4 ms·

The thing is the subsidy was only 10% of the expected tax revenue and only $500mm was exclusive to Amazon (mostly in the form of property rights). The rest is

The thing is the subsidy was only 10% of the expected tax revenue and only $500mm was exclusive to Amazon (mostly in the form of property rights). The rest is available to anyone who sets up shop outside of Manhattan. As far as tax breaks go it’s fairly minuscule. But because of poor numeracy and a poor understanding of the conditions of the break or the nature of tax deductions, a lot of people had sticker shock at the $3b number.

thfuran 8y ago
So if the subsidy were 95% of expected revenue, would you still support it because hey, 5% is 5%?
- Eridrus 8y ago
  If the 5% were a true accounting of all the costs involved, yes. When it's 90% you can get away without an accurate accounting since the margins are so huge.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    An accounting with that accuracy just isn't possible. The OP was touching on the vast and varied social costs that are leveraged to build value for the shareholders.
nihonde 8y ago
Some people misunderstood that the $3B was a credit, not real cash being gifted to Amazon. But even among people who understand the nature of a tax credit, we felt that NYC should not forego revenue that another company would have to pay. In other words, the city has enough bargaining power to collect all the taxes that it would be owed. Amazon can flounce and run off to Virginia or Nashville or wherever, but NYC will remain the heartbeat of the US economy without this deal. New York metro is consistently the top contributor to GDP by a factor of two over LA. The Bay Area is not even top three on that list, at about 1/8 the contribution of New York. Let the cities that are struggling cut sweetheart tax breaks to speculate on future break even. If you want to bring your business to NYC, you pay business class prices for the privilege. As a property owner and taxpayer in Manhattan, believe me—that’s the deal we’re all taking for access to this vibrant and exceptional globally-connected and hard-charging economy.
- whatok 8y ago
  Should New York get rid of all business tax incentives? A majority of that $3bn was from existing programs available to any qualifying business.
  - nihonde 8y ago
    The $500M exceptional credit was the issue. That’s a lot of money.
    - Eridrus 8y ago
      Please. No one was talking about the 500m. Everyone was talking about a 3bn giveaway. While some people understood what was happening, most opposition intentionally confused onlookers. And even with the misinformation, the deal was still popular, particularly among Queens residents & PoC.
    - whatok 8y ago
      No one opposing Amazon actually pieced out that portion of it as their reason for opposing it. Be honest. If the $500mm is the real beef with the whole thing then break it down vs jobs: $50mm/yr vs 25,000 jobs paying an average of $150k/yr for a total of $3.75bn of taxable income. At New York State's lowest tax bracket of 4%, that's $150mm. At New York State's highest tax bracket of 8.84%, that's over $330mm.
      - anth_anm 8y ago
        > then break it down vs jobs No. No giveaways like this. None. Zero. If Amazon wants welfare for jobs, then tell them to screw off and let another company come in that will employ people without handouts.
        cthalupa 8y ago
        2.5 billion of the "welfare for jobs" is open to any company coming that meets the requirements of the Excelsior program. So if you want companies to come in without tax incentives, you probably need to go to your congresspeople and get that program turned off.
anth_anm 8y ago
> was only 10% of the expected tax revenue That's 10% too much. > But because of poor numeracy and a poor understanding of the conditions of the break or the nature of tax deductions, a lot of people had sticker shock at the $3b number. Or people understand and are still outraged at the giveaway to a trillion dollar company.

thfuran 8y ago

So if the subsidy were 95% of expected revenue, would you still support it because hey, 5% is 5%?

Eridrus 8y ago
If the 5% were a true accounting of all the costs involved, yes. When it's 90% you can get away without an accurate accounting since the margins are so huge.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  An accounting with that accuracy just isn't possible. The OP was touching on the vast and varied social costs that are leveraged to build value for the shareholders.

nihonde 8y ago

Some people misunderstood that the $3B was a credit, not real cash being gifted to Amazon. But even among people who understand the nature of a tax credit, we felt that NYC should not forego revenue that another company would have to pay. In other words, the city has enough bargaining power to collect all the taxes that it would be owed. Amazon can flounce and run off to Virginia or Nashville or wherever, but NYC will remain the heartbeat of the US economy without this deal. New York metro is consistently the top contributor to GDP by a factor of two over LA. The Bay Area is not even top three on that list, at about 1/8 the contribution of New York. Let the cities that are struggling cut sweetheart tax breaks to speculate on future break even. If you want to bring your business to NYC, you pay business class prices for the privilege. As a property owner and taxpayer in Manhattan, believe me—that’s the deal we’re all taking for access to this vibrant and exceptional globally-connected and hard-charging economy.

whatok 8y ago
Should New York get rid of all business tax incentives? A majority of that $3bn was from existing programs available to any qualifying business.
- nihonde 8y ago
  The $500M exceptional credit was the issue. That’s a lot of money.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    Please. No one was talking about the 500m. Everyone was talking about a 3bn giveaway. While some people understood what was happening, most opposition intentionally confused onlookers. And even with the misinformation, the deal was still popular, particularly among Queens residents & PoC.
  - whatok 8y ago
    No one opposing Amazon actually pieced out that portion of it as their reason for opposing it. Be honest. If the $500mm is the real beef with the whole thing then break it down vs jobs: $50mm/yr vs 25,000 jobs paying an average of $150k/yr for a total of $3.75bn of taxable income. At New York State's lowest tax bracket of 4%, that's $150mm. At New York State's highest tax bracket of 8.84%, that's over $330mm.
    - anth_anm 8y ago
      > then break it down vs jobs No. No giveaways like this. None. Zero. If Amazon wants welfare for jobs, then tell them to screw off and let another company come in that will employ people without handouts.
      - cthalupa 8y ago
        2.5 billion of the "welfare for jobs" is open to any company coming that meets the requirements of the Excelsior program. So if you want companies to come in without tax incentives, you probably need to go to your congresspeople and get that program turned off.

anth_anm 8y ago

> was only 10% of the expected tax revenue That's 10% too much. > But because of poor numeracy and a poor understanding of the conditions of the break or the nature of tax deductions, a lot of people had sticker shock at the $3b number. Or people understand and are still outraged at the giveaway to a trillion dollar company.