open. Competing with them is not one.

But as others said, groceries are working on minimal margin. And all of them work with the same wholeselles (except those with vertical integrations), and this is a nation wide problem.

The municipality which has monopoly on land taxes and costs will compete with stores that must pay taxes and rent? Won’t it just cause neighboring stores to close?

Won’t a better option be subsidizing taxes for grocery stores, and let the discounts competitively pass unto the customers?