Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Is Getting More Than $2 Billion For NYC, Virginia Expansions (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Over the last year, Amazon has dangled in front of cities the possibility that they could host the company's "second headquarters" -- a massive $5 billion facility that would provide 50,000 white-collar jobs. On Tuesday, Amazon confirmed what had been widely reported: nobody would be getting this massive prize. Instead, the expansion would be split in half, with New York City and Arlington, Virginia, (just outside Washington, DC) each getting smaller facilities that will employ around 25,000 people each. Amazon's Seattle offices will continue to be the company's largest and will continue to be Amazon's headquarters by any reasonable definition. But pretending to have three "headquarters" undoubtedly makes it easier for Amazon to coax taxpayer dollars out of local governments. [...] The tactic seems to have worked, as governments in both locations have offered Amazon hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives to locate their new offices there. Virginia officials appear to have driven a harder bargain than their rivals in New York. Amazon says it's getting $1.5 billion in government incentives for its New York expansion, whereas Virginia is offering a comparatively modest $573 million in direct incentives.
Didn't see that coming ...
And Amazon has a lot of shovels to sell.
Life is not for the lazy.
Bait and switch
Can't the cities rescind their offers since Amazon isn't fulfilling it's end of the deal?
Or are these cities willing to settle for a shared prize?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We called this extortion. Now, it's just the way corporations are expected to act, and the politicians buy into it wholeheartedly.
Federal Government should tax these 'gifts' from states to companies at 50%. Without deductions.
You're giving them money to destroy your economy.
That's peanuts compared to what Foxconn got from from us taxpayers in Wisconsin. Thanks a lot Scooter. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Let Evers do it!
Glad my city (multiple cities actually) realized it was a scam, and a no win situation, and bowed out.
It doesn't hurt that we've got the country's biggest tech/biotech base and a booming economy. (No, not Silicon Valley) and could afford to turn them down.
Locating in northern Virginia makes sense -- all the internet hubs are there. Locating in New York? That's going to have huge operating costs, I'd expect they'd demand a much bigger bribe for locating there! And by the way, the sales tax in Queens is 8.75%. In Portland, Oregon, it's 0%.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's just an expansion of Amazon's defense and high speed trading branches, guys, calm down, it's normal.
Federal Government should tax these 'gifts' from states to companies at 50%.
No, the federal government should use the commerce clause to ban these incentive payments. They are a corruption of free markets, and are a Prisoner's Dilemma. Cities feel obligated to pay up because other cities are doing the same, but we would all be collectively better off if nobody did it. Preventing this kind of destructive race to the bottom is exactly what the commerce clause was designed to prevent.
The incentives are also, arguably, a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Why should Amazon get a sweetheart tax deal that is denied to other businesses?
Much of the rationale for these subsidies is that they "create jobs", which is mostly nonsense. NYC and DC already have very low unemployment, and even lower for people with the skills that Amazon desires. They also have limited housing, limiting the ability of new workers to move in. So Amazon will just suck workers from other companies, rather than creating net new employment, and some of those companies, deprived of their ability to find the workers they need, will move away.
Some of these places have huge tax burdens and other regulation hurdles for smaller businesses. Sort of unfair for big business who can afford such costs are given special "incentives" to locate there.
Run for Senate. Seriously.
They just wanted to be paid to go there. Michigan offered $4 billion which is about 8 times what Virginia offered and other states made similar offers. Iâ(TM)m glad Michigan didnâ(TM)t get the contract (because Foxconn) but it just shows that they werenâ(TM)t looking for the best deal. New York and Virginia wouldnâ(TM)t have put up anything if Amazon had just announced that they were going there.
A state (never mind it's not sovereign state but a US state) doling out incentives for a private company, but not other private companies, seems like preferential treatment (read: corruption) to me.
Remember when the Republicans lie to you that the Dems will raise taxes on the middle class, for things like this.
Bezos donates heavily, and has nice stories in the WaPo, written for them. All paid for by the middle class, weather they want to or not.
FTFY.
In the mean time it's the Republicans who are cutting taxes for people like Bezos, the Kochs, the Waltons, and all the other billionaires. It's okay to be a billionaire, but even the billionaires have to pay their fair share.
You will be assimilated. A new Borg candidate. Raccoon city ahoy. Next SkyNet. Coincidence Amazon looking into Pharmaceuticals?
So you want the federal government to treat corporations like people? Citizens United agrees with you on that!
Ken
Neighboring Newark offered $7 Billion, and Maryland offered $8 Billion. The fact Amazon turned $13 billion in additional incentive down only to locate less than 20 miles from those places shows how much the incentives actually matter. Gov Cuomo seemed surprised NY won, though.
Its BezosWorld we live in it.
Economic development grants et. al. subsidies do not build tax base. Cities, townships and counties well-intentioned denizens they are; do not drive development – period. At most, they give away tax base. Companies locate by need ordered priority based upon supply and demand.
D.C. supply of power
NYC supply of capital
Run for Senate. Seriously.
You don't understand politics.
In the 2016 presidential election there were two candidates in favor of corporate welfare, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. Between the two of them, they got 94% of the vote.
There were two candidates opposed to corporate welfare, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Between the two of them, they got 4% of the vote.
Bill De Blasio and Andrew Cuomo are offering up these subsidies precisely because they are popular and win votes.
It is not the best policy that wins. It is the best policy that fits on a bumper sticker.
For Foxconn
WI will just toll I-94 to get funds back
or $60K for each New York job. Not sure if it's worth it.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
[citation needed]
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Amazon should want to come to your city, not be bought to come. So how many lifetimes will it take to break even with the so called 'jobs', let alone make it worthwhile. And dont forget to include the soon to be higher cost of living that will follow Amazon into the city.
Glad we didnt 'win' where i live. I knew it was a bad idea to even try, but our 'leaders' are ignorant.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was offering $4.6 billion over 25 years. Needless to say, the top Republicans in the House and Senate were more than happy to use taxpayer money to prop up a failing private business while at the same time ignoring the $74 billion pension deficit created by another Republican, Tom Ridge.
but even the billionaires have to pay their fair share.
exactly how much is a "fair share"?
Do you believe these cities are idiots who don't understand what they were doing? This is good for city finances. In NYC taxes alone they'll bring in $100M+ if the 100k salary average is correct. Taxes that will hopefully keep going up. Add to that the influx of every day spending to the city and taxes and fees collected. And the usage of 1M ft^2 of vacant office space. Next you have Amazon moving in a few miles from your most dilapidated airport in the city. Traffic issues? Well it was likely just as crappy when Citi was in the entire building. I doubt Amazon is going to pack it in at a 3:1 ratio over what Citi did.
I do get the unfair to competition aspect. But I'm not really sure who that may be that isn't negotiating their own tax breaks wherever they happen to be.
Not saying it's all rosy. But its far from the end of the world for Queens either.
Why only 50%? Make it 100% and stop this nonsense dead in its tracks.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Shifting Crystal City's primary focus from fear (defense) to greed (cheap crap)- I consider this progress.
These subsidies are totally unfair to other businesses and individuals. Until these tax subsides are outlawed, the federal government should tax them at 100 percent. Even better, tax them at 120 percent.
This is certainly a nonsense article. How can anyone have an intelligent discussion on the incentives provided by NYC and Virginia when even referenced articles fail to provide important details. Details such as which taxes are effected over how many years, are the cities providing collateral for loans, what changes to infrastructure are being paid for by the cities, do I really need to list more.
Up votes for everyone addressing the bribe like nature of these deals. All other crtiques deserve minus one.
Exactly? How about $417,321,568.37. Is that exact enough?
We elect Congress Critters to decide things like this. They're elected by the majority; usually. Except when the districts have been gerrymandered. Do you have a problem with decisions made by the majority?
But for starters I suggest the tax rates that were in effect when Reagan was president and the Republicans were in control of the Senate. I'd kinda think that if RonRon thought those rates were okay that the average Republican couldn't find too much at wrong with them.
Whudyathink?
but even the billionaires have to pay their fair share.
exactly how much is a "fair share"?
Oh boo hoo, another whiny Silicon Valley Republitard Venture Capitalist who thinks the combined Federal + State tax rate is too high at 50%.
in 1985, with Ronny Raygun in office and Bush Sr. was the Senate majority leader the top Federal Tax bracket was 50%. California's top tax bracket was 13%. Add in FICA and Medicare for a total of 70%.
Kinda makes Sweden and Netherlands rates of 50% look good, doesn't it? And that includes Health Care.
Fscking whiny bitches don't know how good they've got it now. Be glad you aren't living in the 40s, when we were paying for wars and things. (Oh wait, we're still paying for Shrub's Iraq war. Well, us little people are paying for it. You billonaires got a tax cut that the rest of us didn't get.). Maybe you should go look up tax rates in the 20s, 30s, and 40s and educate yourself.
Basically a Rich white liberal billionaire bribed a rich white liberal politician to take money from a rapidly dwindling middle class so he can provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
This is the real reason Democrats want illegals. They need a steady supply of labor so they can afford to help themselves to the taxpayers money. Bribes don't come cheap.
Republicans are no better but they are at least honest about their dishonesty. Both parties will piss on the citizens. But the Republicans will tell you they are pissing on you. The Democrats insist on say they are providing rain to to help poor crops grow.
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were candidate with problems. Mrs stein runs as the green and take a look at their plateform, really. Mr johnson had more chance but he ran as libertarian rather than republican. he would have had a far more better chance if he had run as non-endorsed republican and publicized his plateform as anti corruption. Libertarian have a lot of negative baggage. People do not look at the subsidy part , they look at the rest of the program or the party. That is why your counter point isn't in reality one.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Oh yes, like just anyone can become a senator.. idiot.
California's top tax bracket was 13%. Add in FICA and Medicare for a total of 70%
So 70% then?
Well, us little people are paying for it
Would it surprise you to know that you are not paying for it? Nearly 90% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners. That means that you self-described "little people" aren't paying nearly as much as you might have thought.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001
Do you have a problem with decisions made by the majority
Sometimes I do, other times I don't. I suspect I'm like most people in that regard.
We elect Congress Critters to decide things like this
Agreed. The elected majority chose to implement the current tax rates.
Exactly? How about $417,321,568.37. Is that exact enough?
it still wouldn't pay for the Bernie Sanders agenda
Whudyathink?
Tax rates for the 1% are higher now than they were under "RonRon", so using your logic, I suppose a tax cut is in order. Taxes for the poorest Americans are 5x lower now than they were under "RonRon", so using your logic, I suppose a tax hike is in order.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households
Once upon a time there was a thing called "bribery" and penalized...
Those times are gone, seems to be and everyone gets drunk on the $ symbol.
in 1985, with Ronny Raygun in office and Bush Sr. was the Senate majority leader the top Federal Tax bracket was 50%
wrong. in 1985, the top federal tax bracket was 26.1%
There were two candidates [who claimed to be] opposed to corporate welfare
FTFY
Studies show voters make a distinction between tax incentives and government grants, even if some say (for perceived advantages in advancing ideology) they are the same.
What is more known for becoming corrupted? A free market or government?
The interstate commerce clause was not instituted to vacuum up more tax revs. No way, Jose.
Would you agree that governments competing with each other to get their dirty fingers on more of your money is a race to the bottom?
How much is a fair share? Well, in Washington State, it's over 17% of income in state and local taxes for the bottom 20%, and a small fraction of 1% for the likes of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. You know: fair.
Well, in Washington State, it's over 17% of income in state and local taxes for the bottom 20%
Incorrect. Washington state doesn't have an income tax. Seattle attempted an income tax of 2.25% on incomes higher than $250k, but a state court ruled that income tax is a violation of the Washington state constitution.
https://www.tax-brackets.org/washingtontaxtable
Kinda makes Sweden and Netherlands rates of 50% look good, doesn't it?
do you mean Sweden's 61.85% income tax?
Nearly everything in your post is inaccurate. Maybe the only correct thing was how high income taxes were in the 20, 30, 40's, but I doubt you've given any real critical thought to why taxes were so high. It is ignorant to compare the taxes of two eras the way you have.