5 ms·

It doesn't matter how much money Amazon got as it's the perception of the fact they are getting a tax break which is why it's shocking. Amazon isn't some two-bi

It doesn't matter how much money Amazon got as it's the perception of the fact they are getting a tax break which is why it's shocking. Amazon isn't some two-bit startup which has no VC funding. It's the richest company in the world so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the Queens?

vixen99 8y ago
“It is a dark day when small retailers in NYC are denied the opportunity to pay the expenses of their largest competitor.” https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/
- cthalupa 8y ago
  Arguments about the merits of something should probably be more in depth than just witty quotes.
whack 8y ago
For the same reason you hand over your cash in order to buy stuff on amazon.com or run things on AWS. Not because Amazon deserves your money, but because it's in your own best interests to do so. Since you seem so opposed to tax breaks for big corporations, have you also lobbied for repealing the Excelsior and REAP programs? Or do you get upset only when these programs are applied to Amazon?
- Zecar 8y ago
  You really truly believe the biggest company on Earth deserves to be subsidized by taxpayers?
- scarface74 8y ago
  I voluntarily hand over my money to AWS for them to provide a product. The government is not forcing me to hand money to them.
- nihonde 8y ago
  To carry out your analogy, you order from Amazon because they’ll deliver for you. In this case, New Yorkers suspected that the jobs would go to outsiders, the property values would skyrocket and push locals out, and Amazon’s nasty history of vertical integration would be a threat to existing business owners. This deal was scuttled by the people who represent regular, working class Queens residents—not the people who saw dollar signs and dreamed of overflowing NYC tax coffers. Cuomo and DiBlasio had probably already promised those tax revenues to their buddies for all kinds of sure-to-fail projects.
- diffeomorphism 8y ago
  The idea of those incentives is to lessen the difficulties of expanding into your city and in return they are moving to your city. For a small company these might be large difficulties, for a company the size of amazon they are very small in comparison. Thus, the only reason it is "in your best interest" is a prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Any city has two options: A) hurt yourself by making big concessions, B) don't do that. (Obviously also various degrees of A, but that does not matter in the following). Ideally for your city and all cities, every city goes with B) and you get the deal by virtue of what should matter (existing infrastructure, location,...). However, if another city "caves" and offers A) they improve their chances, so what happens is that all cities offer A). That decision is "in your own best interest", but everybody is worse off than if nobody did that (same for bribery and paying "protection money" to the mafia). Thus, yes I am opposed to Amazon receiving the benefits of these programs. However, instead of repealing them outright, they should include a ceiling.
  - whack 8y ago
    Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. NYC charges all residents an income tax to live in the city. Most other cities don't have such a tax, and this leads to the same prisoner's dilemma. Hence, every city should now be morally obligated to charge the same income tax that NYC does. Similarly for state income taxes as well. If that sounds absurd, I certainly think it is. Local governments shouldn't be trying to "profit" by taxing its residents and companies. The whole purpose of local taxes is to best serve local residents and companies. If a city/state can better serve its people by lowering its taxes or by offering tax credits for specific programs, it should certainly do so, even if there's no competition involved. There is no prisoner's dilemma here.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >For the same reason you hand over your cash in order to buy stuff on amazon.com or run things on AWS. Not because Amazon deserves your money, but because it's in your own best interests to do so. I wouldn't have thought that I need to pay companies to exploit my local labor pool. I'm not buying something from them. They're buying something (work) from me.
maehwasu 8y ago
Because the United States is a very, very large country, and Amazon has lots of options as to where it takes its headquarters? Put another way--why should Amazon go to NYC? Do New Yorkers have a god-given right to the benefits of large tech companies?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- moate 8y ago
  No, but the idea that the only options are "amazon with a bunch of tax gifts" or nothing is a false dichotomy. The point is that NYC probably doesn't need Amazon's side (High End Jobs) as much as Amazon needed NYC (Access to high end talent, proximity to the center of the global economy). There will always be some megacorp looking to open up in NYC. Why diminish the return for the city?
  - coredog64 8y ago
    NYC tax revenue ebbs and flows on the strength of the finance industry (e.g. recent news that market slowdowns are showing up as a billion dollar shortfall in tax revenue). Google and Facebook are both ad-tech. Amazon would have brought a third major industry to town, something that could have worked to smooth out those tax revenue swings.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  The massive talent pool and ease of recruiting people to come live there from across the world. The access to massive markets. Proximity to a lot of the hot new startups. The desire to have an HQ on both coasts. New Yorkers don't have a right to large tech companies, but the companies would be foolish not to come along. Amazon always wanted NYC. They overplayed their hand trying to get a break and it blew up in their face. They probably could have gotten away with most of it if they did this with less fanfare.
NickM 8y ago
It's the richest company in the world so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the Queens? Because Amazon can easily go elsewhere, and most places have lower taxes than NYC. Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. You can object to the deal on principle, sure, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation; if NY refuses to give them any incentives, they can just as easily go to some other location that will give them incentives. And if all the states banded together and agreed that nobody would give them incentives, NY still loses, because then they'll just pick a place with lower tax rates. I can understand the appeal of trying to stand up to big corporations, but in the end, NY isn't screwing Amazon by refusing to negotiate with them on this, they're just screwing themselves. If you want to have high tax rates and not lose business to other states, it's a winning strategy to be open to compromise sometimes.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  They can't easily go anywhere else, that's why they picked an established area with tons of talent already in the immediate area. Why didn't they choose some small city in the middle of America where salaries would be less, real estate would be cheaper, and taxes would be lower? Because there is very little technical talent already in those places. Amazon did this to themselves with their tone deaf "national search" and if anything they proved to everyone that Amazon needs NY more than NY needs Amazon. Otherwise, they would have picked any of the other numerous smaller cities that were on the radar of the search, but were not chosen.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    > They can't easily go anywhere else Clearly they can, if they this quickly pulled out of NY after the reception they received.
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      Why not just go with plan B all along and save political capital? Instead they did the dog and pony show of shopping their Decision around, commited to NY and had to backtrack. You can't spin this as a plus for Bezos.
tanilama 8y ago
> Amazon isn't some two-bit startup which has no VC funding So Amazon is at lower risk of bankruptcy and a higher credibility of eventual return of those investments?
anth_anm 8y ago
Because the system is broken and Amazon knows that their dog and pony show about a competition will put politicians in a position where it's give away the money or face an opponent who attacks you on jobs.
lesss365 8y ago
Not to mention they paid nothing in federal taxes

vixen99 8y ago

“It is a dark day when small retailers in NYC are denied the opportunity to pay the expenses of their largest competitor.” https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/

cthalupa 8y ago
Arguments about the merits of something should probably be more in depth than just witty quotes.

whack 8y ago

For the same reason you hand over your cash in order to buy stuff on amazon.com or run things on AWS. Not because Amazon deserves your money, but because it's in your own best interests to do so. Since you seem so opposed to tax breaks for big corporations, have you also lobbied for repealing the Excelsior and REAP programs? Or do you get upset only when these programs are applied to Amazon?

Zecar 8y ago
You really truly believe the biggest company on Earth deserves to be subsidized by taxpayers?
scarface74 8y ago
I voluntarily hand over my money to AWS for them to provide a product. The government is not forcing me to hand money to them.
nihonde 8y ago
To carry out your analogy, you order from Amazon because they’ll deliver for you. In this case, New Yorkers suspected that the jobs would go to outsiders, the property values would skyrocket and push locals out, and Amazon’s nasty history of vertical integration would be a threat to existing business owners. This deal was scuttled by the people who represent regular, working class Queens residents—not the people who saw dollar signs and dreamed of overflowing NYC tax coffers. Cuomo and DiBlasio had probably already promised those tax revenues to their buddies for all kinds of sure-to-fail projects.
diffeomorphism 8y ago
The idea of those incentives is to lessen the difficulties of expanding into your city and in return they are moving to your city. For a small company these might be large difficulties, for a company the size of amazon they are very small in comparison. Thus, the only reason it is "in your best interest" is a prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Any city has two options: A) hurt yourself by making big concessions, B) don't do that. (Obviously also various degrees of A, but that does not matter in the following). Ideally for your city and all cities, every city goes with B) and you get the deal by virtue of what should matter (existing infrastructure, location,...). However, if another city "caves" and offers A) they improve their chances, so what happens is that all cities offer A). That decision is "in your own best interest", but everybody is worse off than if nobody did that (same for bribery and paying "protection money" to the mafia). Thus, yes I am opposed to Amazon receiving the benefits of these programs. However, instead of repealing them outright, they should include a ceiling.
- whack 8y ago
  Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. NYC charges all residents an income tax to live in the city. Most other cities don't have such a tax, and this leads to the same prisoner's dilemma. Hence, every city should now be morally obligated to charge the same income tax that NYC does. Similarly for state income taxes as well. If that sounds absurd, I certainly think it is. Local governments shouldn't be trying to "profit" by taxing its residents and companies. The whole purpose of local taxes is to best serve local residents and companies. If a city/state can better serve its people by lowering its taxes or by offering tax credits for specific programs, it should certainly do so, even if there's no competition involved. There is no prisoner's dilemma here.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>For the same reason you hand over your cash in order to buy stuff on amazon.com or run things on AWS. Not because Amazon deserves your money, but because it's in your own best interests to do so. I wouldn't have thought that I need to pay companies to exploit my local labor pool. I'm not buying something from them. They're buying something (work) from me.

maehwasu 8y ago

Because the United States is a very, very large country, and Amazon has lots of options as to where it takes its headquarters? Put another way--why should Amazon go to NYC? Do New Yorkers have a god-given right to the benefits of large tech companies?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
moate 8y ago
No, but the idea that the only options are "amazon with a bunch of tax gifts" or nothing is a false dichotomy. The point is that NYC probably doesn't need Amazon's side (High End Jobs) as much as Amazon needed NYC (Access to high end talent, proximity to the center of the global economy). There will always be some megacorp looking to open up in NYC. Why diminish the return for the city?
- coredog64 8y ago
  NYC tax revenue ebbs and flows on the strength of the finance industry (e.g. recent news that market slowdowns are showing up as a billion dollar shortfall in tax revenue). Google and Facebook are both ad-tech. Amazon would have brought a third major industry to town, something that could have worked to smooth out those tax revenue swings.
anth_anm 8y ago
The massive talent pool and ease of recruiting people to come live there from across the world. The access to massive markets. Proximity to a lot of the hot new startups. The desire to have an HQ on both coasts. New Yorkers don't have a right to large tech companies, but the companies would be foolish not to come along. Amazon always wanted NYC. They overplayed their hand trying to get a break and it blew up in their face. They probably could have gotten away with most of it if they did this with less fanfare.

NickM 8y ago

It's the richest company in the world so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the Queens? Because Amazon can easily go elsewhere, and most places have lower taxes than NYC. Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. You can object to the deal on principle, sure, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation; if NY refuses to give them any incentives, they can just as easily go to some other location that will give them incentives. And if all the states banded together and agreed that nobody would give them incentives, NY still loses, because then they'll just pick a place with lower tax rates. I can understand the appeal of trying to stand up to big corporations, but in the end, NY isn't screwing Amazon by refusing to negotiate with them on this, they're just screwing themselves. If you want to have high tax rates and not lose business to other states, it's a winning strategy to be open to compromise sometimes.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
They can't easily go anywhere else, that's why they picked an established area with tons of talent already in the immediate area. Why didn't they choose some small city in the middle of America where salaries would be less, real estate would be cheaper, and taxes would be lower? Because there is very little technical talent already in those places. Amazon did this to themselves with their tone deaf "national search" and if anything they proved to everyone that Amazon needs NY more than NY needs Amazon. Otherwise, they would have picked any of the other numerous smaller cities that were on the radar of the search, but were not chosen.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  > They can't easily go anywhere else Clearly they can, if they this quickly pulled out of NY after the reception they received.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Why not just go with plan B all along and save political capital? Instead they did the dog and pony show of shopping their Decision around, commited to NY and had to backtrack. You can't spin this as a plus for Bezos.

tanilama 8y ago

> Amazon isn't some two-bit startup which has no VC funding So Amazon is at lower risk of bankruptcy and a higher credibility of eventual return of those investments?

anth_anm 8y ago

Because the system is broken and Amazon knows that their dog and pony show about a competition will put politicians in a position where it's give away the money or face an opponent who attacks you on jobs.

lesss365 8y ago

Not to mention they paid nothing in federal taxes