11 ms·

The opposition is not because some high tech firm, whether it is Google or Amazon, is expanding in NYC. The opposition is because of the Massive tax breaks and

• r_smart 8y ago
  But they probably did. It was just behind closed doors rather than publicized.
  • Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure any such tax breaks would have to be public data by now, even if they were originally hashed out behind closed doors. If you're implying that Google got tax breaks, and no one noticed the public data confirming these tax breaks, please provide evidence of the data that has been overlooked.
    • heyjudy 8y ago
      Ass and umption.
    • SolarNet 8y ago
      > would have to be public data by now Show me the public data source where I could conceivably find that out and I'll do "please provide evidence of the data that has been overlooked". Because I don't think that data source exists. I don't think you realize how opaque tax records are in many places. You seem to be implying that there is a way for the public - or even journalists - to acquire the tax and assessment information of individual companies. Attempting to do so is considered fraud in most jurisdictions (e.g. attempting to use a FOIA request for the personal information - including tax records - of someone else or a business of which you are not an officer).
      • hopler 8y ago
        Property taxes are generally searchable online. Redfin will tell you residential real estate taxes for a property, for example.
        • SolarNet 8y ago
          The assessed property tax values of the property. What does that have to do with the actual amount paid? Tax breaks for an entity don't apply to the assessed value of property owned by them...
          • vonmoltke 8y ago
            Every taxing district I have looked up property in shows the actual amount billed. They always show all applicable credits the property or its owner qualify for. I haven't tried to look up NYS records, but I don't think it's any different.
            • SolarNet 8y ago
              But again, what portion of the taxes in question are actually property taxes. I pay lots of business taxes and my business owns no property. You are saying if I bought a piece of property and paid property taxes on it, that all of my business taxes would suddenly show up in the property tax records?
    • r_smart 8y ago
      It's basically standard practice for any business to negotiate tax breaks for building in one place rather than another. I'm not going to spend any real amount of time tracking down theoretically publicly available documents on these deals. Sure the records exist, but I have no knowledge of a database I can search, and I'm not putting in a FOIA request. Here's an article discussing the topic at large[0] (and Google is one of the beneficiaries here). [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/02/us-cities-and-states-give-big-tech-93bn-in-subsidies-in-five-years-tax-breaks https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/02/us-cities-and...
      • JohnFen 8y ago
        > It's basically standard practice for any business to negotiate tax breaks for building in one place rather than another. Yes, this is common. But just because it's common doesn't mean it's right or should be allowed.
        • r_smart 8y ago
          Please point to where I said anything about right or allowed.
• jtd514 8y ago
  You are foolish if you believe they did not.
• koheripbal 8y ago
  A "tax break" is just a reduction in taxes that otherwise wouldn't be paid at all. It still means a profit for the city. It's not like NYC is paying Amazon to come to NYC. NYC would still make huge tax revenues from additional sales, real estate, income taxes, and corporate taxes. Now they're turning that all away. It's such an irrational decision that if I were Amazon, it would raise a big red flag for me as well. No need to open in a community that doesn't want your money.
  • lenzm 8y ago
    It certainly means revenue for the city but we don't know that it means profit. All of those people are going to generate trash, take the subway and consume city services. Why shouldn't Amazon pay like everyone else?
    • eanzenberg 8y ago
      That's literally paid by those employee taxes? Unless you'd rather more homeless and drug addicts move in, which it seems is what NYC local politicians wanted.
      • hopler 8y ago
        NYC has a giant statue inviting homeless and drug addicts in. And good for them.
    • NathanKP 8y ago
      Let me explain it in terms that any New Yorker should be able to understand: If you are a New Yorker you are no doubt familiar with the concept of "one month free rent". Most buildings in NYC will give you one month free when you sign your lease. If a building doesn't give you that offer its probably not as tempting as another nearby building that does. Yet the "one month free" isn't a losing money proposition for the building because they continue to make rent money from you for a long time after the free month. NYC was basically offering the same thing to Amazon: "hey come live in our city, we will give you a temporary tax reduction, in exchange for a TON of money over the next X years". Overall the city wouldn't have lost money, it would have gained many billions of dollars of additional money in the future in exchange for an initial 2 billion reduction.
• munk-a 8y ago
  Eh, sadly I think if Amazon had shut up about the process and just silently negotiated for tax breaks this probably would have gone through without issue. These sorts of stupid tax breaks get offered to large companies all the time and it's always a race to the bottom (and, with our broken campaign finance laws and legality of post-service employment, often times deals that are just clear losses get passed so some politician can get a sweet 5mil/year when they retire onto that same company's board of directors)