3 ms·

Your comment, along with the tweet you linked to and all other tweets like it, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, resulting from a gross overs

Your comment, along with the tweet you linked to and all other tweets like it, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, resulting from a gross oversimplification of it. New York was never “giving” Amazon even $1. They were simply going to give Amazon a tax discount for a limited period of time, and the estimate was that the tax savings would have been about $3 billion over 10 years. This money is not sitting in a bank account somewhere, ready to be deployed for newly invented government jobs now that it has been saved from the greedy claws of Jeff Bezos. New York was effectively giving Amazon coupons for X% off its New York tax bill. When your local grocery store sends you its weekly ad, and it says “over $500 in savings inside,” do you believe you can walk into the store with the coupons and demand $500 in cash? You may do that, but you should expect a heavy police response. Coupons simply help drive business that the entity issuing them would otherwise not have.

minikites 8y ago
It's interesting that you use retail coupons as an analogy. Are you familiar with the idea of a loss leader? What happens if that revenue isn't earned elsewhere? It's not at all clear that New York would come out ahead on this deal, given the infrastructure costs and Amazon's well known tendency to avoid paying taxes.
- downandout 8y ago
  I am familiar with the concept of a loss leader, but that has nothing to do with what was happening here. Giving someone a discount on taxes doesn’t mean they don’t pay taxes, or, as your original comment and the tweet you linked to implied, that they were simply handing Amazon $3 billion in cash that was sitting in the bank and can now be diverted to random government projects designed to invent jobs. The $3 billion never existed; it was a long-term estimate of Amazon’s potential tax savings under the deal. Anyway, it’s a moot point. They aren’t going there, and either are the jobs and (discounted) tax revenue that they would have brought with them. If you consider that a win, then you have indeed “won”.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    It effectively reduces to the same thing if amazon's presence means that other businesses in the same sector/local area aren't don't exist. There is no shortage of business and people in the sectors Amazon is a part of in NYC, and coming to NYC.
    - downandout 8y ago
      It effectively reduces to the same thing In no way is it the same thing. This comment and the tweet he linked to indicate that they believed the money was being paid to Amazon soon, and that because Amazon has backed out, that money can now be spent on government projects. That is just factually incorrect. The money does not and will not exist - it was an estimate of tax savings had the deal gone through.

minikites 8y ago

It's interesting that you use retail coupons as an analogy. Are you familiar with the idea of a loss leader? What happens if that revenue isn't earned elsewhere? It's not at all clear that New York would come out ahead on this deal, given the infrastructure costs and Amazon's well known tendency to avoid paying taxes.

downandout 8y ago
I am familiar with the concept of a loss leader, but that has nothing to do with what was happening here. Giving someone a discount on taxes doesn’t mean they don’t pay taxes, or, as your original comment and the tweet you linked to implied, that they were simply handing Amazon $3 billion in cash that was sitting in the bank and can now be diverted to random government projects designed to invent jobs. The $3 billion never existed; it was a long-term estimate of Amazon’s potential tax savings under the deal. Anyway, it’s a moot point. They aren’t going there, and either are the jobs and (discounted) tax revenue that they would have brought with them. If you consider that a win, then you have indeed “won”.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  It effectively reduces to the same thing if amazon's presence means that other businesses in the same sector/local area aren't don't exist. There is no shortage of business and people in the sectors Amazon is a part of in NYC, and coming to NYC.
  - downandout 8y ago
    It effectively reduces to the same thing In no way is it the same thing. This comment and the tweet he linked to indicate that they believed the money was being paid to Amazon soon, and that because Amazon has backed out, that money can now be spent on government projects. That is just factually incorrect. The money does not and will not exist - it was an estimate of tax savings had the deal gone through.