Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.
Now they will pay $0 billion.
You fucking moron.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Yup, if there's one thing you can count on from them, it's compromise.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?...
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Nice one genius
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!!!
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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.
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.
>Instead of a $3B giveaway to one business
Didn't you just quote, you brainless twat?
>They were going to pay $27 billion
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Have you never heard of an opportunity cost?
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.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but now I know Anon is interested in young gay Republicans so that's nice.
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.
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.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
... when you demonize people and drive them away, they leave.
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.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
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.
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
It's amusing to watch the democrats eat their own.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
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?
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.)
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 ...
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
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?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Yeah, I missed the deepfake showing the riots as business executives hit the streets at HQ2, fighting a land-grab war, too.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Unless she learns to shut her cry hole, Trump is two terms for sure. She is apparently incapable of learning, being so well indoctrinated..
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You're against Hillary running in 2020. Good thinking. We did dodge a bullet. Thank dog.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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.
$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.
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.
Ding ding ding! Give this man a prize!
But how good are these jobs, really? Are they jobs people want to do?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Ask yourself why you're so afraid of negative language to describe the same thing. In the eyes of many, this is a handout.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
R&D? You mean for the buttons that they are now cancelling?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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?
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.
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".
Ken
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?
Ken
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
World's richest man needs handout.
"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.
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.
"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.
You are assuming Amazon's proposition wasn't a bait-and-switch to begin with.
They pay a lot less in sales taxes than the brick & mortar stores they killed like Borders.
0/10 troll bro. AC can't reading comprehension and you call that victory. "I am bleeding, making me the victor!"
Exactly. That explains the lack of interest in persuading Bezos to change his mind.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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?
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.