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'
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!
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.
...and the politicians buy into it wholeheartedly...
Of course they do, it's how your system of government is funded.
You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
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.
So you want the federal government to treat corporations like people? Citizens United agrees with you on that!
Ken
You're right, let's end every special deal to get companies to relocate in your state, shut down the economic development office in your state, and rather than invite corporations to locate in your state, dare them to build in your state.
That will get your state economy buzzing in no time - because you treat everyone so "fair."
Ken
IF states didn't compete against each other for these things, then businesses would start putting themselves in places where they could best use the resources already there.... like people needing work. Ultimately, it's the taxpayers who get fucked, while the businesses do the fucking with the help of the bought-and-paid-for local politicians. Unfortunately this country has a lot of worthless little shits who have forgotten that we're stronger when working together.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
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.
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.
Without thumbs on the scale in favor of some firms over others, states might be better able to balance their budgets or have lower taxes in the first place obviating the "need" to ignore collecting them for a select few.
Were that I say, pancakes?
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.
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.
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
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.
There were two candidates [who claimed to be] opposed to corporate welfare
FTFY