2 ms·

>Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. If he wants a new HQ he can buy the real estate at full price. Americans need to stand up to the frankly disgusting

>Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. If he wants a new HQ he can buy the real estate at full price. Americans need to stand up to the frankly disgusting idea that we should be giving him money. I feel like all of the people saying that Amazon should pay full price because Bezos is rich are missing the point. His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does quarter to quarter. He's seen a 25% decrease in most of his wealth vs. where it was last year. He's not the richest person because Amazon is generated boatloads of cash and handing it to him, so it's not like he can redirect that into buying real estate. Nor can he sell a ton of his shares without potentially losing a controlling interest in the company. He's obviously exceedingly wealthy, but in practicality, the majority of his net worth is unavailable to him as long as he wants to continue running Amazon without any chance of interference or veto, and basically none of it is available to make an impact on this sort of decision. The merits of any incentives should be based on the economic realities of the situation, plain and simple. Do the tax breaks result in a net positive for the city, based on generated tax revenue, new jobs, both from Amazon and those providing service to Amazon employees, from the new housing that must be built to support the population increase, etc. I don't know if they do. Maybe this would be an amazing deal for NYC. Maybe it would be a terrible deal. I'm not qualified to make a real judgment there. But the 'Bezos and Amazon are rich, why should we give them anything' is just more populist rhetoric, which we need to get out of our politics. It's toxic as hell.

JetSpiegel 8y ago
> His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does quarter to quarter. Maybe, but it's "real" enough to borrow money at low interest. Or fund vanity projects like Blue Origin. There are physical rockets being built with fake wealth, so in practice that wealth is as good as cash.
kerkeslager 8y ago
> so it's not like he can redirect that into buying real estate. Yes he can. All he has to do is get Amazon to start buying real estate, and bam, he's a partial owner of real estate. > The merits of any incentives should be based on the economic realities of the situation, plain and simple. Do the tax breaks result in a net positive for the city, based on generated tax revenue, new jobs, both from Amazon and those providing service to Amazon employees, from the new housing that must be built to support the population increase, etc. Okay, let's ask this as a question then: does allowing companies to play cities against each other benefit NYC, or does it incentivize more companies to do the same thing, allowing companies to pay less taxes? Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that if cities in the US all refused to pay incentives to Amazon, Amazon would choose a city to go to anyway, and not get tax cuts, and average citizens would benefit from the taxes Amazon pays? I'll say what I've said over and over again here: lots of people on HN would rather incentivize nails than use a hammer. Incentives are one tool in a government's toolbox, and they aren't the solution to every problem. > I don't know if they do. Maybe this would be an amazing deal for NYC. Maybe it would be a terrible deal. I'm not qualified to make a real judgment there. But the 'Bezos and Amazon are rich, why should we give them anything' is just more populist rhetoric, which we need to get out of our politics. It's toxic as hell. I don't think it's populist rhetoric to demand that the richest companies in the world pay their fair share of taxes. I think blindly ignoring any possibilities that don't involve incentivizing the already-rich is a much more toxic problem, and the main reason we continue to have growing income inequality in the US. If NYC pays Amazon a subsidy to attract them to NYC, that sets a dangerous precedent and means that every city will have to pay subsidies to big companies to attract them, and the end result is that companies pay less taxes and everyone else suffers the consequences. That's the effect Scott Anderson calls "Moloch"[1] and American cities need to present a united front against it. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

JetSpiegel 8y ago

> His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does quarter to quarter. Maybe, but it's "real" enough to borrow money at low interest. Or fund vanity projects like Blue Origin. There are physical rockets being built with fake wealth, so in practice that wealth is as good as cash.

kerkeslager 8y ago

> so it's not like he can redirect that into buying real estate. Yes he can. All he has to do is get Amazon to start buying real estate, and bam, he's a partial owner of real estate. > The merits of any incentives should be based on the economic realities of the situation, plain and simple. Do the tax breaks result in a net positive for the city, based on generated tax revenue, new jobs, both from Amazon and those providing service to Amazon employees, from the new housing that must be built to support the population increase, etc. Okay, let's ask this as a question then: does allowing companies to play cities against each other benefit NYC, or does it incentivize more companies to do the same thing, allowing companies to pay less taxes? Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that if cities in the US all refused to pay incentives to Amazon, Amazon would choose a city to go to anyway, and not get tax cuts, and average citizens would benefit from the taxes Amazon pays? I'll say what I've said over and over again here: lots of people on HN would rather incentivize nails than use a hammer. Incentives are one tool in a government's toolbox, and they aren't the solution to every problem. > I don't know if they do. Maybe this would be an amazing deal for NYC. Maybe it would be a terrible deal. I'm not qualified to make a real judgment there. But the 'Bezos and Amazon are rich, why should we give them anything' is just more populist rhetoric, which we need to get out of our politics. It's toxic as hell. I don't think it's populist rhetoric to demand that the richest companies in the world pay their fair share of taxes. I think blindly ignoring any possibilities that don't involve incentivizing the already-rich is a much more toxic problem, and the main reason we continue to have growing income inequality in the US. If NYC pays Amazon a subsidy to attract them to NYC, that sets a dangerous precedent and means that every city will have to pay subsidies to big companies to attract them, and the end result is that companies pay less taxes and everyone else suffers the consequences. That's the effect Scott Anderson calls "Moloch"[1] and American cities need to present a united front against it. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/