Prominent New Yorkers Are Trying To Get Amazon To Bring Back HQ2 (cnet.com)

The New York Times reported Thursday that an open letter will be published in the Times on Friday that asks Amazon to reconsider its decision to walk away from its plan to build a 25,000-employee campus in Long Island City, Queens. The company pulled the plug on the project, dubbed HQ2, following vocal and persistent opposition to the plan after it was announced three months ago. CNET reports: The letter was signed by the CEOs of Mastercard, Warby Parker, Goldman Sachs, Tishman Speyer and Jetblue, among others. The presidents of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and state AFL-CIO, which were expecting thousands of construction jobs to come from the project, also signed, as did U.S. Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Carolyn Maloney. "We know the public debate that followed the announcement of the Long Island City project was rough and not very welcoming," the letter stated. "Opinions are strong in New York -- sometimes strident. We consider it part of the New York charm! But when we commit to a project as important as this, we figure out how to get it done in a way that works for everyone."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also had several conversations with Amazon, including CEO Jeff Bezos, about bringing back the project, the Times said. The letter and Cuomo's behind-the-scenes efforts are part of the latest fallout since Amazon abandoned HQ2 in New York. The opposition has celebrated the exit as a victory for grassroots campaigns and a stand against lavish government incentives for new development plans. Amazon was slated to get about $3 billion in tax breaks for building the project. Supporters, who weren't as vocal during the run-up to Amazon leaving, expressed shock and consternation about Amazon's decision and worried that New York would appear unfriendly to new businesses. While the business community was broadly seen as in favor of the project, the letter shows how both the camps supporting and opposing HQ2 included unions and Democratic U.S. congress members.

Comments

Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[beavhd]

I am a prominent New Yorker, and I want these imbeciles to stay away from New York. Is that understood, imbecile?

Yours truly,
BeavHD (huh huh huh)

Re:Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[ShanghaiBill]

I am a prominent New Yorker, and I want these imbeciles to stay away from New York

They have the right to locate their business in NYC on the same terms as any other company: Unsubsidized and paying their fair share of taxes.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.

Now they will pay $0 billion.

You fucking moron.

Re:Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Same terms as any other company ... guaranteed corruption, tax raises and the continual risk of legislated and judicial theft, with a side of mob violence, both of the mafia type and the progressive type.

By the way, how do you determine "their fair share"? Your taxes are so ridiculously high that you've already destroyed all of the manufacturing and are quickly running off all remaining blue collar jobs.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[ShanghaiBill]

They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion. Now they will pay $0 billion.

Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.

Instead of a $3B giveaway to one business, NYC should be spending the money to improve their infrastructure, and remove the bureaucratic barriers to commerce. That will help all businesses in the city, rather than just one.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

The wealthiest people on the planet do not need welfare, do not need handouts, do not need free government services.

Amazon was going to pay $0. Those other billions would have come from their employees, which are employed elsewhere for companies who do pay taxes.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you lie about things like blood plasma though Bill?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

Are you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in disguise? $3B in tax incentives is not the same thing as a $3B tax credit. There's a huge difference between writing a $3B check and not sending a $3B invoice in the first place. In one case you're spending money, in the other you're just not getting the money to spend. See, the $3B invoice you don't send still nets you $27B in paid invoices, so you end up with a huge net positive. It's no different than a 10% discount for a big customer that gives you lots of bulk work. You can't spend the discounted money because you don't fucking have the money in the first place.

I swear to dog, anyone who thinks that the money "lost" in a discount "can be spent on something else" needs a severe beating with a clue-by-four.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in disguise?" - You realize this is verbatim a young gay Republican pickup line right? Are you cruising on slashdot without the #Kendall tag?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[ShanghaiBill]

Are you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in disguise?

AOC would not be advocating for less bureaucracy.

In one case you're spending money, in the other you're just not getting the money to spend.

People that believe this should not have credit cards.

See, the $3B invoice you don't send still nets you $27B in paid invoices, so you end up with a huge net positive.

No you don't. Those 25,000 highly skilled workers are not going to sit at home unemployed. NYC has record low unemployment. They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you noticed that Amazon paid $0 in federal taxes for 2018? Did you think they were going to pay NYC or NY state anything?

Your a Moron.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't answer the question, Bill. Why do you lie about easily provable and easily researchable things like blood plasma being sterile or not? What's the point?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon paid $0 Billion in taxes last year on $11.2 billion in income, not $27 billion. In fact, they received a $129 million refund, giving them a -1% tax rate for 2017.

Amazon being in New York wouldn't cause them to magically not use all the loopholes and tax shelters that are in place for the wealthy and large corporations. They will continue to pay $0 in taxes and the $3 billion in tax breaks would just become further refunds.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an anonymous troll who's following ShangaiBill through other threads and teasing him. Who the FUCK are you?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck are you? I asked why he lied. He can answer that, or you can be a punkass trying to run distraction about it. He'll end up answering or not either way.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what Amazon paid in combined state taxes last year? I mean morals, ethics, and conscience are counter productive to a businesses profit driven role (other than understanding them for manipulative purposes at opportune times).

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

> They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.

Citation please, those companies don't work. There's a simpler explanation for "record low unemployment" ... you can't afford to stay in that socialist shithole without a job.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[LynnwoodRooster]

Do you know why they paid $0 in Federal income taxes? It's because they spent a lot on R&D and took full depreciation in one year, and the company gave over $1 billion in stock to employees. I guess it's better to not give billions to the employees, and instead give it to Congress in DC to spend how they want. Don't reward those who built the company, give it to the Government instead.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one gives a fuck about whatever you are going on about. So stfu

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon paid $0 in FEDERAL taxes. They pay hundreds of millions to Washington State in state taxes every year. The NY state and local tax revenue to be paid by Amazon was estimated to be in the BILLIONS, that's why most Democrats in the state made the deal to bring them there in the first place.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

No, gonna ask until he answers about why he lied. If he's willing to lie 3-200 times about that where does it end? Fuck both of you cowards.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.

I suppose the real question is whether governments, big and small, should take bribes in exchange for special consideration, regardless of the consequences. In this case the bribe would be, we move there, bringing jobs and money, but only if you make us a deal.

My own opinion is that they should not. The problem is, this is the real world, and if one place isn't willing to offer a sweetheart deal, another is. Basically, I think it is up to each city to debate the merits. The real solution to reduce this problem is stop allowing companies to grow so large, particularly when they are also in so many areas. That kind of company basically breaks capitalism, in that they get to write their own rules, at least part of the time.

The interesting thing about Amazon, is they are providing some incredible value with their service. Heck I just ordered 144 ball point pens for like $12 and got free shipping with prime. (I was out of pens and couldn't write a check.) At any rate, because of that value you could argue that they haven't truly broken capitalism yet, though the fact that they can demand and get special treatment still, to me, indicates they are growing too big.

The thing is, not a lot of people seem to vote using ethics as a primary consideration. It is usually more about me, even if it is often a flawed perception of what is best for me. For Trump and republicans, well many may not agree with his moral stand, but as long as the money keeps coming in, they don't particularly care.

I suppose in the grand scheme trying to prevent companies like Amazon from getting a sweetheart deal somewhere is probably futile. There is lower hanging fruit, such as electing more representatives that have fewer situational ethics.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[bongey]

Spoken like a true idiot that knows nothing about tax and cannot seem to add you need to add 25k more employees to the NYC , not move 25k around.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[cacarr]

"NYC should be spending the money to improve their infrastructure ..." WHAT money? NYC doesn't have $3billion sitting in an account that they can spend on something else now. Do you get that? It was a tax break -- not money they were going to hand over to Amazon.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably false.

Another company is not going to swoop into that area and pay 45,000 people $150k. It was a once in a generation opportunity that you sniveling, retarded, arrogant, myopic socialist fucking imbeciles lost.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck are you talking about federal taxes? This has nothing to do with it.

New York wouldn't collect their federal taxes in any circumstances, you fucking moron.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[cyber-vandal]

Your a moron

Nice one genius

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a Moron.

owe, the iron knee.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[slashdot_commentator]

Another company is not going to swoop into that area and pay 45,000 people $150k.

Who cares? Companies like Google, Apple, HMOs, etc. still plan on paying thousands of *qualified* employees $150K, and they were still going to pay taxes needed to support infrastructure like subways and roads.

Amazon wasn't going to move 45K tech employees to NYC, and then add 45K*$150K per year. They were going to poach the pool of *qualified* employees already working here, and hopefully the more competitive employer market would attract more qualified tech employees to move to NYC.

I didn't have a problem with subsidizing $3 billion of tax rebates to Amazon, or fucking over the unions and local politicians. Attracting a relatively large company such as Amazon is a way to perk up the employment market, and the $3 billion were more like subsidizing its startup costs. But lets not pretend that Amazon was going produce a huge new base of taxpayers for NYC.

NY taxpayers shouldn't be fleeced the way Wisconsin got fleeced by Foxconn. Fuck Amazon and its "give me a handout if you want me to make your employment pool more competitive". And FUAC for pretending to create jobs for NYC while putting NYers deeper in debt with corporate handouts, which we will then be expected to give out to every corporation!!!

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[slashdot_commentator]

R&D is a part of any tech companies' business expense. No one is making them spend on R&D. Taxpayers don't get shit for giving away their tax dollars to corporations. Fuck corporate assholes who think they're entitled to pay $0 in taxes.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-paid-250-million-in-washington-state-and-local-taxes-in-2017-source-says/

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[mapkinase]

>Instead of a $3B giveaway to one business

Didn't you just quote, you brainless twat?

>They were going to pay $27 billion

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[toastjam]

Have you never heard of an opportunity cost?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

What does that have to do with people talking about spending money that doesn't exist? I'm complaining about people talking about how "that money could be spent on better things" when the money in question is non-existent. I'm not going to pretend to be a hot-shot economist, but anyone who has an understanding of how invoices and payments work can see that a discount on an invoice isn't spendable money whether you send the discounted invoice or don't send an invoice at all. Opportunity cost has nothing to do with that particular complaint.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

"AOC would not be advocating for less bureaucracy."

You're right. The point is that she said the same stupid thing that you did. I generally like your comments but on this particular subject you've eaten your foot.

"People that believe this should not have credit cards."

I was talking about checks. Try to keep up.

"They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes."

OK, sure. List those other companies and how much each one will be paying in taxes. Most companies aren't beating down the door to locate in New York, one of the most expensive and crowded places in the Americas.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but now I know Anon is interested in young gay Republicans so that's nice.

Re:Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to define their fair share? Would a good definition be "the amount that the city of New York says they have to"?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that NYC needs the jobs (that only encourages higher overall wages as businesses complete for a limited pool of labor--no matter) but per the NY State Budget Director these kinds of deals where you bring in 35000+ jobs are very rare. He has been working for the state for 23 years and as budget director for 3 and in that time, the largest one he has seen was for 1000 jobs.

So, yeah, you can wait for other willing businesses. May takes some time though.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/open-letter-new-york-state-budget-director-robert-mujica-regarding-amazon

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

You need therapy.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[DRJlaw]

There's a huge difference between writing a $3B check and not sending a $3B invoice in the first place.

Sure there is. The huge difference being that in both cases you have committed $3B to attracting a single business to the exclusion of all the other ways in which that money could be spent.

It is amazing how armchair economists who want something suddenly decide that the concept of "opportunity cost" doesn't exist and suddenly forget that the key word in the concept is "cost."The dead guy with nobel is bringing a reality bazooka.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

Your link says: "Opportunity costs represent the benefits an individual, investor or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another." The burden of proof that a better alternative exists is on you. List the businesses that are lining up to come to New York that'll a bring better deal in aggregate than Amazon was going to bring to the table. You're the second person now to show up and spout "muh opportunity cost" with nothing to show for it. Opportunity cost doesn't matter if there is no other opportunity to consider. With zero evidence presented that Amazon would have killed off other opportunities that have greater overall value, it seems that you're the armchair economist here. Perhaps you could try harder and actually enlighten us plebs instead of linking to Investopedia and expecting everyone to think you're smart because of it.

On top of your failure to provide any evidence to back your assertions of an opportunity cost mattering, you also fail to understand that you can't "commit" $3B that you don't have in the first place. For someone who is so authoritative in their tone, you sure don't seem to understand that you can't spent money you don't even have. Not sending a bill is different from giving away money. You'll find that out when you don't have anyone to send a bill to. In the absence of proof of a better set of investments (you know...that thing you didn't provide) it all falls back on a very simple concept that anyone with half a brain can understand: "something" is greater than "nothing." Oh, and unrealized hypothetical possibilities don't pay the bills either.

What alternative investment opportunities would be lost if Amazon HQ2 comes to New York that exceed the value brought by Amazon HQ2? Provide verifiable sources. We'll wait.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of these 25K workers do not live in NYC yet. They would be hired and will move here from other cities. Or they will graduate from colleges here and stay working in NYC instead of moving out. NYC is not a closed system, people move in and out, it can grow or shrink.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Archangel_Azazel]

Honestly I saw a whole bunch of giant corporations. Not many actual human beings though, and you damn well know there isn't anyone who would be working there speaking up.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[skam240]

Jesus Christ. Fuck off troll. No one cares about Bill and blood plasma.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Applehu Akbar]

Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.

How anti-business is your city when it takes subsidies to get them to locate there?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a handout, you fucking moron.

It was a tax credit. It literally means that they would pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.

Ask yourself why it's necessary to misrepresent what's going on in order to feel like you're in the right.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just some weirdo who stalks Kendall and posts about Trump and republicans all day.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[smoot123]

They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.

Now they will pay $0 billion.

And while Amazon is busy not paying $27 billion, other companies are free to move in, use that land and those people, and pay $30 billion.

Oh, wait, they're not doing that because it's too expensive and difficult to move a business to Queens? Huh. Perhaps someone ought to fix that general problem instead of giving Amazon a special break because they're a large visible deal instead of many small, invisible deals.

(Disclosure: I don't live in Queens, I never have, and how NYC wants to structure their taxes is none of my business. Go ahead and make it difficult, that's good for me personally.)

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

> other companies are free to move in
which companies? Please list them.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[CaptainDork]

I don't know why in simple hell this is not modded up.

I don't see a goddam turf war in the HQ2 area where people are fighting over the land.

And, 25,000 workers are not getting a fucking tax break, are they?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[CaptainDork]

Yeah, I missed the deepfake showing the riots as business executives hit the streets at HQ2, fighting a land-grab war, too.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[GLMDesigns]

I'm not for giveaways to corporations but many landlords give "breaks" to entice new customers.

Let's look at what NYC was giving away - 3 billion dollars

What were they gaining- 20,000 jobs averaging 125,000 / year.

The total amount of new income in the city would be 20,000 x 125,000 = 2.5 billion (per year)
NYC would charge 3% income tax on this income which is 75,000,000 per year.

So. Just talking about income tax it would take the city 33 years to break even.

That's not good.

But the state also collects over 6 percent. So that brings it down to 11 years. (It's not truly even as that tax money goes to the state but the state funds a lot of NYC projects so it does count some.)

And finally - those people making 120K plus will be paying sales tax (8.875%) on all purchases except for food and rent. If they buy a condo they pay tax and transfer fees. And their increased spending will mean other jobs, and other income taxes that the city could collect.

So yeah. There's a good case to be made for spending 3 billion in order to get the Amazon jobs.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Aka drinkypoo.

He slipped into 'insane ranting' while logged in, more than once.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem we have in Seattle, Amazon mostly doesn't hire locals, they bring people in
  Those people make massive amounts of money and displace those that don't
  They will massively overpay on everything because they can and drive up the cost of living.

Having Amazon isn't a good thing
  Any tax benefit you might get as a result of them being there will be offset by increased costs of providing government services.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

If landlords wish to do that with their money there's nothing wrong with that. The problem here is that the residents of NYC will be dealing with the consequences and they don't even need the jobs. Most of the jobs will go to people that move there for work.

What's more, once they move all those jobs there they'll fight tooth and nail against the needs of the people when it suits them.

Fundamentally, cities shouldn't be competing other than to provide the best city with the best possible infrastructure. Competing with subsidies is a large part of what's killing America.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[supercell]

You are missing the major point.

Business are LEAVING NY because of the extremely high taxes. There is a huge budget deficit in NY State. The City really NEEDED that economic activity.

What people don't get is fundamental math. It was a slight tax break, So instead of taxing them at 3% they would tax them at 2.85% over 25 years. It wasn't handing them $3B of funds sitting on the table. There are also aren't 25K direct and 50K indirect high paying jobs coming to NYC anytime soon, actually they are losing jobs.

So you end up with nothing. In a city that needs to diversify away from Finance and Real Estate and into Tech you lose.

This is like whining about how a hot girl can demand that a guy has to buy her an expense engagement ring, but at the end of the day that's how the game is played.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[supercell]

And not to mention all those employees paid a shit ton in personal income taxes. Also Amazon paid a ton on property taxes, sales taxes. So the idea that Amazon paid no taxes is laughable.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Most companies aren't beating down the door to locate in New York, one of the most expensive and crowded places in the Americas.

Exactly. New York is having to offer tax subsidies to lure large employers to their location, which means government is deciding that Amazon should be a "winner". Has New York ever offered a similar tax subsidy to a small start-up, or can any company at all come and sign up for the deal offered to Amazon? If New York is willing to cut a deal with Amazon, why aren't they working with other companies to open offices there?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[smoot123]

$3B in tax incentives is not the same thing as a $3B tax credit.

I'm not sure I see much practical difference between Amazon owing $27 billion and Amazon owing $30 billion but getting a $3 billion credit so they only pay $27 billion. There are all sorts of technical details but in the end, Amazon is getting a discount. What am I missing?

What I keep coming back to is how unfair this is to other companies wanting to set up shop in Queens. Fair, to me, means we all abide by the same rules and get the same treatment. If I was the CEO of a 1,000 person company, and I wanted us to move our HQ, I don't think I'd get the same discount. That's not fair or just.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

NYC won't see an increase in $30b tax revenue in the next five years from "other businesses", so dream on.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[oh_my_080980980]

A government handout is a government handout.

In what universe does a company with a $1 TRILLION DOLLAR MARKET CAP need a government handout.

Fuck off and die you fucking moron!

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[fluffernutter]

But how good are these jobs, really? Are they jobs people want to do?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[fluffernutter]

So lower taxes for all them, if you can do that and still pay for city services. Otherwise you have to accept it or enter a race to the bottom.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you got it right: NYC has record low unemployment, so why pursue Amazon so aggressively? It's not like the city has excess capacity, cheap housing, underutilized public transport, etc. So Amazon's arrival would have either "cannibalized" tax revenue from other businesses (which, as you point, are already paying their full taxes) or brought people from other cities/states/countries to NYC, increasing the already high pressure on the city's services and infrastructure.
Either way, the conclusion for me is incontrovertible: NYC cannot grow anymore, certainly not by leaps-and-bounds of 25,000 jobs at a time. Perhaps it's time for the USA at large to consider more decentralized models of economic development, because its large cities are already stretched to the point of break down.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[fluffernutter]

Ask yourself why you're so afraid of negative language to describe the same thing. In the eyes of many, this is a handout.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[fluffernutter]

R&D? You mean for the buttons that they are now cancelling?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

If you owe $1,000 in taxes and the government drops the bill to $900 that's not a handout. I see you took the high road with your language. Why are you so butthurt?

Re:Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

And they can choose not to move to NYC, that bastion of social inequality, racial hatred, and greed, or they can choose to move to a less racist area, such as Alabama, or Utah, and not have to pay outrageous taxes.

NOTE: I only say NYC is the bastion of racism because everyone single social justice warrior seems to spend their life fighting racism. It is logical to conclude there must be shit tons or racism in places like NYC and Chicago.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to offer an alternative consideration: the problem is not Amazon, is NYC.

NYC has historically low unemployment, extremely high housing costs and its public transportation system is near collapse. Everybody who could have a job at Amazon's HQ 2.0 surely already has a job; everybody who can lay bricks or install piping for a living is probably already laying bricks or installing piping for a living; where are all the people *qualified* for those jobs going to come from? Truth is NYC has no excess capacity to offer to Amazon, or to most other businesses, big or small.

So they should just let Amazon HQ 2.0 pass. Like a very successful company who just can't handle even one more customer, NYC should let this one go to a "competitor". It's not like it's even a real competition, cities of the same country don't "compete" with each other the same way corporations do, so it's doubtful that Amazon setting shop only in Arlington VA would have hurt NYC that much, if at all. But for some reason (political reasons in the minds of its political class, would be my guess), NYC decided they HAD TO have a piece of the pie, and not having any excess capacity to offer they went large on their tax incentives instead. With the consequences we all know by now.

So this is what I think happened: Amazon decided on Arlington VA in order to be close to the government and occupy, cheaply, the large vacuum left by the loss of federal jobs in that city. Somehow NYC caught wind in advance of the announcement and sweetened their deal up to the point where Amazon just couldn't say "No". So they decided to split their HQ as a way to capture whatever NYC was offering without being derailed from their original goal which was/is expansion into government contracts. Once NYC displayed its "charming" hostility, Amazon reminded itself that NYC had been pretty much a distraction from the beginning and went back to their original choice. That's why they won't select an alternate location to NYC for those 25,000 jobs: eventually they might just grow to the full 50,000 in Arlington VA, but by not announcing that now they prevent giving too much power to that city and avoid a possible contagion of the "charming hostility" from NYC (i.e., don't rock the Arlington boat now that it's clear the VA city has, in fact, won the whole deal!)

Of course, I have no evidence that's what happened, it's merely conjecture, speculation and hindsight. My point, however, stands: NYC shouldn't have tried to compete with incentives in the first place, one because they didn't/don't have spare capacity, so those incentives would have been a real cost for the city (Arlington's spare capacity means they can grow, at least for a while, at their current levels of taxation, so moderate tax incentives don't impose an undue burden on the community); and two because NYC needs to figure out a different path to growth, one that involves fixing their business environment rather than getting into an all-out incentive war with all other cities. Ultimately, NYC is who is really responsible for the "race to the bottom", and, honestly, there are many cities that need those jobs more than NYC: it would have been prudent, and very neighborly, for NYC to have abstained from competing --and perhaps even to have partnered with other city/cities, for the greater good.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Investors have been buying up properties in LIC for the past 2 years waiting for this deal.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Are you fucking serious. That is 900 the govt will not get. It isn't a handout buts it's money they want to spend on shit. Either give everyone the same tax breaks or fuck off. It's that simple.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds of millions in local taxes still isn't panning out to 30b in 30 years asshole.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Magius_AR]

No you don't. Those 25,000 highly skilled workers are not going to sit at home unemployed. NYC has record low unemployment. They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.

You have a fundamental misunderstand of macroeconomics. New business increases migration into a state which increases the total GDP (and therefore revenue) of the state. It's not current jobs/population that matter, but future jobs/population. Just look what Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon did for Seattle: https://static.seattletimes.co...

New York is losing money not welcoming Amazon with open arms. 3B is a pittance compared to what it would have done for the state.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Only to a retarded leftist is an influx of money and talent a bad thing.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be any money for you to spend, you absolute sniveling fucking moron.

You get zero dollars now.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let's make $0 instead of billions, because it would be unfair. For some reason. I can't articulate why."

Enjoy watching Nashville and Virginia become the next SV, while you wallow in your leftist shitholes.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Highdude702]

Pretty sure you replied to the wrong person, as he said what you said in a nicer way. With less name calling. Probably why he got + mods and you got none. Will be nice when people learn not to be horrible people.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[CaptainDork]

Yeah, good point. The boom turned to bust. I'm thinking Bezos has a good hand and faked folding.

He's going back in and raising the pot.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully understand your point, but please allow me to try to put together an example in the terms you require and see if that helps move the conversation further.

Say you're the owner of a very successful producer of widgets; in fact, your widgets are in such high demand that despite running all of your factories, absolutely all of them, at full capacity and maximum efficiency, 24/7/365, your entire production is completely sold. I'm one of your customers, and I happily pay your full price because I can easily turn around and sell your excellent widgets to my customers while making a handsome profit.

Now, here comes Amazon. They offer to put a purchase order directly with you for 25,000 of your widgets, which you would normally sell for a grand total of $30, but they demand you give them a special price and charge them only $27. Should you take their purchase order?

If you had the spare capacity to produce another 25,000 widgets then the answer most likely would be "Yes! With a cherry on top!" Alas, as I stated at the beginning of my example, you have no excess capacity, all of your production is already sold. Accepting Amazon's order would mean you'd have to stop selling to people like me, who, remember, are paying full price for your fantastic widgets, in order to sell to Amazon at a discount. So, in fact, you'd be better off just keeping your current sales the way they are now, say "Thanks but no thanks" to Amazon and keep the extra $3; not only that, but if for some reason you absolutely needed $3 right now, you could go to the bank and ask them for a loan, backed by your existing purchase orders, and spend that money right away! That was the reason why the other commenter mentioned "credit cards": they are a commonly understood mechanism to turn future revenue into currency to pay for things now.

Now, back to NYC. As you noticed, the crucial point of my example was that you did not have any spare capacity to increase your production. So, the critical question is: does NYC has spare capacity to all of a sudden accept a purchase order for 25,000 jobs? If it does, then you are correct: an incentive of $3 BN is not a loss for the city, while rejecting the purchase order ineed translates into $27 BN of unearned tax revenue; in that case, AOC has indeed ruined a good thing! HOWEVER, if NYC does NOT have 25,000 highly qualified tech employees to spare (and remember, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc., only hire "the best", one because they can afford them and two because "the best" want to go work there), then those employees would have to come either from other NYC companies, companies which are paying full taxes already, or from out of state, which would have serious implications for housing, transportation and in general for NYC's crumbling infrastructure (and by "implications" I essentially mean "costs"). Either way NYC pays, be it in reduced taxation (from the decreased economic activity of the companies that pay full taxes but lost employees to Amazon) or in increased costs (required improvements to infrastructure). Not only that: thanks to the tax incentives, if NYC wanted to, say, emit city bonds backed by future Amazon's tax revenue in order to pay for said improvements to the aforementioned crumbling infrastructure, now it would have $3 BN less to work with (see the analogy with credit cards?) Plus, by having to do whatever it is future Amazon employees will demand (say, improved child care), NYC cannot pursue other goals that would perhaps serve better its current population (say, incentives to the entertainment industry, or increased oversight of Wall Street, take your pick). As things stand now, NYC would have to emit debt based on something other than Amazon tax revenue (and of course NYC has plenty of revenue from other sources, so no big deal), but in exchange they don't have to cater to the needs of the future Amazon employees, only to those of the current voters; that's what was meant by "opportunity costs".
The inescapable conclusion of the whole adventure is that, fo

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Highdude702]

Yes because that's the only thing Amazon sells. I see your point. They're going to go out of business if they stop selling those so why do they need a new HQ. That was your point right?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[bongey]

Holy fuck there are just too many stupid idiots that don't realize there is NO FUCKING 3 BILLION DOLLARS without Amazon. NYC gets FUCKING ZERO , ZERO IF Amazon doesn't go to NYC. Fucking come back when you understand what a fucking know the difference between a tax credit and tax deduction. Fucking "tax rebate" just do this "tax rebate" site:irs.gov , hmmmm that doesn't even exist.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[kenh]

Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.

Which businesses? Do you have any names? AFAIK it is almost impossible to lure a new business to NY State without subsidies.

NY State used to offer 10 years tax-free to lure small businesses into NYC. Cuomo and DiBlasio landed a whale, and you argue it's no big deal, they just need to attract 250 new 100 employee companies that are majority low six-figure jobs to the area to make up the slack.

Trouble is, there aren't 250 100+ employee companies that will move to Queens in the next 10 years without getting, go ahead, you can say it, "subsidies".

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[kenh]

employed elsewhere

Exactly, and you've removed the incentive for them to relocate to Queens, so they'll stay outside NYC and pay VA taxes, or TN taxes, or whatever - and that's "better" for NYC?

How?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, take a deep breath. No need to get irritated for a shorthand expression.

True, NYC doesn't have 3BN in the bank. The way most cities, including NYC, pay for stuff is by selling debt, i.e., bonds. Investors buy them and then the city uses that money to execute their projects. When tax revenue arrives investors are paid. As others have pointed out, this is not fundamentally different from credit cards.

With that in mind, i.e., the ability of cities in general, and NYC in particular, to turn future revenue into working capital NOW, we can ask the question: how much money does NYC can put to work today? In simple terms, the answer would be some percentage of future revenue minus future expenses. There's no question thart $3 BN in tax incentives would go on the "future expenses" column, so it *might* reduce the amount NYC can borrow NOW to pay for infrastructure improvement. That's why some people talk about that money as if it was "money in the bank": if you can sell debt now on your future revenue, then it's almost as good as money in the bank; but if you cannot sell debt on $3 BN of your future revenue because you have committed them as tax incentives, that DOES impact the amount of money you have available to you NOW, i.e., less "money in the bank".

"But what about the increased revenue?", you might ask, and it's a fair point! I just wanted first to state the other point, that tax incentives *do* reduce your debt ability, and therefore your available capital *today*.

Now, on to the expected revenue: let's assume Amazon forecast was 100% accurate and they would have, indeed, paid $27 BN in taxes; could we say then that NYC got an ADDITIONAL $27 BN? It depends on where that money came from. In the "best case" scenario, it came from the surplus labor of 25,000 highly qualified but currently unemployed people from other states who moved to NYC and didn't require any additional housing, services or infrastructure. In the worst case, it came from 25,000 people who were already working in NYC in companies that were paying full taxes; unfortunately some of those companies went out of business or saw their economic activity decreased in greater or lesser extent due to the loss of employees, while others became less profitable because they had to pay their employees more in order to avoid them leaving for Amazon; the city's revenue decreased accordingly.

Surely both extreme cases are highly unlikely, but they illustrate a simple point: the NET contribution of Amazon to NYC's economy is extremely hard to quantify, but is certainly NOT $27 BN: it could be higher if the stars align (rather, if derived economic activity can proceed without impedments from increased pressure on infrastructure from population growth), but it could also easily be lower if they simply replace other economic sctivity already taking place in the city.

So the point is: both people who talk about "$27 BN in additional revenue" and those who talk about "using those $3 BN in something else" are simplifying their points in order to make them fit in the equivalent of 240 characters which is the effective attention span of their intended audience. Reality is, of course, far more nuanced; however, you cannot criticize "the other side" for taking liberties with language if you're going to do the same thing.

In fact, NYC does have the ability to turn future revenue into money in the bank, and use it today as they see fit, including improving infrastructure. In fact, that would be an excellent use for that money (as if that's a better use *today* than giving it away *in the future* in tax exemptions, well, that's what the REAL debate is about, once you go past the oversimplificatory language). In fact, granting $3 BN in tax incentives to Amazon or anybody else does curtail to some degree their ability to turn future revenue into working capital today. In fact, realizing $27 BN in additional tax revenue is much harder (read "unlikely") than what Amazon supporters imply.

As things stand now

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

I don't know if they are or aren't. I'm NOT going to defend Amazon, I'm just here to point out the silliness behind treating a discount on an unsent invoice as if you already have the money and can spend it. The bigger problem is that this incentives system is done all over the country. It needs to be made illegal on the federal level, but until it is, some places do it causing others to have no choice but to do it too.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

Yeah, the "tax incentives to attract businesses" thing needs to go, but as I said in another comment, it'll have to be banned federally because if some places do it then ALL of them have to play the game.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

I get that you're trying to flesh out things, but my entire point is that a discount line item on an invoice isn't spendable money simply by not sending the invoice. People treat that money like it's being spent when that's not the case. What you're saying is about the Amazon deal and it's fine, but I'm not talking about the Amazon deal. I'm talking about reading "tax incentive" as "money the government is spending." Granted, if you send a $30B bill and then cut the billed entity a check for $3B, it's no different in practical application than billing them for $27B, but there aren't only two possible states here because the third state is shutting it all down. This is only about Amazon because that's the most recent example, but I'm talking about a general concept.

The problematic assertion I'm targeting is "why are we giving them $3B in tax incentives when we could spend that $3B on so many other things if we shut down this deal?" If the deal is shut down, a magical $3B check doesn't go into the state's bank account, the state gets precisely $0.00. There is no $3B to spend, not if you kill the deal and not if you give the tax incentives as part of the deal either. You'd have the $3B if you refuse to offer those incentives in the first place, but that's not what AOC and some people here on Slashdot arguing with me are saying, and Amazon flat-out isn't coming without that incentive, so that possible path is completely out the window. That leaves (A) give the $3B incentives to net $27B in tax revenue or (B) shut down the deal and get $0B in tax revenue. At no point in the realm of possible outcomes does that $3B ever exist as spendable money, yet people are arguing with me until they're blue in the face that it is totally spendable money.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're suffering from a false analogy.

Cities don't fund their projects from revenue, they finance them, i.e., they sell debt (bonds) to investors and repay them (from revenue) over time. That means their ability to do things now is not constrained by how much money they have in the bank but by how much debt they can sell in the open markets. Similarly to how much house you can afford is mostly constrained by how high a monthly payment you can afford; in this "other analogy", tax exemptions are like alimony you pay: it doesn't matter if you write your ex a check or if you get a discounted payment with the difference going directly to her, in either case is money you don't receive and therefore the bank will not consider it when assessing your ability to pay.

Unlike most of us, but like companies with good credit, cities have the ability to turn future revenue into money in the bank NOW. If your hypothetical company were to try to get a credit showing invoices by $30 BN, it for sure would obtain a better deal than if it had invoices for $30 BN minus a $3 BN discount. So, although that discount is "in the future", it negatively affects their total working capital NOW. Same with cities: their future obligations (e.g. payments into pension plans, healthcare, etc., but also revenue-diminishing events like phasing out taxes or granting tax breaks) constrain how much money they can borrow NOW (from investors) to fund their projects.

That's the "magic" of financing: you can sell debt on *projected* revenue and spend now, but if you have future commitments then you also need to discount them now! That's why your analogy with "paid invoices" and discounts doesn't work: they're completely different devices. You could argue (but you're not!) that the cancellation of Amazon's project hurts NYC's credit rating more than the $3 BN tax incentive would have; I think even that is clearly untrue, judging from the reaction of credit markets (none!)

In your analogy, you also refer to the $27 BN as "paid invoices", where in the case of NYC they would be better qualified as "projections", and not many would scold you if you called them "optimistic projections"; those are, however, as far from "revenue" as a market projection in a company's business plan is from "paid invoices". For instance, at least *some* of Amazon's new employees would have come for other NYC's companies, so *some* part of that revenue is *already* being paid to NYC --without a discount. Some of the employees that might go work for Amazon NYC HQ 2.0 because they "*heart* NY" might have gone to work for other companies in NYC because what they love is the city --again, no discount. So it's far from certain, and almost assuredly false, that the city would have received $27 BN in ADDITIONAL revenue, even if Amazon's projections happened to be 100% correct.

So nope, that money that NYC doesn't have, can certainly be spent on something else, including infrastructure NOW or whatever else NYC wants, because the city can easily turn future revenue into working capital (in fact, it does it all the time!) "Not having the money" in the first place might be an impediment for you and me, but not for them. For NYC, the real issue is: should we sell $3 BN in bonds and spend them in infrastructure NOW, or save the expenditure to give a tax break to Amazon LATER? Pretending your analogy with the company and the "paid invoices" is even remotely relevant is disingenious at best, and in bad faith at worst.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

I'm not suffering from a false analogy. People are misunderstanding what I'm saying (and for some, they don't understand what they're saying in the first place.) I'm not talking about going into debt which, however "magical," is a separate action. I'm talking about people treating a negative line item as if it's already a realized gain. That's it. I'm not saying anything even remotely more complex than that, and certainly not on the multi-paragraph levels that are being explored in some responses to me. I'm not saying that what you're talking about is wrong by any means. My entire point is that a discount line on an invoice can't be treated as cash in the bank. I'm not interested in discussing other ways get that cash into the bank. I'm not here to talk about the $27B amount not necessarily being accurate; the Amazon deal and its specifics are largely irrelevant. I'm exclusively talking about a specific failure of logical thought that seems to be disturbingly widespread.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious why? Because he's fucking your mother, AC, that's why.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, those trolls are paid professionals.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered writing Bill a love poem? That might be more effective than stalking.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

But yer honor, I only robbed her of three dollars. 'Twas but a pittance!

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[astrofurter]

Long Island City was doing just fine before Oligarch Bezos bribed his way to a billion dollar public handout. And it will continue to do just fine once the billionaire welfare leach has been driven out of the City.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[cheesybagel]

World's richest man needs handout.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha - you got your ass handed to you by a (polite, thoughtful) Anonymous Coward. Slashdot is not dead yet!

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[astrofurter]

"a city that needs to diversify away from Finance and Real Estate and into Tech"

Why? Tech is a pissant chump-change business compared to finance.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[cheesybagel]

Paraphrasing John D. Rockefeller: The good thing about investing in land is that all of it was already created when the Earth came into being.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[astrofurter]

"there aren't 250 100+ employee companies that will move to Queens in the next 10 years"

Citation please? NYC is big. Adding 250 small companies through organic growth is not implausible.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[cheesybagel]

You are assuming Amazon's proposition wasn't a bait-and-switch to begin with.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[cheesybagel]

They pay a lot less in sales taxes than the brick & mortar stores they killed like Borders.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon shills be shillin' for Amazon.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

You never say anything that has anything to do with the conversation.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't understand do you? Without Amazon, THERE IS NO $3B to Spend! This "giveaway" is a tax concession. I'll grant that there may be points made by folks saying "no tax concessions to huge companies." Fair nuff. But you, and AOC are not grounded in facts re "we ought to spend that $3B on infrastructure." I'm incredulous, do you seriously not understand what a concession means?

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[nctritech]

0/10 troll bro. AC can't reading comprehension and you call that victory. "I am bleeding, making me the victor!"

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[CaptainDork]

Exactly. That explains the lack of interest in persuading Bezos to change his mind.

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wait, they're not doing that because it's too expensive and difficult to move a business to Queens? Huh. Perhaps someone ought to fix that general problem instead of giving Amazon a special break because they're a large visible deal instead of many small, invisible deals.

What this deal, and the follow-up to its cancellation, does is to make it blatantly obvious that New York is not "Open For Business". It shows, quite clearly, that the financial and economic situation in New York is one of the main reasons companies are fleeing the State. (not "the climate" as some ignorant politicians would have you believe).
And it's not just companies. Workers are fleeing the State in record numbers every year due to the overwhelming financial burden the New York tax rate has become, as well as the political oppression they would have to endure under the current regime.

In all actuality, the people I speak with claim "I love New York's climate, the changing season, the scenery, but I can no longer make ends meet with the high taxes."
New York is a State on a fast-track to bankruptcy. The productive workers are fleeing the State (or being driven out), leaving behind those who require assistance to survive. Eventually there will no longer be enough income to support the spending New York has been doing (some would argue we've already passed that point).

Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT

[torkus]

So basically, amazon gets a $3b tax break that their middle-class employees fund. Brilliant! Let's think of other ways we can fuck the middle class a little harder and get people to run around justifying it! Oh wait, that's the whole scam they tried to play...

This mystical $27b in tax revenue! Who calculated it by what voodoo math? Amazon, (per their SEC filing) expected costs of $211mm in state taxes in 2017, and also had a $137mm fed tax credit/refund in 2017. This is for ALL their US operations. ALL the taxes paid in ALL states...$211mm.

Amazon hasn't paid $27b in US taxes in the entire history of the company so someone PLEASE clue me in on how anyone expects them to start paying $2.7b/yr in NYC?

Will Never be accepted by AGW alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Right or wrong AGW alarmists are fundamentally neo-Luddites. That's why they don't promote nuclear or hydro-electric, even though we know how to do those and they are totally carbon free. Even if (yea, big if) this could be proven to be safe and effective they would reject it. The only solutions that they will accept is ones that involve reducing standards of living and human population because those are the only ones that mesh with their underlying philosophy.

Re:Will Never be accepted by AGW alarmists

[doconnor]

There are very few viable places for new hydro left.

New nuclear generators are more expensive then other renewables in most cases.

(When Ontario eliminated coal generation it, among other things, expanded the capacity of the Niagara hydro generating station and refurbished some nuclear plants.)

Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

That location is too unstable and the cost of doing business is too stupid.

Get rid of occasional cortex and amazon might think about it again.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

To defeat "Occasional Cortex," your party might consider nominating somebody with an IQ high enough to avoid confusing a tube of toothpaste for hemorrhoid ointment.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain something to me? Why do the Ds always copy the Rs. It's like the Ds went "Look, they have a moron who is constantly spewing bullshit on twitter, we need one as well!" and now not only do we have Trump, but also AOC. *sigh*

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

To defeat "Occasional Cortex," your party might consider nominating somebody with an IQ high enough to avoid confusing a tube of toothpaste for hemorrhoid ointment.

. . . says the #MAGAtard.

** rolls eyes **

You cried and cried about Hillary's "criminality", yet you ignore Trump's criminality. Your party has lost all credibility.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

NY is not a stupid place to put a business. With all the tourists, it is just free marketing.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

You suggest Trump is stupid, and maybe he is, however he did best the Republican Establishment, the Democrat Establishment, the Bush Family, the Clinton Family, and the entire news media. I guess they are all even more stupid than he is.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

To defeat "Occasional Cortex," your party might consider nominating somebody with an IQ high enough to avoid confusing a tube of toothpaste for hemorrhoid ointment.

Unfortunately the people that elected her don't seem to share even that level of IQ.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

To defeat "Occasional Cortex," your party might consider nominating somebody with an IQ high enough to avoid confusing a tube of toothpaste for hemorrhoid ointment.

. . . says the #MAGAtard.

** rolls eyes **

You cried and cried about Hillary's "criminality", yet you ignore Trump's criminality. Your party has lost all credibility.

Just a FYI. You don't have to support or even like Trump to realize that AOC is either crazy or stupid.

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

yet you ignore Trump's criminality. Your party has lost all credibility.

How about you just shut the fuck up or produce evidence? No? Can't do it? Of course you can't, you are to fucking stupid to know what real evidence is. No you just crow about the same stupid bullshit over and over. Russia russia russia

Occasional Cortex, now her we have documented evidence of her stupidity. Amazon should say, "you get rid of this moron, and we will think about coming back."

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit - something's got you all triggered.

evidence
noun
1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Now that we are both on the same page regarding the definition of evidence . . .

How about you just shut the fuck up or produce evidence?

Cohen's testimony, everything that has come out of the Muller Investigation so far, Trump Tower meeting, Trump Foundation, Trump's own comments, Trump's tweets obstructing justice, etc, etc, etc, and then some. Read the news. Every day, another tidbit of information comes out pointing to his criminal activity.

It's all evidence that he's a guilty criminal piece of shit. Everybody knows it. It's obvious.

I'm so sorry Republicans have to pretend otherwise. It must be humiliating to have decried Hillary's "criminality", only to put an actual criminal in the white house.

No you just crow about the same stupid bullshit over and over. Russia russia russia

1) I never mentioned Russia
2) His criminality runs way deeper than just Russia (and waaayyyy deeper than what you ever pretended of Hillary).

I was going to tell you to fuck off and call you a Trupmophantic ignoramus of a #MAGAtard. Then it suddenly dawned on me how unpatriotic it would be to support a President that is such a filthy fucking criminal.

You just revealed yourself as an Ivan. I hope Putin assassinates you for allowing yourself to be discovered.

Re: Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a FYI. You don't have to support or even like AOC to realize that Trump is either crazy or stupid.

FTFY.
They are birds of the same feather.

Re: Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well AOC is kind of cute and Trump is a traitor and a criminal, so there's that.

Re: Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a FYI. You don't have to support or even like AOC to realize that Trump is either crazy or stupid.

FTFY.
They are birds of the same feather.

Trump had nothing to do with Amazon pulling up stakes in NYC. That was AOC. Do all you anti-Trumpers lie awake at night seething over his presidency trying to make tenuous connections to him for everything that goes bad in your life?

Re:Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[cheesybagel]

Retarded lame ass excuse by Amazon. It's not even her district. It's like me saying I don't want to move to NYC because Trump Tower is there.

Re: Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't, but a hell of a lot of anti-Obama people I know sure did for the 8 years he was in office.

Re: Amazon would be stupid to reconsider.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do all you anti-Trumpers lie awake at night seething over his presidency trying to make tenuous connections to him for everything that goes bad in your life?

We don't have to. We just watch it on the news on a daily basis.

NYC Nightmare.

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA

In those calls, Mr. Cuomo said he would navigate (Amazon) through the byzantine governmental process.

"See, we have these myriad rules and regulations, ostensibly to protect us, but since I need your largesse, I'll help you grease the right palms."

This is some Soviet-level bullshit.

The irony is Bezos' shitrag the WaPo is the biggest mouthpiece for his own opposition.

Re:NYC Nightmare.

[Luckyo]

No, it's New York. The city where mafia doesn't really do the standard violence racketeering, but the regulations racketeering. Not "it would be a shame if something happened to your business" but "it would be a shame if city [x] inspector was to visit you and be really thorough".

That part of New York is so legendary among people doing business, that it's known even far abroad.

Re:NYC Nightmare.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's New York. The city where mafia doesn't really do the standard violence racketeering, but the regulations racketeering. Not "it would be a shame if something happened to your business" but "it would be a shame if city [x] inspector was to visit you and be really thorough".

That part of New York is so legendary among people doing business, that it's known even far abroad.

In NYC vs. Company large enough to put NYC in a prisoners dilemma over tax incentives, im not sure I feel sorry for anyone involved. They are both big enough, deals will be worked out on both sides.

money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?

Re:money-mouth

[king neckbeard]

But they'd provide the jobs without the subsidies because they have to run their business somewhere. The only reason it can be argued to "create jobs" is because they provided the sweetest bribe instead of actually being the best city to locate. Why not just outlaw such bribes, and then governments won't have to endure the problems of a prisoner's dilemma.

And let's cut the bullshit, the companies are getting a better deal than the workers already, so "jobs" as an argument can fuck right off.

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?

It is hard to say because each scheme is different, and you can't roll the experiment forward and then roll it back and try it again without the subsidy. Reality only has one timeline.

But we can say that on average they are a net loss. Amazon was going to expand no matter what. Without the subsidy they would have chosen the location based on the best business efficiency. So all the subsidy did was pay to pull the potential HQ from one city to another.

These subsidies are a Prisoner's Dilemma. Each city feels compelled to offer subsidies because the other cities are doing the same. But they would be collectively better off if none of them did so.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

Here in Finland I can cite quite a few off the top of my head. For example, pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.

Same goes for things like huge cellulose and carton factories also typically located in a small township willing to give a lot more of subsidies and tax breaks than large city. And in return, the company tends to pay a huge share of local tax income, as well as employ people. One needs not look beyond what happens to towns that have such a factory go broke and/or leave to understand the impact and importance of inviting and keeping industry.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

The question to be answered: is there evidence that without these large subsidies those "nickel etc smelters" would not have existed nor an alternative company take their place?

Any links, peer-reviewed papers?

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Common fucking sense doesn't require peer review. Business must make a profit to exist. If the tax rate and/or regulatory costs are high enough to make them unprofitable they cease existing.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

of course not. in fact, the evidence is contrary.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't make a profit without huge subsidies, they are a pretty shit business.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding jobs is important.

It only becomes kind of important when what's important is making 30x more money for some crony corps who'll increase the inflation, like AMZN did in Seattle.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just set the corporate tax rate at 99% then?

Has it occurred to you that solar and EV companies would not exist if not for subsidies?

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Detroit....

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

of course just listen to any of these CEOs or any CEO talking! they are prominent you know

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

The subsidies have to come from somewhere. If you tax the town residents 10% of their income to subsidize the nickel smelter, that is equivalent to giving the smelter NO subsidy, and them just paying their workers 10% less, and then those workers will have 10% less to spend on other goods and services in the town.

The result is the same, except without the overhead and inefficiency of the government collecting the taxes and paying the subsidies.

Without the subsidies, it would also be easier for other business to locate in the town and offer alternative jobs that didn't require a subsidy. A big problem with subsidies, is that once they are in place, they come to be seen as entitlements, and are politically difficult to turn off.

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

Here in Finland...

Oh boy.

pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.

Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland.

Also, subsidies for nickel smelters in Lapland are part of a sensible industrial/economic policy that includes free (or nearly free) education, universal health care, etc etc. Finland is actually a civilized place and would be a wonderful place to live if it wasn't dark for six months of the year.

The situation is very different in the US. Every time...EVERY TIME...a company promises 10,000 high-paying jobs for an area if they just let them not pay taxes, it really turns out to be 100 high-paying jobs and 9,900 shit jobs and 8000 of those get laid off within three years. The entire thing is nothing but a late-stage capitalist boondoggle.

And it's not even that the companies coming into US municipalities are allowed to not pay a certain amount of taxes. It's much worse than that. The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats want to tax us at 70%, then insult us when they make us destitute.

"You must not have been very successful!" he sniveled while counting your money.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

> But they would be collectively better off if none of them did so.

They wouldn't be collectively better off since they are not a collective. Only one gets the benefit.

Re:money-mouth

[Actually, I do RTFA]

In the US, I think there was one example of a sports stadium deal working out. Like, literally one. The rest promise economic effects that never materialize and have huge cost overruns.

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

They wouldn't be collectively better off since they are not a collective. Only one gets the benefit.

Only one gets this facility. But hundreds of companies make relocation decisions every year, and plenty of them are offered tax incentives that are effectively subsidies. Many states and cities have bureaucracies to manage all the payouts.

It is a rotten inefficient and unfair system (small companies rarely get the subsidies), that provides no net benefit to the public. This sort of self-destructive race-to-the-bottom is exactly why the commerce clause exists in the US Constitution. Congress should ban these deals.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't appear to understand what a subsidy is. In most cases it comes in the form of tax relief or discounts in land or service rates. The tax payer usually (though their are exceptions) is not up for a fucking cent, they instead get access to jobs and services they otherwise would not have. The subsidy is in the form of the local city/council not charging them extra.

Re:money-mouth

[Solandri]

Here's the thing. A certain level of civil services requires a certain level of taxation. Doesn't matter if you're a liberal and that level is high, or if you're a conservative and that level is low. What matters is that there is a certainly level of services that you've decided is optimal, and enough taxes have to be collected to sustain that level.

If you believe your city is at the correct, optimal level of taxes and services, then all residents and businesses should be contributing equally to maintain that level. If you give a break to one business or one class of people, all other businesses and all other people have to pick up the slack and pay for the shortfall.

Or put another way, if you believe your city's current level of taxation is at the correct balance between attracting businesses and providing services, then it's hypocritical to give a company a break to build a factory in your city. If you think the additional jobs the company will bring are worth more than the tax breaks you're giving them, then you've basically admitted that your current level of taxation is too high. And you should decrease your taxes for everyone so that any company will be more likely to move to your city and bring jobs, not just this one big company.

The only action that is self-consistent is to tell Amazon, "We believe we have the correct level of taxation in our city. You can either take it or leave it." Compromising your tax rate to try to attract business is equivalent to admitting that your tax rate is wrong.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Why though do you lie about blood plasma?

Re:money-mouth

[DNS-and-BIND]

Without the subsidies, the businesses just clump together and nobody benefits but the already-rich. Other businesses don't relocate to town. You analogy is false. I love how you sentence small towns to death and then offer nothing but "learn to code" to the victims. Funny, when we did that to members of your tribe who got laid off, it was hate speech. Awfully flexible, that definition.

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

Without the subsidies, the businesses just clump together and nobody benefits but the already-rich.

I see. So corporate welfare is actually a way to keep the rich in line. Thanks for clarifying that.

Re:money-mouth

[rtb61]

You know there is a bit in the US constitution that requires all be treated equal under law. Technically they are committing constitutional crimes by taxing different individuals under different laws. If one gets those tax breaks under law, all should get equal breaks, otherwise laws for thee and not for mee. It is really quite criminal.

Re:money-mouth

[AmiMoJo]

The difference in NY is that the people already living there will be forced out if Amazon comes. Gentrification will force up rents and property prices. Their homes will eventually be demolished and replaced with luxury apartments priced at the exact level that Amazon clerical staff can barely afford.

Towns that are reliant on just one big employer are very vulnerable too. That employer can make huge demands, and if they go away for some reason there is no plan B. Making such communities more viable and less dependent should be a major goal of any business policy.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye; we've already played that game where if One Industry has massive presence in a city then suddenly that Industry takes a nose dive then it makes sense that city who is tied to that Industry will also take a nose dive. This makes reasonable sense on it's face.

New York is NOT Detroit. We have so many things to offer as a city so many Industries call NYC if not their first home at the very least one of the most important locations they could have. Fashion, Finance, Tech, Construction, Real Estate, and the hundreds of small mom-and-pop shops that have only lasted because New York has never given in to the forces of Wal-Mart and Amazon.

Letting Amazon in with such a fucking sweet heart deal means it will HURT small business owners who despite the loyality of decades of being in New York City, paying New York Taxes - some motherfucker from Oregon who has no loyality to even the city he started in now wants to pop up shop just as the Deal with his Home State and City are set to expire putting BILLIONS on the line in taxes for Oregon.

Nah. Pass. Hard Pass. New York doesn't need someone like that. If you gonna come here and make it - you gotta come here and play the game like everyone the fuck else.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't be collectively better off since they are not a collective. Only one gets the benefit.

Only one gets this facility. But hundreds of companies make relocation decisions every year, and plenty of them are offered tax incentives that are effectively subsidies. Many states and cities have bureaucracies to manage all the payouts.

It is a rotten inefficient and unfair system (small companies rarely get the subsidies), that provides no net benefit to the public. This sort of self-destructive race-to-the-bottom is exactly why the commerce clause exists in the US Constitution. Congress should ban these deals.

Good luck with that.

A government willingly giving up the power to dangle benefits that it can use to extort things?

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

You know there is a bit in the US constitution that requires all be treated equal under law. Technically they are committing constitutional crimes by taxing different individuals under different laws. If one gets those tax breaks under law, all should get equal breaks, otherwise laws for thee and not for mee. It is really quite criminal.

Really really bad "logic".

If US governments could only tax everyone equally, that means the only possible tax is a "head" or "poll tax".

That wasn't the case when the US Constitution was written, so that's one strike against your argument.

And being equal under law in no way means the resulting tax paid must be equal under all circumstances. I have no ideal how you get from "If you did exactly what Bob did, you'd pay exactly the same taxes. You didn't do the same thing, so you pay different taxes" to "OMG! That's being treated unequally by the law!"

JFC, should jaywalkers get the same punishment as mass murderers?!?!

Dafuq?

Re:money-mouth

[theCoder]

That's not how subsidies work. They generally do not tax the residents to give the company money (though I suppose they could). Instead, they take the form of "if you move to this area and employ X people at a salary of at least Y, we'll give you a Z% discount on your taxes". Since these are usually local deals, the taxes are usually property tax related, as that is the only taxes that the local government has power over. States might also chip in, which is where income tax reductions could come into play.

Now, in some ways, you're right. When the company comes in, it will probably raise other people's taxes by making their properties more valuable. So while the city and state might realize more tax revenue, it will be coming from higher taxes from the residents. Some of those residents will be completely new (most of the X above), so it's not always clear cut. And the company will probably want services (roads, fire & police protection, schools for their employee's kids, etc) that local governments provide. So there is a cost to having the company there.

The trick is to make sure that the incentive is lower than expected tax increase minus expected expense increase. Obviously governments can make mistakes in what they offer, or even just forecast wrong. But that doesn't mean that a large subsidy is automatically bad for the government or the citizens of the area.

For a city like New York with a thriving economy and a large tax base, the expected tax increase probably isn't really that big. If Amazon isn't there, someone else will be. For a small city without a lot of big businesses, the tax increase could be really big. Converting an empty field with very little tax revenue into a valuable office building with high tax revenue (even with subsidies) is usually a very big win.

The point is that subsidies are (or should be) about growing the population and tax base, not rearranging it. When done right, they are a net win for everyone. They do require oversight to ensure they are done right.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious. Would you agree that a municipality can't exist without jobs? If not, how do you propose they fund things? If so, how do you propose ensuring that jobs are available to the populous?

And FYI, I do know how a town can exist without jobs as my town is basically that, and it's a town in crisis as those methods are unsustainable. They're desperately trying to get businesses here to create a sustainable tax base.

Re:money-mouth

[CrimsonAvenger]

You know there is a bit in the US constitution that requires all be treated equal under law. Technically they are committing constitutional crimes by taxing different individuals under different laws.

And yet, corporate tax rates have always been different than individual tax rates...

For that matter, some individuals pay taxes at a higher (or lower) rate than others.

No, there's no requirement in the Constitution that tax rates must be the same for everyone and every entity....

Re:money-mouth

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's a deliberate misreading and shameful misrepresentation, you're better than that.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

They usually do not, because the city councils fail to do the research necessary in other to barter the correct opportunity. It's usually just serving the corporation's whims.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

So your answer is to just let it remain a slum with high unemployment. Turning an undesirable place into a desirable place isn't a bad thing.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

I've seen this mindset in Soviet Union. It's what led to its disintegration when Gorbachev finally decided to fix it. "Better be dirt poor and equal than wealthy but at different income levels".

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

That is the communist model of "everyone should have equal outcomes regardless of merit". It simply doesn't work in real life because no two individuals are the same. And businesses ultimately are made out of individuals.

For example, here in Finland the solution to this problem is to have high progressive income taxes, low business taxes, and then have state government, local government, workers' union and employers' union all interlinked in complex network of negotiations over everything from salaries and worker conditions in each field to various tax levels, tax breaks and other incentives. It works specifically because it can adjust when business is in trouble and lower its burdens to the society to keep it afloat over tough times so it can flourish a few years later as cyclical nature of market economy goes through its ups and downs.

Your "only action" is the action where all businesses leave, because all they will see is the unflinching communist apparatchik unwilling to address any merits of each case and instead simply repeating the mantra of "all are equal regardless of merits, and if you don't like it, fuck off". So any sane individual would indeed fuck right off and leave the apparatchik live the life of inescapable poverty.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

Lapland is going to exist without smelters too. But just like New York, it's going to have to adapt to being significantly poorer. So the subsidies for New York's crumbling subway for example won't be as affordable, and Lapland municipalities would have to apply for state aid to perform its legally mandated educational functions. As some already do.

As for the rest, I get the feeling you've bought Sanders' lies about Scandianvian countries being socialist. We have an entire complex interwoven negotiation system between state government, local government, workers unions and employers unions which can adjust everything from state subsidies and laws to minimum worker pay per sector. The entire purpose of such systems is to maintain companies' competitiveness in free market economy while being small nations easily bounced around by world trends. So the scenario you're talking about with state subsidies for new companies resulting in mostly shit jobs is well known here, because our system resulted in this scenario long before it became real in US. The difference is in the mindset, shit jobs are still jobs worth doing well. It's why non-temp toilet cleaners around here usually have a few years of education on how to clean toilets.

For example, your whining about the local taxation? Exactly the same situation here in Finland. What do you think funds that "wonderful free education and cheap medical care"? It's how we get to those crazy high taxes americans see and scream how we tolerate them and not outright rebel against such, in their eyes, insanity. It's about having a right mindset and negotiated trade-offs within the system.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

The rest already addressed the fact that you have as much understanding of how market economy works as an average citizen of Soviet Union. Someone filled your head with absurd propaganda, which you're regurgitating with nary a thought of your own.

I will however address the last point, which hasn't really been addressed. As with the rest of your state, the opposite is in fact true. It's very easy to cancel subsidies for company that already has massive sunk costs in the region, because for company to relocate, they'd have to abandon all investment in the region. So the math becomes simple and brutal: is subsidy differential from relocating greater than value of investments you can't move? This includes everything from investment in walls to investment in education system producing specialists for your field to ready and experienced specialists people who already have local contacts and key know-how and won't move because their families are there.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

Or local conditions are too high risk without subsidies and other commitments from locals.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the subsidies, the businesses just clump together and nobody benefits but the already-rich.

Without giving money to businesses, businesses benefit selfishly anyway. It's an accurate reading to say you think we are beholden to the already-rich.

Either give them more money out of taxes as a sort of tithe to sate their greed, or they will take it anyway and we will, somehow, get less in return for keeping some of our money.

Re:money-mouth

[CaptainDork]

And there's the constant bickering and blackmail.

Port Arthur, Texas is an example. The place is heavily oil refineries and ports for incoming crude and outgoing finished products.

Port Arthur is truly a shithole. Efforts to get the refineries (who employ a lot of lower middle class belonging to ineffective unions) to make Port Arthur a more hospitable place result in empty threats to relocate or lay off people and hire contract labour ... shit like that.

Now, Port Arthur is a fucking slum overtaken by gangs who paint graffiti on buildings declaring turf boundaries.

Meanwhile, the refineries are gated, with high security, and upper management runs the place remotely, far away from the contamination that cooking hydrocarbons brings.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland."

Yes, just as Detroit is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. For many, mere existence is not enough.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed. In what way are New Yorkers going to be poorer?

Lies like this are a large part of the problem. Why would this end differently than it has in Seattle where most residents are significantly worse off due to Amazon's presence?

Yes, incomes have gone up, but nowhere near as much as the cost of living has and we don't benefit from Amazon using resources that likely would be spread amongst a dozen or more other companies.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Detroit is why they shouldn't be trying to attract Amazon. Detroit wound up in the state it is because it was highly specialized in terms of the local economy. When the automakers started choosing factories, there wasn't much else to fall back on.

Seattle should have known better than to allow Amazon to grow locally to the extent had as we narrowly avoided that fate in the 70s and it appears that NYC has smarter people

Amazon is a virus and nobody should be trying to attract them to the area. They'll keep demanding special treatment and screwing up the area.

Re: money-mouth

[Luckyo]

Citation for what? Existence of smelters in Lapland? Have you tried google before trolling?

Re:money-mouth

[supercell]

I agree, many are BS. This one was written that they didn't get tax incentives until those jobs were filled. So it looked like it would have been hard for Amazon to screw NYC on this deal.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

> The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income

What are you talking about? That's not at all how this works. cite your sources.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about city administration, so the second-best thing I can offer is a semi-educated guess (the best would be my total silence, but then, what would be the point of that?)
It seems to me that, absent incentives, all companies would want to locate in a small number of cities/regions critically important to their interests, say NY, DC, the Sillicon Valley, LA, Seattle, etc. So everybody else, in this case Dallas, Houston, Miami, Nashville, Raleigh, Pittsburgh, Phoenix, etc., has to sweeten their deals to even be in contention. The cynical play by Amazon was to ellicit competition among all those (and many other) cities only to come up with the pre-ordained conclusion: NY and DC!
So, the obvious question is: what would have happened if NY and DC hadn't offered incentives of some sort? Perhaps they would have won anyway, and that would spell doom and gloom for every other city: if even with "incentives vs nothing" they can't get this or any oher project, then the writing is on the wall: it's time to close town and move to NY or DC. BUT if their incentives had managed to attract the sought-after investment, then they would have achieved their intended goal: leveling the playing field, so that sometimes the Alpha Cities win, sometimes the non-Alphas.
The way I see it, the failure of the scheme is NOT that smaller cities offer incentives, or even that corporations shop their projects around in search of the highest bid (the NFL has been doing it with the Superbowl for a long time, not to mention FIFA and the World Cup or the IOC and the Summer Olympics, F1 and calendar expansion, etc.: in the end, good for the sport and also positive for the cities). The issue comes up when large cities which ALREADY have deep and serious issues with housing and labor shortages, traffic congestion and a crumbling infrastructure, and therefore are poorly positioned despite whatever many other benefits they might have, decide to aggresively compete on the basis of incentives: THEY are the ones truly responsible for the "race to the bottom" you decry. Being an Alpha City doesn't mean you have to win at EVERYTHING and choke all investment in all other cities in a war of total economic annihilation; part of it is also being a responsible member of your larger community, region, state or country, treating your "fellow cities" fairly and competing with them LOYALLY! To put it bluntly, the big screw up in this soap has been, from the beginning, in every step, up to today and apparently well into the future, New York City.
Sometimes you have to take one for the team. This is NYC's time. Doesn't seem they have learned their lesson yet.

Re:money-mouth

[PPalmgren]

The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.

This outright lie invalidated any point you were trying to make. All you proved is you don't understand taxes at all. Income withholding taxes are pass-through taxes, and if the employer knowingly keeps them from the government they are supposed to deposit them towards, people go to jail and companies go under. Income withholding taxes in no way impact a companies' tax liability or credit against a companies tax liability, it's money employees would have paid the state or fed directly but due to volume is mandated to be withheld and remitted by the employer.

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

Either give them more money out of taxes as a sort of tithe to sate their greed

Can you cite an actual historical example of greed being sated by handouts or subsidies?

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

If not, how do you propose they fund things?

By fair and equitable taxation. Maggie's Pie Shop should not have to pay more taxes than Amazon.

If so, how do you propose ensuring that jobs are available to the populous?

That is not the purpose of government. Where governments have seen "creating jobs" as their purpose, the result is generally worse than where governments leave that to the private sector.

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

For a city like New York with a thriving economy and a large tax base, the expected tax increase probably isn't really that big. If Amazon isn't there, someone else will be. For a small city without a lot of big businesses, the tax increase could be really big. Converting an empty field with very little tax revenue into a valuable office building with high tax revenue (even with subsidies) is usually a very big win.

Thank you, my point precisely! Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for a small city to offer incentives, but much less so for NYC. NYC should have competed loyally, i.e., on the basis of its merits only and not on incentives: if even so they win then, OK, they realize a benefit and the smaller cities have to go back to the drawing board. But if NYC loses because someone else offered a better deal, then that's ALSO OK, "someone else" will benefit *majorly* from what for NYC wasn't such a big deal and the "race to the bottom" would have been averted. NYC doesn't have to always capture 100% of the investment: allowing the little guys to win, and win big, half of the time is better for everybody in the long run. Unfortunately, that doesn't win elections.

Re:money-mouth

[Dragonslicer]

No, tax rates don't have to be the same for everyone, but it is unconstitutional to have laws that include exceptions for specific, named people or companies. Instead, you get tax deductions added to the laws that have bizarre criteria; technically, any company can get the tax deduction if they qualify, but in reality, there's only one company that can meet the criteria.

Re:money-mouth

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Refusing to seize a much bigger chunk of your profits (or in the case of Sesttle, just seizing money, profit or not) is not "subsidizing" them. They earned it. It is you, the taxing government, that they are subsidizing.

Re:money-mouth

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

These are the same sacks of shit who, with a straigbt face, will tell you, "This isn't an income tax. It is a just tax proportional to your income."

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

What are you talking about? That's not at all how this works. cite your sources.

Yeah, it's how it works.

Here is the story:

By David Cay Johnston

April 12 (Reuters) - Across the United States more than 2,700 companies are collecting state income taxes from hundreds of thousands of workers - and are keeping the money with the states’ approval, says an eye-opening report published on Thursday.

The report from Good Jobs First, a nonprofit taxpayer watchdog organization funded by Ford, Surdna and other major foundations, identifies 16 states that let companies divert some or all of the state income taxes deducted from workers’ paychecks. None of the states requires notifying the workers, whose withholdings are treated as taxes they paid.

General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and AMC Theatres enjoy deals to keep state taxes deducted from their workers’ paychecks, the report shows. Foreign companies also enjoy such arrangements, including Electrolux, Nissan, Toyota and a host of Canadian, Japanese and European banks, Good Jobs First says.

Why do state governments do this? Public records show that large companies often pay little or no state income tax in states where they have large operations, as this column has documented. Some companies get discounts on property, sales and other taxes. So how to provide even more subsidies without writing a check? Simple. Let corporations keep the state income taxes deducted from their workers’ paychecks for up to 25 years.

It was not always this way. Letting companies keep their workers’ state taxes apparently began in Kentucky two decades ago as a way to retain jobs.

Last July when I wrote about six big companies that pocket Illinois state taxes () I knew there was more to this. But I had no idea how pervasive these diversions were until I read an advance copy of the 39-page report by Good Jobs First.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And here's where you can find the report itself and updates and a handy subsidy tracker where you can look up the type and amount of subsidies states and municipalities are handing out to corporations.

https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/...

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

But just like New York, it's going to have to adapt to being significantly poorer

You think New York is poor?

Re:money-mouth

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Pay your fair share" means, in places like this, paying gigatons extra for things well beyone basic services. As if the purpose of private existence is to be a workhorse for populist ideas.

So free people choose to go somewhere else. "Here, voters. Live with the politicians you gleely elect as they scream how evil we are. Well, we are evil in their eyes, so I am sure you are happy to see our evil say bye."

Re:money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

... all other businesses and all other people have to pick up the slack and pay for the shortfall.

And here's (one of the points) where you go wrong: if the city has excess capacity then businesses can be attracted to the city on the basis of *temporary* tax incentives without creating any shortfall; in the best case scenario, economic activity increases from the influx of new people, tax receipts go up and the benefits accrue.
It is dubious, however, that NYC had/has such excess capacity, so I grant you the rough lines of your analysis might be correct for them. Obviously that's not the case for Arlington, VA: they have excess capacity from loss of government jobs, so they can offer some tax incentives without penalty. Economic activity will likely increase, newcomers will take up the slack and tax receipts will go up without increasing taxes on the current population: on the contrary, they will benefit from the use of services they are already funding but that are operating under capacity.
Of course there are many other implications, paramount among them the impact of the new arrivals on the cost of housing; but your limited analysis doesn't even acknowledge these more important issues, blinded as you are by "taxes vs. services" as the only topic worth considering, so there's no need to go further on this rebuttal. The main point is: what you said might well be true of NYC, but not necessarily so in the general case; Arlington is a maximally relevant counterexample.

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

But just like New York, it's going to have to adapt to being significantly poorer.

Let's talk about "significantly poorer". The population of Finland is what, about 5.5 million people? The GDP of Finland is about $251 billion (USD). The population of New York City is about 8 million people, and the GDP of New York City is over $1.5 TRILLION (with a "T").

The city of New York has a GDP that's about the same as the entire country of South Korea, that has over 51 million people.

You might want to reflect on the magnitude of those numbers before worrying about whether New York City is going to be "poorer" because they didn't let Amazon come in and run all the housing prices up and provide a bunch of shitty jobs while costing the city billions in the required new infrastructure and services to deal with an Amazon facility.

In the United States, state and local corporate subsidies do not work.

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

This outright lie invalidated any point you were trying to make. All you proved is you don't understand taxes at all. Income withholding taxes are pass-through taxes, and if the employer knowingly keeps them from the government they are supposed to deposit them towards, people go to jail and companies go under.

No, my friend. If you look elsewhere in this thread, I have supplied citations and publications that show that indeed, many companies that get state and local tax subsidies which are structured so taxes are withheld from worker's paychecks and then kept by the companies. If you can't find my post with the citations, let me know and I'll post them again just for you.

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

This one was written that they didn't get tax incentives until those jobs were filled. So it looked like it would have been hard for Amazon to screw NYC on this deal.

The unemployment rate in New York City is about 4% right now. A 5.5% unemployment rate is considered full employment. Giving away the store to Amazon in tax subsidies and abatement to bring in some jobs that might go away in a year or two is bad policy. Amazon will still be using all the services, require all the infrastructure, and somebody else will get stuck with the bill. There is no case to be made for why one company should get a better deal from local government than another.

Plus, the Amazon facility will cause housing prices to go up even higher than they already are, which will hurt people who live in NYC.

I can understand subsidizing some new technology or business sector so they can get off the ground, but Amazon doesn't need the help.

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

An income tax was implemented during the Civil War, but they were later ruled as unconstitutional, as they clearly were.

Federal (but not state) income taxes remained illegal until 1913, when the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution specifically authorized congress to levy an income tax.

Re:money-mouth

[ShanghaiBill]

it is unconstitutional to have laws that include exceptions for specific, named people or companies.

Indeed. These are "bills of attainder" and are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed for saying that NY would be better off with amazon. If we look to Seattle we see a different story.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

NY has 4% unemployment you idiot. 1% lower than the accepted average of 5.5%.

Re:money-mouth

[Dragonslicer]

But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.

It would be trivially easy to argue that it restricts state and local governments. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that protections in the Constitution apply to the states as well as the federal government. They just reaffirmed this last week (9-0 decision that the 8th Amendment applies to the states).

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

English is my third language, and yet even I know the difference between "poor" and "poorer".

It takes a zealot to intentionally gaslight a post you're replying to by pretending that they have the same meaning.

Re: money-mouth

[Luckyo]

You need a citation that having significantly more tax income leads to better economic outcomes for the region?

Ok. My citation is basic mathematics.

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

You just blatantly gaslighted my other post here:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

And now you **"want to talk about" the exact thing you gaslit in a different reply. Hey asshole. Fuck you too. Let's talk about why you gaslight people in such a blatant manner, and then demonstrate clearly that it was intentional by talking about the very thing you tried to just lie about, demonstrating clear understanding of what was said.

Re:money-mouth

[PopeRatzo]

English is my third language

That would explain why you incorrectly used the suffix -er to try to indicate that by not entering into a disastrous deal with Amazon will somehow make New York City "more poor", when you know very well that Amazon NOT opening a facility in New York City does not change the financial circumstances of the city in any way.

It appears that your grasp of logic and causation are as sloppy as your English. But I will let that pass, since if you are indeed in Finland, you're probably drunk.

Re:money-mouth

[cheesybagel]

Back then the US government could make money selling Indian lands. Well, guess what, most of the good lands are gone.

Re:money-mouth

[cheesybagel]

Monaco can also pay for government expenses with their casino.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

$150k is chump pay in NYC.

Re: money-mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, get to work on that love poem!

Re:money-mouth

[Luckyo]

Funniest part of your desperate gaslighting is the fact that I have university recognised certification that I have better control of English than approximately 90% of native speakers.

But you can keep grasping at straws.

Cooperation is a New York value

[Krishnoid]

Yup, if there's one thing you can count on from them, it's compromise.

They can come back

[rsilvergun]

they just have to pay their taxes, same as everybody else. Also, they're not going to be getting that helipad or the $500 million in grants. Anymore than I would if I was setting up shop there.

No more economic terrorism. No more race to the bottom. Time to stop letting these companies bully us. We're the God Damned US of A. We're better than that.

Re:They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

they just have to pay their taxes, same as everybody else. Also, they're not going to be getting that helipad or the $500 million in grants. Anymore than I would if I was setting up shop there.

No more economic terrorism. No more race to the bottom. Time to stop letting these companies bully us. We're the God Damned US of A. We're better than that.

No we're not, we kneel before our corporate overlords. More so our tech gods of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

Re:They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

100% this.

Notice the people whio signed that letter.

CEOs of companies who's salaries are in the millions.

They want Amazon to come because they probably own real estate in the area that the HQ was going to be built so their property value would have jumped through the roof.

Re:They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... And don't forget we get our tech high off of youtube, twitter, facebook and twitch..... Tell me thy bidding media masters.......sleep....sleep.....sleep..... consume!! Yes!! I shall obey.....

Re:They can come back

[TheGratefulNet]

if you said all that and ran for president, I'd vote for you.

or anyone who held those as sincere.

the country does NOT exist for the ultra rich. its been out of balance like that for far too long. can we PLEASE have our country back? the rich guys have had their fun for long enough. time to share some of the wealth; and you can do that by removing special favors for rich buddies.

either work with us now or be running from us with pitchforks and fires; if not today or tomorrow, soon enough. we can only stand so much bullshit.

(I don't expect any change, though. I'm old and don't believe we CAN change, but I can still dream...)

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. Enjoy your destitution with the next cyclical economic downturn, and watch from the sidelines as Nashville eats your fucking lunch, dipshit.

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly his opinion is about as well thought out as the average Trump tweet. The incentives are done because the reality is it is a big fucking world and these companies have choice. Why go to a shithole like New York with bad traffic, pollution, over crowding and high costs when you have abundant cheaper and better choices.

Re:They can come back

[rtb61]

Of course thing to keep in mind, why did Amazon really abandon that site. Recent weather patterns indicate that climate change and sea level rise could have some alarming early outcomes and that site is problematic in that regard and really should be considered an unwise long term investment considering the life of the structure. Underwater front investment at this time is pretty unwise gamble.

Re:They can come back

[mapkinase]

>No more economic terrorism

What? You are a bloody demo-moron

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Partisan stuff. OK, let us attempt dialogue. Explain how a party that supports free-market laissez faire invisible hand economics also supports subsidies for companies like this? Surely the free market is perfect in its mechanisms? Intervention should be anathema.

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry you couldn't cut it in a real city. Go back to Bumfucksville.

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

"Explain how a party that supports free-market laissez faire invisible hand economics also supports subsidies for companies like this? Surely the free market is perfect in its mechanisms? Intervention should be anathema."

Fist of all a tax-break shouldn't be considered a subsidy in that context. Corporate taxes are insanely high in the US. Conservatives are in favor of lowering them. Second, confiscatory taxes and regulations are the free-market intervention, not offering relief from them.

Re:They can come back

[alvinrod]

And that's exactly why the U.S. keeps getting shitty presidents. Voters will gladly lap up inane sophistry that sounds good.

can we PLEASE have our country back?

What was taken from you exactly? It's this kind of vague and useless platitudes that I'm talking about.

time to share some of the wealth

You're likely more wealthy than 99% of the world. Why aren't you sharing all of your wealth with them?

Re:They can come back

[CaptainDork]

This.

America has three major political parties: Democrat, Republican, and Capitalism.

Both traditional parties have merged with the Capitalist party and "American values," are gone. Nobody wants those any more.

The voters are playing the lottery hoping they will be prosperous by way of association. Shareholders are greedy motherfuckers who blame corporate heads for shareholder misery.

I'm 73 years old, raised in the oil patch and I can tell you the exact moment this goddam shit all started:

It was the day the first union was created to protect workers from the beast.

Re:They can come back

[CaptainDork]

Businesses don't think that far ahead.

It's "money now, mitigation later." That pattern is ubiquitous. We see it regarding cybersecurity, pollution, fraud, data whoring ...

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean other than our rights to vote and earn a living wage? It used to be unheard of for somebody to work full-time and still be homeless.

The first thing they did after they took over our political process was to cut as many social programs add possible and do whatever it took to devalue the votes of ordinary voters. Now the only thing that matters is campaign contributions as they literally do not care if they get votes.

Re:They can come back

[supercell]

Then don't offer them. That $500M was available to any company. Wasn't just for Amazon.

Cities compete Nationally for businesses. They have to. This analogy is like a guy trying convience a girl to marry him. He buys the nicest car a big house has to spend 1/4 of his years salary on her engament ring just to marry her.

So is this female terrorism? Getting bullied by the female gender? It's how the game is played.

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

It's filled with CEOs, government rats, and VCs. A bunch of scum.

Re: They can come back

[Anonymous Coward]

So you weasel out and change the definition of words to fit your agenda. Fuck off.

HQ ZERO

[kittylu]

Amazon is already decreasing its footprint in Seattle, even after the City repealed certain taxes in negotiations to their benefit. Theyâ(TM)re an awful player in any community, as is any company refusing to pay their fair share in taxes.

Why? So they can be the Democrats' punching bag?

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks. Find some other villain to beat up on in the 2020 election.

New York already has a very hot economy

[Beeftopia]

The reality is it probably creates more de facto inflation for the average local working stiff, having so much tech and finance there. While all these CEOs would like it as it only has a positive impact for them, really who else's life would it improve? And on the other hand, creating more localized inflation, it would likely harm many more. "The middle children of history."

I suspect it's this kind of obliviousness to the average person's life challenges that got Trump, and AOC, elected.

@AOC isn't going to like that at all

[kriston]

@AOC isn't going to like that at all.

Re: @AOC isn't going to like that at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody give a shit? I mean, aside from Amazon who can barter an even better deal because of her stupidity.

Her district is going away. She's a one term oversight and nothing more.

Re: @AOC isn't going to like that at all

[NikeHerc]

She's a one term oversight and nothing more.

She is the darling of the Democratic Socialists. I pray you're right but I fear you're wrong.

Re: @AOC isn't going to like that at all

[HornWumpus]

Unless she learns to shut her cry hole, Trump is two terms for sure. She is apparently incapable of learning, being so well indoctrinated..

It's a bunch of loaded CEOs

[Anonymous Coward]

and not prominent new yorkers. Just terrible reporting.

Death wish

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dodge a bullet, you're not supposed to request a do over.

Re:Death wish

[HornWumpus]

You're against Hillary running in 2020. Good thinking. We did dodge a bullet. Thank dog.

Re: Death wish

[Anonymous Coward]

How's trumps cum taste? I heard you use it as toothpaste. You hillybilly cocksucking Nazi.

Rodney Dangerfield's First Economics Class

[Babel-17]

Yes, Amazon was starting to think that a consensus was forming that once they committed to building, they'd not want to abandon that, and so they'd be ripe for endless groups who'd be wanting to wet their beak. Sure, that's paranoid thinking, but was it paranoid enough? And was getting invited back to the table, with assurances from the politicians and the unions that beak wetting would be under control, what they were going for when they walked away from the table? Amazon's shareholders don't seem to be in an uproar over this, but a lot of the people that can make the lives of politicians and union leaders miserable are in one. So Amazon is making that clear, and maybe now negotiations can be finalized. Or maybe not, because Amazon has something to gain by not coming back to the table. It would serve to let other locales now that they aren't to be trifled with. I'm a retired union construction worker living not too far from where this headquarters would be built, and the salaries of the blue collar jobs that go with it, and they'd not just come from the construction, would be offering a better salary than what many workers are currently getting. We have work on Long Island, but more, better paying, jobs is like a tide that helps raise, or at least maintain, the salaries of everybody who works nearby in blue collar jobs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm not convinced Amazon truly wanted NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

It always struck me as a bit of camouflage to distract from the apparently true goal of cozying up to the politicians in Washington DC. The facility that will be right next door to the nation's capital is still going ahead, and it will rapidly serve the political class meeting their desires and possibly even employing their kids or other family members while also probably hosting fundraisers and lobbyists for the Bezos empire.

Simply building a big shiny new HQ right next to Washington DC would have raised lots of eyebrows, but pretending to hold a competition between a bunch of cities and then being seen whittling the list down to two (the economic capital and the political capital) and acting as though the supposedly tough fight led to a tie, and then capitulating very easily when a few characters from NYC opposed it left the entire nation being completely incurious about and unsuspicious of the facility going in at what's become the thing our founders most opposed: America's city of Versailles - the gilded and bubblized city of the ruling class.

Why did you lie about blood plasma?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you lie about blood plasma?

Infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

I travel in and out of the area weekly. The subways can't handle more people. That's an understatement. The roads need work. The only infrastructure improvement Amazon was interested in was a helipad and the city was going to pay for it. Amazon could easily come in without the subsidy but that's not the point. Amazon refused to negotiate after they had a deal with a few of the players. It would have been relatively easy to glad hand enough locals and make some friendly cost free statements but Amazon gets what it wants or it throws a tantrum. I've seen estimates of what the drag on the subways and sewage would cost. Not posting as I haven't sourced them and there's a lot of shouting but the number is greater than zero. And given the initial tantrum it's unlikely they'd have any interest in helping out down the road unless legally required.

I'm all for ferry service but the ferry's are subsidized. IKEA made it's deal in Red Hook by speaking to the actual community not just Albany and subsidizing a ferry. Amazon went all bratty 10 year old and stomped off pouting "I'll have my birthday party in Virginia and YOU'RE NOT INVITED".

Who really took a hit were the Amazon insiders who bought condos. And a few friends who watched their condo value go up, then back. And any local merchant with a long term lease was looking forward to the foot traffic. Even though I might put in a resume, Amazon's been interviewing a lot anyway, thousands more a day coming into that neighborhood would be Soylent Green time. And, yes, you can buy Soylent Green with your Prime account. Don't read the list of ingredients.

New York should set the terms

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obscene that NY would grovel over attracting any one company to its city. If NY has what a company wants there is no other place to get it. NYC should never offer tax incentives of any kind. It's like paying ransom to terrorists.

That idiot AOC was responsible

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dems have no chance of winning the next election, they're literally insane.
Add to AOC's stupidity, New York's decision to allow the murder of babies who survive abortions, and you have no hope whatsoever of being elected. Thank heavens.

New York charm?

[misnohmer]

Maybe Amazon had their fill of this New York charm they speak of. Why would any company want to establish an HQ somewhere where they'll be constantly attacked, be it by a vocal minority who would rather be uneducated and unemployed than have someone make money on their work. Too many negative sensational headlines and people who don't read past the headline. In the today's age of social outrage, the negative publicity is not worth it for a global company. They'd rather stay out of the headlines and continue to sell to New Yorkers as customers.

Re:New York charm?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no charm. NY has a socialist governor Cuomo, NYC has a socialist mayor DeBlasio and they have the socialist AOC as a congress woman. NY is a shit show and no business should be moving into that high tax, socialist hell hole.

Prominent in that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... they'd all speculated in LIC real estate.

Bezos likes sex with farm animals

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and Amazon paid no taxes.

You'd think the liberals would make them pay extra carbon taxes to stop global warming and all that jazz but no... for some reason Democrats don't mind this time.

Fuck these "prominent New Yorkers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Their city is governed by a bunch of AOC moon bats and these "prominent New Yorkers" are too fucking cowardly to do anything meaningful about it. All AOC has to do is threaten to put them on a "list" — like she's doing with dissenting (D)s in the house right now — and they'll knuckle under.

"prominent New Yorkers" are a bunch of frightened cucks and if there is a silver lining to the rise of hate filled bat shit crazy left wing millennials it's that that they're going to be made paupers, just as they deserve.

Welcome to Hong Kong real estate model

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, a group of people are hoarding tons of land and downtown suburban before Amazon announcement. Even better, try to influence policies maker, as similar to scenario describe in the book "Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong".

Well, it will be great for New Yorker to swallow the Milton friedmon/hayek Chicago school neoliberalism cyanide pills.

Sad day

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a sad day in America when union leaders actively support a viciously anti-union/anti-employee company just to get a few temporary construction jobs.

(Look up "CamperForce" to read about how Amazon exploits elderly workers. Or look up "Amazon heat exhaustion ambulance" to read about abusive work conditions.)

Don't get on AOC's list!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd better not get yourselves on AOC's list!!! She and her army of brownshirts are going to come for you.

In other news, House Democrats take up censure proceedings against AOC today for her 'list' threats.

Gentrification, anyone?

[X!0mbarg]

Nothing like having the Rich make for another way to inflate the already overpriced real estate of the area by gentrification of the residences that will pop up to fill the need of the jobs.
Too bad most of those jobs will be people moving into the area for them and not locals...
Maybe they'll have shops and other support for the campus that will completely lock out the actual locals, and be exclusive to the Amazon Culture.

Better cities, better states

[AHuxley]

No need to meet with and acquiesce to workers demands.
No having to meet community leaders.
No demands to hire random people from the local area.
Better parts of the USA exist without the demands.
Shop around and find a great state.

Funny, that ..

[cascadingstylesheet]

... when you demonize people and drive them away, they leave.

amusing

[NikeHerc]

It's amusing to watch the democrats eat their own.

Re:amusing

[wyHunter]

+1 to you!

Re: amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what is amusing to watch, is a partisan cuck pretend that either party cares about the citizens.

Keep repping that R like they give a fuck about your bunk. You are a nobody. Welcome to the club.

THE BEST WAY TO DECIDE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, here is the best way to decide, about whether Amazon should come to New York City, or not:

A City/State-wide PUBLIC REFERENDUM!!!

(Instead of trying to decide based-on what few people think!!!)

"AOC"

[Anonymous Coward]

everytime I see "AOC", I think of my old shitty computer monitor from years past which had a poor black dynamic range

Come on down

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure Amazon, build in NYC. Just do it on your own dime just like any other business that is as profitable as you are.

They are losing Millions on real-estate

[Anonymous Coward]

So prior to the deal being announced publicly a lot of insiders bought up huge swaths of real-estate at dirt cheap prices to take advantage of the expected boom. Those same people are now eating such a profound amount of shit and they are desperate to protect their overextended position. I love it when cheats , sneaks and thieves get what is coming to them. If you are in the affected boroughs you could pick up some property super cheap this month :P

Re:They are losing Millions on real-estate

[oh_my_080980980]

Ding ding ding! Give this man a prize!

FIFU

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich New Yorkers with a Vested Interest in Real Estate Are Trying To Get Amazon To Bring Back HQ2

Medieval Feudalism Back in Vogue

[kbahey]

The feudalism that existed in medieval times, is back in full force.

You have the king (the state nowadays) who controls lords through allegiance. In turn the lords own and control the land (we call them megacorporations today), and serfs who are tied to the land, and work it and the lord (we call them employees now).

The serfs work the land and produce goods, and pay the lord, who in turn takes their toil, lines up his coffers and lives lavishly, and pays the king from the work of others. The serfs live in poverty and have no way out. Even if they leave the lord's service, they have to find another lord and be in his service under similar conditions.

Same thing today: the corporations come in and say we will create jobs, and only the workers pay taxes. The corporations do not pay taxes, whether because of subsidies or by creative accounting and reporting the revenue overseas ...

The Many Faces of Regulatory Capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon has many tendrils and many parasite organisms dependant upon it. Too big for freefldom to survive!

Socialists get what they wished for

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like in Venezuela.

Same as everybody else...

[tomhath]

Have you bothered to look at what incentives are available to everybody else? Some pretty sweet deals are available to businesses. Amazon was bigger than most but if you want to start a company in New York they'll be more than happy to help.

Amazon Cuomo can

[oh_my_080980980]

go fuck himself. It's a horrible investment on NY's part. And Amazon was never interested in creating 2 HQs. Why because there wasn't any obstacle.

You had too many prominent politicians bending over and taking it up the ass for Amazon. No Amazon got what it wanted and moved on. There were no real plans to build here.

Pre-feudal tribalism, I would say

[Picodon]

I’m no expert but today’s situation reminds me more of pre-feudal civilisations, where a king (sometimes, principally considered as unifying war leader) was elected (sometimes, for a short term) by the elite from the elite (so that’s more like the president today, rather than the state); the elite being composed of rival chieftains who (like today’s billionaire investors manipulating mega-corporations) effectively owned a piece of territory and pretty much everything on it (including all vital resources necessary for the people’s subsistance). The lower classes were divided into two main categories: the corporate employees, whose main job was to fight in wars and loudly acclaim the ruler; and the sheeple consumers, whose only job was to feed the machine with fuel (yesteryear: food and materials; today: money). There was still much fluidity (instability) as every chieftain aspired to the top job and was mostly busy fighting all others. And, exceptionally, a foot soldier (not a peasant, of course) might even rise through the ranks (and by that, I mean usurp power by force, not “receive a well-deserved promotion”) through a mix of stunning military prowess, extreme ruthlessness, cunning ability to manipulate others’ rivalries and greed and, of course, phenomenal luck.

The next logical step, unsurprisingly, was the eventual rise as king of some more-powerful and more-ambitious than average character who had no desire to face opposition, accept limitations of power, or face the prospect of eventually having to give up the job; and who would then seek to obtain unlimited powers and to permanently solidify the semi-fluid political structure through the establishement of a fixed hierarchy, complete with well-defined privileges and duties, with help from the clergy to supply religious justifications and further eliminate any moral opposition. In Western Europe, that was medieval feudalism; but I think that, arguably, this process has repeatedly occurred throughout the ages and around the world.

It does looks like we’re now headed straight into repeating that pattern.

New Yorkers? Which New Yorkers?

[Picodon]

New Yorkers do not want to give up on...

A clear majority of New Yorkers support this project...

Looking at the signatories of the open letter, I can’t help getting the feeling that what they meant by “New Yorkers” is, rather, “New Yorkers that matter”. You know, the ones who own stuff like real estate and businesses.

Fuck New York bunch of fucking commies

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that State. No wonder they lead the country in mass Exodist of taxpayers. Bunch of fucking communists are all that's left. Fuck you New York and fuck your liberals. Bunch of fucking Satan worshiping Baby Killers. You'll all be in hell for eternity.