3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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 agoIt 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.