6 ms·

the issue for me is that the main benefit of the tax breaks is capitalized by owners of AMZN stock, mainly Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world. AMZN is going

by tmh79 8y ago

the issue for me is that the main benefit of the tax breaks is capitalized by owners of AMZN stock, mainly Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world. AMZN is going to grow somewhere, they should pay taxes where they grow.

raiyu 8y ago
Yeah but they will get that tax break regardless at least this we can continue to make NYC a powerhouse tech center. And it's in Long island City not in Manhattan like Facebook and Google.
- eganist 8y ago
  > Yeah but they will get that tax break regardless Evidently not. Their tax break in Northern Virginia was not nearly as egregious (northern VA resident here; I'm totally fine with what we're paying for what we're getting). By contrast, what they were getting for LIC was insane. And by not having anyone else lined up and by looking at the backlash over the size of the tax break, I'd be surprised if anyone else approached that amount, so it doesn't look like they'll get that tax break regardless.
- munificent 8y ago
  > Yeah but they will get that tax break regardless I just don't understand this argument. It's like "Someone's gonna get fucked, so I'd prefer it be me." That tax break is real money. Money that your community will not be able to spend on education, infrastructure, police, parks, all the things that make a place worth living in. Why would you hand that over to a company that doesn't need it?
  - raiyu 8y ago
    I rather the money go to bringing tech jobs to NYC and making it a true technology hub then leave it in the hands of the city to spend billions on useless subway lines that are 3x the construction cost of anywhere else in the world: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
    - avolcano 8y ago
      Ah yes, "useless" subway lines that carry [checks notes] 5.6 million trips a day. I'd rather have money go towards our public transit system, no matter how fucked up it is at the moment, than spend another cent on bringing tech jobs that will come here no matter what. NYC's been a "true technology hub" for a long time, regardless of one giant company deciding to abstain from coming here.
      - raiyu 8y ago
        Referring to the second avenue extension.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        Why is everyone doing this ‘checks notes’ bit all of a sudden? It’s all over Twitter.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      People want to live and work in NYC in part because of those useless subway lines. There is no need for NYC to hand out taxpayer money to any company. Companies will come regardless. Increasing density isn’t going to make subway lines cheaper by the way.
      - adamson 8y ago
        +1. I've fallen in love with NYC over the past few years in no small part due to the transit system working well enough for me to explore all around it comfortably.
  - jemfinch 8y ago
    > That tax break is real money. Sure, but it's real money that your community doesn't get either way. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that the choice was legitimately between "Tax money and 25,000 jobs" or "No tax money and 25,000 jobs." No, the choice has always been between "No tax money and 25,000 jobs" or "No tax money and no jobs." You're not getting the tax money either way. Either Amazon builds with subsidies and you get no tax money from them, or they go elsewhere, and you get no tax money from them. Your decision is really between "Do you want 25,000 jobs, or not?" 25,000 jobs whose incomes that can be taxed. 25,000 jobs that are going to shop at local stores, pay for local gas, pay local rents, raise local property values, and so on. And that choice is pretty damn clear.
    - Zecar 8y ago
      Corporate welfare is, and always will be, theft.
    - ProfessorLayton 8y ago
      I disagree. Amazon does not have as many choices as it would seem from the outset. Perhaps NYC is no longer going to get an HQ2 with 25k jobs, but Amazon will be expanding there regardless of subsidies. The talent required is not evenly spread throughout the cities that bid on HQ2, and a world-class city like NYC does not need Amazon as much as Amazon needs them.
    - youdontknowtho 8y ago
      That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that only taxing the jobs, and all the economic activity they might generate would still not cover the strain that the company would put on the local system. Now they need to start taxing Wall St. heavily.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      Except it's not really just 25,000 jobs, right? It's increased stress on already struggling infrastructure. It's higher prices and increased gentrification in the same neighborhood that has the largest public housing development in the entire country. It's people who will need mail and emergency services and schools for their kids. All those things cost money. Usually, that money would come from taxing residents and local businesses. But given that we've agreed that the city wouldn't be getting that money, it's not at all clear that those 25,000 jobs would be a good thing.
  - captncraig 8y ago
    I just really hated the setup. All amazon would repeat was "We're bringing thousands of jobs! Look at all the big projects we promise to do!" Well why is trusting you to build parks better than just spending your tax money on parks? Why do we need a new indirection in that process?
  - deminature 8y ago
    It's temporary. The city was projected to get back $25bn in tax revenue on the deal, and the initial outlay paid back in a few years. Amazon had also agreed to completely redevelop the waterfront of LIC. For the long term, the deal absolutely made sense.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    These we're existing tax programs. Regardless of what Amazon does, a for profit company is going to receive those tax breaks. They are available to anyone who meets the qualifications. So it isn't "handing over" anything that isn't going to be handed over to a company already.
  - msie 8y ago
    Depends. If nothing is being constructed on that site like HQ2 then you won't get the money you 'lost' on the tax break. Unless these tax breaks include refundable tax credits?
  - nova22033 8y ago
    >That tax break is real money. Money that your community will not be able to spend on education, infrastructure, police, parks, You run a store. You put up a sign offering a 50% discount. I walk in the store and you tell me there is no discount. I walk out. Guess what? You didn't get any money and I didn't get anything out of the deal. Amazon backing out of HQ2 doesn't mean you get to keep the money. You never had the money.
    - youdontknowtho 8y ago
      What if you came in and bought something at a discount and then took way more than you payed for... That's more like what they were going to do.
      - nova22033 8y ago
        How is Amazon taking more than what they paid for? Think of a building with apartments for rent. Half the apartments are empty and the building is falling apart because the rent doesn't cover repairs. The building manager offers new renters 20% off for a year. The existing renters protest and the new renters back out. You don't suddenly end up with more money to cover repairs.
        youdontknowtho 8y ago
        No one is saying that money is being produced out of thin air. Think of it this way. Walmart doesn't pay some of their employees enough to survive, so those employees get food stamps. Walmart makes enough profits to pay those people the equivalent value in food stamps, but they don't. It can be said that the government is giving Walmart some amount of money because Walmart's profits are higher because of the food stamp expenditure. The federal government is not sending money to Walmart via a bank transfer, but there is an exchange of money taking place. Now think about this in terms of city services. Twenty five thousand employees would not pay enough taxes to make up for what they use in city services combined with what the organization uses. Certainly not 3 billion dollars worth. In that sense, the 3 billion dollars could be seen as NY basically paying Amazon to give 25K professional class people jobs. There are other social side effects that are hard to assign a dollar value to. Does that make more sense? No one is saying that money would come from no where. It helps if you assume for a moment that your ideological opponents are actually smart people who aren't just deluded, but that they have an interest that is actually in opposition to "your side".
  - Symmetry 8y ago
    When there are hundreds of towns in the US able to offer tax breaks to get companies to relocate you're never going to persuade everybody to not defect. It would be nice if there could be some enforceable agreement put in place but as far as I can tell US federalism prevents that.
- fjp 8y ago
  Wouldn't you rather existing NYC residents build new companies to make it a tech center? You're just letting the giant school bully take over your neighborhood for below market value (due to the massive tax breaks) and declaring "Look! We're a tech center!"
  - hopler 8y ago
    Why don't you think existing NYC residents would want to work at Amazon?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > below market value (due to the massive tax breaks) I don't see how "below market value" follows from "massive tax breaks". Are you implying that the standard tax rate is somehow determined by the market? Because it's not, and "market value" is whatever the market is willing to pay for it. Unless they have someone other than Amazon offering the same benefits for less, then Amazon offer was market value.
    - fjp 8y ago
      Because they're essentially paying: market value - value from future tax breaks discounted to current value
bluecalm 8y ago
It's not mainly Bezos. It's mainly investment/index funds - entities that that hold people's saving and retirement accounts.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  The stock is down 0.61% today. Effectively flat, especially in a well diversified retirement account. It’s still up 2.8% WoW
- loeg 8y ago
  The point stands — it's taking money out of the pockets of NYC residents, and delivering it to AMZN shareholders.
  - alecco 8y ago
    Playing Devil's advocate, these were tax cuts on new jobs and business. And even with that the income to the city coffers would be greater even in the short term.
  - bluecalm 8y ago
    Tax cuts/credits are not taking money of NYC residents. Actually the residents will get less money than if the deal was made. I hope this is obvious.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      It is clearly not obvious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19163755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19163755
objektif 8y ago
I mean a simple calculation shows that ny state would have break even in less than 10 years.

by tmh79 8y ago

raiyu 8y ago

Yeah but they will get that tax break regardless at least this we can continue to make NYC a powerhouse tech center. And it's in Long island City not in Manhattan like Facebook and Google.

eganist 8y ago
> Yeah but they will get that tax break regardless Evidently not. Their tax break in Northern Virginia was not nearly as egregious (northern VA resident here; I'm totally fine with what we're paying for what we're getting). By contrast, what they were getting for LIC was insane. And by not having anyone else lined up and by looking at the backlash over the size of the tax break, I'd be surprised if anyone else approached that amount, so it doesn't look like they'll get that tax break regardless.
munificent 8y ago
> Yeah but they will get that tax break regardless I just don't understand this argument. It's like "Someone's gonna get fucked, so I'd prefer it be me." That tax break is real money. Money that your community will not be able to spend on education, infrastructure, police, parks, all the things that make a place worth living in. Why would you hand that over to a company that doesn't need it?
- raiyu 8y ago
  I rather the money go to bringing tech jobs to NYC and making it a true technology hub then leave it in the hands of the city to spend billions on useless subway lines that are 3x the construction cost of anywhere else in the world: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
  - avolcano 8y ago
    Ah yes, "useless" subway lines that carry [checks notes] 5.6 million trips a day. I'd rather have money go towards our public transit system, no matter how fucked up it is at the moment, than spend another cent on bringing tech jobs that will come here no matter what. NYC's been a "true technology hub" for a long time, regardless of one giant company deciding to abstain from coming here.
    - raiyu 8y ago
      Referring to the second avenue extension.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      Why is everyone doing this ‘checks notes’ bit all of a sudden? It’s all over Twitter.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    People want to live and work in NYC in part because of those useless subway lines. There is no need for NYC to hand out taxpayer money to any company. Companies will come regardless. Increasing density isn’t going to make subway lines cheaper by the way.
    - adamson 8y ago
      +1. I've fallen in love with NYC over the past few years in no small part due to the transit system working well enough for me to explore all around it comfortably.
- jemfinch 8y ago
  > That tax break is real money. Sure, but it's real money that your community doesn't get either way. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that the choice was legitimately between "Tax money and 25,000 jobs" or "No tax money and 25,000 jobs." No, the choice has always been between "No tax money and 25,000 jobs" or "No tax money and no jobs." You're not getting the tax money either way. Either Amazon builds with subsidies and you get no tax money from them, or they go elsewhere, and you get no tax money from them. Your decision is really between "Do you want 25,000 jobs, or not?" 25,000 jobs whose incomes that can be taxed. 25,000 jobs that are going to shop at local stores, pay for local gas, pay local rents, raise local property values, and so on. And that choice is pretty damn clear.
  - Zecar 8y ago
    Corporate welfare is, and always will be, theft.
  - ProfessorLayton 8y ago
    I disagree. Amazon does not have as many choices as it would seem from the outset. Perhaps NYC is no longer going to get an HQ2 with 25k jobs, but Amazon will be expanding there regardless of subsidies. The talent required is not evenly spread throughout the cities that bid on HQ2, and a world-class city like NYC does not need Amazon as much as Amazon needs them.
  - youdontknowtho 8y ago
    That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that only taxing the jobs, and all the economic activity they might generate would still not cover the strain that the company would put on the local system. Now they need to start taxing Wall St. heavily.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Except it's not really just 25,000 jobs, right? It's increased stress on already struggling infrastructure. It's higher prices and increased gentrification in the same neighborhood that has the largest public housing development in the entire country. It's people who will need mail and emergency services and schools for their kids. All those things cost money. Usually, that money would come from taxing residents and local businesses. But given that we've agreed that the city wouldn't be getting that money, it's not at all clear that those 25,000 jobs would be a good thing.
- captncraig 8y ago
  I just really hated the setup. All amazon would repeat was "We're bringing thousands of jobs! Look at all the big projects we promise to do!" Well why is trusting you to build parks better than just spending your tax money on parks? Why do we need a new indirection in that process?
- deminature 8y ago
  It's temporary. The city was projected to get back $25bn in tax revenue on the deal, and the initial outlay paid back in a few years. Amazon had also agreed to completely redevelop the waterfront of LIC. For the long term, the deal absolutely made sense.
- stale2002 8y ago
  These we're existing tax programs. Regardless of what Amazon does, a for profit company is going to receive those tax breaks. They are available to anyone who meets the qualifications. So it isn't "handing over" anything that isn't going to be handed over to a company already.
- msie 8y ago
  Depends. If nothing is being constructed on that site like HQ2 then you won't get the money you 'lost' on the tax break. Unless these tax breaks include refundable tax credits?
- nova22033 8y ago
  >That tax break is real money. Money that your community will not be able to spend on education, infrastructure, police, parks, You run a store. You put up a sign offering a 50% discount. I walk in the store and you tell me there is no discount. I walk out. Guess what? You didn't get any money and I didn't get anything out of the deal. Amazon backing out of HQ2 doesn't mean you get to keep the money. You never had the money.
  - youdontknowtho 8y ago
    What if you came in and bought something at a discount and then took way more than you payed for... That's more like what they were going to do.
    - nova22033 8y ago
      How is Amazon taking more than what they paid for? Think of a building with apartments for rent. Half the apartments are empty and the building is falling apart because the rent doesn't cover repairs. The building manager offers new renters 20% off for a year. The existing renters protest and the new renters back out. You don't suddenly end up with more money to cover repairs.
      - youdontknowtho 8y ago
        No one is saying that money is being produced out of thin air. Think of it this way. Walmart doesn't pay some of their employees enough to survive, so those employees get food stamps. Walmart makes enough profits to pay those people the equivalent value in food stamps, but they don't. It can be said that the government is giving Walmart some amount of money because Walmart's profits are higher because of the food stamp expenditure. The federal government is not sending money to Walmart via a bank transfer, but there is an exchange of money taking place. Now think about this in terms of city services. Twenty five thousand employees would not pay enough taxes to make up for what they use in city services combined with what the organization uses. Certainly not 3 billion dollars worth. In that sense, the 3 billion dollars could be seen as NY basically paying Amazon to give 25K professional class people jobs. There are other social side effects that are hard to assign a dollar value to. Does that make more sense? No one is saying that money would come from no where. It helps if you assume for a moment that your ideological opponents are actually smart people who aren't just deluded, but that they have an interest that is actually in opposition to "your side".
- Symmetry 8y ago
  When there are hundreds of towns in the US able to offer tax breaks to get companies to relocate you're never going to persuade everybody to not defect. It would be nice if there could be some enforceable agreement put in place but as far as I can tell US federalism prevents that.
fjp 8y ago
Wouldn't you rather existing NYC residents build new companies to make it a tech center? You're just letting the giant school bully take over your neighborhood for below market value (due to the massive tax breaks) and declaring "Look! We're a tech center!"
- hopler 8y ago
  Why don't you think existing NYC residents would want to work at Amazon?
- int_19h 8y ago
  > below market value (due to the massive tax breaks) I don't see how "below market value" follows from "massive tax breaks". Are you implying that the standard tax rate is somehow determined by the market? Because it's not, and "market value" is whatever the market is willing to pay for it. Unless they have someone other than Amazon offering the same benefits for less, then Amazon offer was market value.
  - fjp 8y ago
    Because they're essentially paying: market value - value from future tax breaks discounted to current value

bluecalm 8y ago

It's not mainly Bezos. It's mainly investment/index funds - entities that that hold people's saving and retirement accounts.

ilikehurdles 8y ago
The stock is down 0.61% today. Effectively flat, especially in a well diversified retirement account. It’s still up 2.8% WoW
loeg 8y ago
The point stands — it's taking money out of the pockets of NYC residents, and delivering it to AMZN shareholders.
- alecco 8y ago
  Playing Devil's advocate, these were tax cuts on new jobs and business. And even with that the income to the city coffers would be greater even in the short term.
- bluecalm 8y ago
  Tax cuts/credits are not taking money of NYC residents. Actually the residents will get less money than if the deal was made. I hope this is obvious.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    It is clearly not obvious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19163755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19163755

objektif 8y ago

I mean a simple calculation shows that ny state would have break even in less than 10 years.