5 ms·

Is it bad at any scale? What if Amazon were promised an even more ridiculous amount in taxpayer money, like $50 billion or $100 billion? Would his opinion be t

Is it bad at any scale? What if Amazon were promised an even more ridiculous amount in taxpayer money, like $50 billion or $100 billion? Would his opinion be the same? There has to be a limit to corporate giveaways in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. The reward system shouldn't keep tilting toward larger and larger companies.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Rich Person A decides to live in NJ. Taxes and all, NJ gets from him $22 million a year. They are y rich people in NJ. State gets cute and says, if we raised their taxes by 10%, we'll have $294 million more and they will not feel it. In reality, NJ stands to lose them all, because eventually they will move, not to Cuba or Russia, but to a US state, like Florida. So NJ /NY would have a lot less to spend on highways, schools, cops etc because a handful of rich people were taxed out. NYC /NY stood to make billions from Amazon. Now they get zilch.
- existencebox 8y ago
  Your argument implies a race to the bottom in which the only way to "win" is not to play, since otherwise you drive taxes for megarich as near 0 as you can bear. I prefer the approach where if we lose them, "tough nuts." Revenue should be robust and diversified, and losing no individual source should be a death blow. Similarly, good services and local effects should be the goal to draw people in, not handouts, as this aligns incentives _far_ better while still maintaining workable bases of revenue. This is not to say "ONLY tax the rich", the parent post seemed to me to be making the wise argument that there's a line here, but the fact that the focus is so much on these few individuals makes me think we're already off in left field, and bowing to them further isn't the direction I want to move in, even if it may cause a temporary revenue hit. So yes, "they (NY) get zilch." But they've also made a strong statement about corporate handouts (my own opinions aside about whether it was a smart choice or not) and will not stop being NY and will not stop being desirable because of this; FLA is not going to supplant them even if amazon decides to go there alongside whatever megarich actually care enough about the taxes to _not be in NY_. (Now, NY's inability to develop infrastructure within reasonable cost may do that over the next hundred years or so, but that's to be seen, and I don't think losing a few billionaires is going to make or break that)
  - KevinEldon 8y ago
    It would have been a strong statement about corporate handouts if they had refused to play up front or even better cited the philosophy you’ve outline and how they’ve enshrined it in the law. What I pick up on is the elected officials are disconnected from a vocal wing of their own party and NY has significant political uncertainty and a growing tax income problem that is impacting g their ability to address infrastructure needs. Maybe businesses don’t care or maybe they think Dallas or Atlanta is a friendly place to do business we’ll grow there.
  - lamarpye 8y ago
    A strong statement was made. Don't come to New York and expect any tax incentives. I am sure that the message was received in corporate boardrooms all over the world. Enjoy the deafening silence of no major companies moving to New York
- aeternus 8y ago
  States with the highest taxes often have the most rich residents. Look at California and NY. Turns out the rich are willing and able to pay more to live in desirable areas. Same with companies, taxes and tax breaks enter the equation but have less impact than candidate talent pool, total cost of living.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Rich Person A decides to live in NJ. Taxes and all, NJ gets from him $22 million a year. They are y rich people in NJ. State gets cute and says, if we raised their taxes by 10%, we'll have $294 million more and they will not feel it. In reality, NJ stands to lose them all, because eventually they will move, not to Cuba or Russia, but to a US state, like Florida. So NJ /NY would have a lot less to spend on highways, schools, cops etc because a handful of rich people were taxed out. NYC /NY stood to make billions from Amazon. Now they get zilch.

existencebox 8y ago
Your argument implies a race to the bottom in which the only way to "win" is not to play, since otherwise you drive taxes for megarich as near 0 as you can bear. I prefer the approach where if we lose them, "tough nuts." Revenue should be robust and diversified, and losing no individual source should be a death blow. Similarly, good services and local effects should be the goal to draw people in, not handouts, as this aligns incentives _far_ better while still maintaining workable bases of revenue. This is not to say "ONLY tax the rich", the parent post seemed to me to be making the wise argument that there's a line here, but the fact that the focus is so much on these few individuals makes me think we're already off in left field, and bowing to them further isn't the direction I want to move in, even if it may cause a temporary revenue hit. So yes, "they (NY) get zilch." But they've also made a strong statement about corporate handouts (my own opinions aside about whether it was a smart choice or not) and will not stop being NY and will not stop being desirable because of this; FLA is not going to supplant them even if amazon decides to go there alongside whatever megarich actually care enough about the taxes to _not be in NY_. (Now, NY's inability to develop infrastructure within reasonable cost may do that over the next hundred years or so, but that's to be seen, and I don't think losing a few billionaires is going to make or break that)
- KevinEldon 8y ago
  It would have been a strong statement about corporate handouts if they had refused to play up front or even better cited the philosophy you’ve outline and how they’ve enshrined it in the law. What I pick up on is the elected officials are disconnected from a vocal wing of their own party and NY has significant political uncertainty and a growing tax income problem that is impacting g their ability to address infrastructure needs. Maybe businesses don’t care or maybe they think Dallas or Atlanta is a friendly place to do business we’ll grow there.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  A strong statement was made. Don't come to New York and expect any tax incentives. I am sure that the message was received in corporate boardrooms all over the world. Enjoy the deafening silence of no major companies moving to New York
aeternus 8y ago
States with the highest taxes often have the most rich residents. Look at California and NY. Turns out the rich are willing and able to pay more to live in desirable areas. Same with companies, taxes and tax breaks enter the equation but have less impact than candidate talent pool, total cost of living.