4 ms·

You seem to be asserting the unsubstantiated, and until now implicit premise that "subsidies" are necessarily somehow "charitable." I don't find that to be at

by rosser 8y ago

You seem to be asserting the unsubstantiated, and until now implicit premise that "subsidies" are necessarily somehow "charitable." I don't find that to be at all supported, whether in the literature, in the behavior, or in your argument. EDIT: That is to say, a "subsidy" can absolutely be used to serve the subsidizing party's interests, as you describe, alongside, or even over the subsidized party's. Charity is an orthogonal question.

manfredo 8y ago
Two of your 3 definitions specified that subsidies are characterized by having the aim of promoting some sort of "social policy" or something "advantageous to the public". In my view, this means subsidies are "charitable" insofar as they are making a monetary sacrifice to promotr some sort of greater good, be it environmental (like green energy subsidies) or social justice (like grants to minority or women owned businesses) or something else. I don't think any of the public officials framed these tax incentives to Amazon of having any sort of "social policy" or anything of that sort. They seemed to have been offered with the explicit goal of optimizing revenue in the long term, not trying to advance any sort of social good beyond bringing in more money.
- rosser 8y ago
  You don't see any growth in the local economy that would result from HQ2-A (or is this one -B?) as an "economic [or social] policy" worth supporting, for its own sake, or that it's not somehow "advantageous to the public", under the kind of thinking that uses tax breaks to lure corporations like this? The "greater good" under discussion is, IMO, the "rising tides lift all boats" notion that (at least some of) the people behind this policy believe will result from it. That's not charity; it's "optimizing revenue in the long term". It's purely about "bringing in more money". EDIT: Not to say I subscribe to this theory, personally, but that's my understanding of the motivations in play. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have far more productive things to do with my time than to keep going in circles here.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    No, the presence of HQ2 in and of itself is not a social policy, and yields no public benefit. It serves the interest of the government, by increasing revenue. Presumably they will spend that money on something that does have social benefits, but that's not directly tied to Amazon's tax incentives. Sure, it is if we adopt a definition of "subsidy" that includes tax incentives that are offered with the goal of increasing tax revenue in the long run, but such a re-framing eliminates the root of a lot of outrage about these "subsidies". It's no longer correct to say that New York and Virginia are giving anything to Amazon, because these governments are still receiving more taxes than they would have without Amazon's presence. The article linked by OP doesn't actually dispute that. The only piece of quantitative data it provides is a correlation between campaign contributions and subsidies. The article claims that the tax incentives (or if you prefer, subsidies) are uneconomical, but it does not actually put forth any data to demonstrate that NY or VA will see a net loss in the Amazon HQ2 deals.

by rosser 8y ago

manfredo 8y ago

Two of your 3 definitions specified that subsidies are characterized by having the aim of promoting some sort of "social policy" or something "advantageous to the public". In my view, this means subsidies are "charitable" insofar as they are making a monetary sacrifice to promotr some sort of greater good, be it environmental (like green energy subsidies) or social justice (like grants to minority or women owned businesses) or something else. I don't think any of the public officials framed these tax incentives to Amazon of having any sort of "social policy" or anything of that sort. They seemed to have been offered with the explicit goal of optimizing revenue in the long term, not trying to advance any sort of social good beyond bringing in more money.

rosser 8y ago
You don't see any growth in the local economy that would result from HQ2-A (or is this one -B?) as an "economic [or social] policy" worth supporting, for its own sake, or that it's not somehow "advantageous to the public", under the kind of thinking that uses tax breaks to lure corporations like this? The "greater good" under discussion is, IMO, the "rising tides lift all boats" notion that (at least some of) the people behind this policy believe will result from it. That's not charity; it's "optimizing revenue in the long term". It's purely about "bringing in more money". EDIT: Not to say I subscribe to this theory, personally, but that's my understanding of the motivations in play. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have far more productive things to do with my time than to keep going in circles here.
- manfredo 8y ago
  No, the presence of HQ2 in and of itself is not a social policy, and yields no public benefit. It serves the interest of the government, by increasing revenue. Presumably they will spend that money on something that does have social benefits, but that's not directly tied to Amazon's tax incentives. Sure, it is if we adopt a definition of "subsidy" that includes tax incentives that are offered with the goal of increasing tax revenue in the long run, but such a re-framing eliminates the root of a lot of outrage about these "subsidies". It's no longer correct to say that New York and Virginia are giving anything to Amazon, because these governments are still receiving more taxes than they would have without Amazon's presence. The article linked by OP doesn't actually dispute that. The only piece of quantitative data it provides is a correlation between campaign contributions and subsidies. The article claims that the tax incentives (or if you prefer, subsidies) are uneconomical, but it does not actually put forth any data to demonstrate that NY or VA will see a net loss in the Amazon HQ2 deals.