3 ms·

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 ow

by 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

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.