7 ms·

Literally the opposite. The tax gains out number the tax breaks 3 to 1. Each one of these $150k jobs will net NY state $13.8k of income tax per year and (at lea

Literally the opposite. The tax gains out number the tax breaks 3 to 1. Each one of these $150k jobs will net NY state $13.8k of income tax per year and (at least) $2500 of sales tax. The tax break per job is $4800 per year (the $48k figure you may have seen is over ten years).

peteretep 8y ago
Plus the construction spend + attracting tech people et al
ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
Still not free market though.
- endtime 8y ago
  How is not free market for polities to compete for attractive employers?
  - airstrike 8y ago
    Because only one company is benefiting from these tax breaks.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Yup. You can't tilt the board and say it was "fair". If a given community put out a RFP / RFQ that said, "Here are our assets. Here are something things we might be able and willing to offer...Which of you are interested in coming here?" Perhaps not free market, but certainly closer to fair and less corrupt.
    - endtime 8y ago
      I think you might be viewing it backwards. In this case, Amazon is the only one selling but lots of places were buying.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    Application of tax policy does not seem like a "market" that local governments should "compete" in. I understand this does happen internationally, between nations. Not that it is a good thing, but seems very difficult to stop. However, at first glance, it seems absurd to me to allow this to occur within a single nation, between the different sub-localities. How does this benefit the US as a whole?
nerdponx 8y ago
That's fair, but how much of that will go towards compensating people who will be driven out of north/west Queens and north Brooklyn as a result of rising rents?
- harryh 8y ago
  Just let people build more housing so rents don't rise.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    Housing is going up like crazy in New York, it's just not affordable.
    - harryh 8y ago
      That's because the city doesn't let people build enough new supply. THAT'S REALLY BAD. And it's the fault of city government, not Amazon or any other company.
      - chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Actually, my understanding is there is a fairly significant amount of housing (pretty much everywhere?) that for one reason or another is kept off the market. (Likely due to some other gov policy? Maybe?) That is, there is capacity but supply is being held back.
        harryh 8y ago
        Your understanding is wrong. Residential vacancy rates are tiny in most big cities. In the few exceptions (like Seattle for example) where they aren't tiny due to new supply: surprise! rents are dropping.
        chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Link please. But yes, of the housing available in the market, tiny. But there's plenty of housing held off the market.
lallysingh 8y ago
Are these software jobs? I don't know if they'll be attracting more people in such a tight labor market, or just bumping up rates for those who already here. There's plenty of unfulfilled demand for software engineers in NY, what does Amazon offer to add to supply?
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > There's plenty of unfulfilled demand for software engineers in NY, what does Amazon offer to add to supply? You wouldn't know that from the pickiness of some companies around here.
  - seattle_spring 8y ago
    I think GP meant good software engineers.
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      The definition of "good" is where the pickiness comes in.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I recently spent half an interview being asked about embedded systems and C for a frontend JavaScript position. If the question is "do companies, in general, know what software engineer they need for a position?" my answer is almost universally no.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Gains? From more road repair? Higher housing costs (read: more welfare state). Other services? Etc. Etc. Etc. You're making it sound like there's only upside. Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz. My gawd, they struggle to govern, and that's their job. Pockets are being lined - once again - at the expense of the tax payers. "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz Says you. I think they do a better job buying that biz than many of the other biz's they buy with public funds. If you want to see pockets being lined, look to things that don't have returns on investment or are poorly managed in real corrupt ways (ala many public pension plans). Not comparing dollar spent to dollar spent of tax money compared to benefits makes it clear some are just anti-private-sector. > "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge? Are you implying that the average salary to get the incentives isn't going to be 150k/yr as stated their agreement?
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    The gov's job is to govern. Period. How about we let it get that right before it starts branching off into things it's has little or no expertise in. Again. The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. __The Gov__ has said that. Whether you're listening or not is up to you.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it. I can definitely sympathize with those applauding them for taking less as a way to promote growth.
liquidmetalll 8y ago
Except NY state won't gain any income tax from people who fill these jobs but live out of state (NJ or CT). If you've ever worked in NYC, you know that this will be a non-trivial proportion of people. Factoring that into account, it's not clear at all that NY state will see a positive return on this.
jopsen 8y ago
It's still a race to the bottom. Attracting businesses with tax-exempts is a zero-sum game. In the EU we have rules against things like this. As it's considered anti-competitive behavior.
- airstrike 8y ago
  > Attracting businesses with tax-exempts is a zero-sum game. That's not a foregone conclusion.
- bb1234 8y ago
  I believe you mean to say prisoner's dilemma, rather than a zero sum game.
- NoblePublius 8y ago
  Ireland gets away with it fine
conanbatt 8y ago
The tax gains would always outnumber the tax cost for any business, which is why the city government is favoring corporate over small business, that employ way more people for a lot less monopoly rents.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Maybe not: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-store-theory-retail-apocalypse-walmart/574123/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-sto...

peteretep 8y ago

Plus the construction spend + attracting tech people et al

ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago

Still not free market though.

endtime 8y ago
How is not free market for polities to compete for attractive employers?
- airstrike 8y ago
  Because only one company is benefiting from these tax breaks.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Yup. You can't tilt the board and say it was "fair". If a given community put out a RFP / RFQ that said, "Here are our assets. Here are something things we might be able and willing to offer...Which of you are interested in coming here?" Perhaps not free market, but certainly closer to fair and less corrupt.
  - endtime 8y ago
    I think you might be viewing it backwards. In this case, Amazon is the only one selling but lots of places were buying.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Application of tax policy does not seem like a "market" that local governments should "compete" in. I understand this does happen internationally, between nations. Not that it is a good thing, but seems very difficult to stop. However, at first glance, it seems absurd to me to allow this to occur within a single nation, between the different sub-localities. How does this benefit the US as a whole?

nerdponx 8y ago

That's fair, but how much of that will go towards compensating people who will be driven out of north/west Queens and north Brooklyn as a result of rising rents?

harryh 8y ago
Just let people build more housing so rents don't rise.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  Housing is going up like crazy in New York, it's just not affordable.
  - harryh 8y ago
    That's because the city doesn't let people build enough new supply. THAT'S REALLY BAD. And it's the fault of city government, not Amazon or any other company.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Actually, my understanding is there is a fairly significant amount of housing (pretty much everywhere?) that for one reason or another is kept off the market. (Likely due to some other gov policy? Maybe?) That is, there is capacity but supply is being held back.
      - harryh 8y ago
        Your understanding is wrong. Residential vacancy rates are tiny in most big cities. In the few exceptions (like Seattle for example) where they aren't tiny due to new supply: surprise! rents are dropping.
        chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Link please. But yes, of the housing available in the market, tiny. But there's plenty of housing held off the market.

lallysingh 8y ago

Are these software jobs? I don't know if they'll be attracting more people in such a tight labor market, or just bumping up rates for those who already here. There's plenty of unfulfilled demand for software engineers in NY, what does Amazon offer to add to supply?

vonmoltke 8y ago
> There's plenty of unfulfilled demand for software engineers in NY, what does Amazon offer to add to supply? You wouldn't know that from the pickiness of some companies around here.
- seattle_spring 8y ago
  I think GP meant good software engineers.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    The definition of "good" is where the pickiness comes in.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I recently spent half an interview being asked about embedded systems and C for a frontend JavaScript position. If the question is "do companies, in general, know what software engineer they need for a position?" my answer is almost universally no.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Gains? From more road repair? Higher housing costs (read: more welfare state). Other services? Etc. Etc. Etc. You're making it sound like there's only upside. Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz. My gawd, they struggle to govern, and that's their job. Pockets are being lined - once again - at the expense of the tax payers. "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?

kodablah 8y ago
> Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz Says you. I think they do a better job buying that biz than many of the other biz's they buy with public funds. If you want to see pockets being lined, look to things that don't have returns on investment or are poorly managed in real corrupt ways (ala many public pension plans). Not comparing dollar spent to dollar spent of tax money compared to benefits makes it clear some are just anti-private-sector. > "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge? Are you implying that the average salary to get the incentives isn't going to be 150k/yr as stated their agreement?
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  The gov's job is to govern. Period. How about we let it get that right before it starts branching off into things it's has little or no expertise in. Again. The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. __The Gov__ has said that. Whether you're listening or not is up to you.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it. I can definitely sympathize with those applauding them for taking less as a way to promote growth.

liquidmetalll 8y ago

Except NY state won't gain any income tax from people who fill these jobs but live out of state (NJ or CT). If you've ever worked in NYC, you know that this will be a non-trivial proportion of people. Factoring that into account, it's not clear at all that NY state will see a positive return on this.

jopsen 8y ago

It's still a race to the bottom. Attracting businesses with tax-exempts is a zero-sum game. In the EU we have rules against things like this. As it's considered anti-competitive behavior.

airstrike 8y ago
> Attracting businesses with tax-exempts is a zero-sum game. That's not a foregone conclusion.
bb1234 8y ago
I believe you mean to say prisoner's dilemma, rather than a zero sum game.
NoblePublius 8y ago
Ireland gets away with it fine

conanbatt 8y ago

The tax gains would always outnumber the tax cost for any business, which is why the city government is favoring corporate over small business, that employ way more people for a lot less monopoly rents.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
Maybe not: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-store-theory-retail-apocalypse-walmart/574123/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-sto...