If NY is losing money on this, then what you're saying is correct. If they're making money, then the taxpayers of NY are coming out positively. The tax break do

If NY is losing money on this, then what you're saying is correct. If they're making money, then the taxpayers of NY are coming out positively. The tax break doesn't exist on its own: 10% of $1 versus 1% of $1000, and the latter is obviously the better deal. As GP stated, the alternative is that NY doesn't get Amazon's HQ, and gets 0% of $0. >You are literally talking about a corporation taking ('negotiating') bread from hungry people like it's a good thing. If you're going to make such an argument, you might as well claim that they should pay 99% in tax, because any lower a tax rate would be "taking bread from hungry people". Of course, this would be stupid: you'd make more money in year 1, the business would go under, and you're now making squat, and all the poor folks go hungry once more (plus the additional of everyone who just got fired). The percentage is not what matters here. You could argue instead that the overall country is worse off, but the US is a one that encourages state-level competition, and thats how it goes (ideally, states should be efficient with their limited funds, and taxes should be as low as possible to support their various infrastructures; state-competition encourages this, in the same fashion as any other part of the US economy).