5 ms·

There seems to be some confusion between Tax-breaks and subsidies. The three Billion that AOC and Co suggest will now be available for other investments would n

There seems to be some confusion between Tax-breaks and subsidies. The three Billion that AOC and Co suggest will now be available for other investments would not have been money given to Amazon, it would have been money that Amazon would have paid less in taxes, while still paying a reduced tax rate. No Amazon = 0 Taxes. (It is worth noting that Amazon would still have claimed other subsidies made available to all companies in the state of NY - however now claiming a plus of 3 Billion is simply incorrect. More so, even with the 3 Billion tax break I don't think there is an argument that Amazon would have been a net-negative - quite the opposite in fact)

geofft 8y ago
> No Amazon = 0 Taxes. That's not true for a few reasons: - Amazon will still be growing in New York, as confirmed by their press release: "There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams." They just won't get the benefits of the HQ2 deal. So, they'll still be paying taxes. - Other companies will be able to move in to the land and hire the people that Amazon would have hired. They're not the only employer in town. Those companies will pay taxes, which will go to the same government coffers, even if the money doesn't come from Amazon.
- wolframhempel 8y ago
  - Sure, but this question is about the specific HQ2 deal. There's some amount of Amazon in most US cities. - I've seen the second argument a few times, including this page, but I don't quite get it. These companies haven't moved in yet, leaving Queens as one of the economically weaker areas of NY. Why would they move in now that Amazon doesn't? What changed for them?
  - CPLX 8y ago
    Long Island city, which is literally 800 yards from midtown Manhattan, also known as the most successful and robust central business district in the history of world civilization, has exploded with growth over the last 10-20 years, and luxury apartment skyscrapers and employment centers have been sprouting literally as fast as construction workers can put up the scaffolding.
  - crazygringo 8y ago
    1) How do you know HQ2 wasn't just a ploy to get additional tax breaks on the expansion Amazon was planning in NYC anyways? And whether Amazon expands specifically with buildings in LIC, or in multiple offices across NYC, doesn't really matter. 2) LIC is booming. Have you seen all the new construction there? The same reasons that now make it attractive for Amazon (different from 10 years ago) also make it attractive to other companies. They just don't get press.
CPLX 8y ago
This keeps getting repeated but it’s nonsense. 1) There was $300-500 million in the deal that was just straight up cash to help them build the HQ area. That’s cold hard taxpayer money that can now be spent on subways or housing or anything else. 2) The idea that there will now be “0” taxes is ridiculous. First of all Amazon itself will likely still expand in NYC anyways, since there were clearly reasons why increasing their presence here was in their interest. And regardless, this is New York, we’re not short of development. Other businesses will just take over that area instead, like they do in every corner and crevice of this densely packed city, and they’ll pay their share of taxes instead.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  You obviously didn't live in LIC or Williamsburg in the 1990s or early 2000s. Those places were crap for many years without real development. I didn't like the offer Amazon was given but you're wrong to simply assume that someone else will replace Amazon.
  - redwood 8y ago
    Uhh today the area is undergoing massive development.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Today is 2019, not the early 2000s. I don’t see how pst fears relate to now.
  - subpixel 8y ago
    I lived in Williamsburg in the 90s and can tell you it was an amazing place to live then. It lacked for nothing. In my opinion it is utter crap now, thanks to what you call ‘real’ development.
    - yostrovs 8y ago
      I did too. You couldn't get a meal in the neighborhood, save for awful Chinese or PR food.
woodruffw 8y ago
The argument is not that they are a net negative: it's that they're extracting concessions disproportionate to the benefits they're providing the city. Amazon paid $0 in federal taxes this year[1], and is extremely tight-lipped about their taxes paid at the state and local levels. There's no particular reason to believe that they'll treat NYC any better than the rest of the country. [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal-taxes-this-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal...
rmrfrmrf 8y ago
Are you under the impression that NYC is an undeveloped ghost town currently bringing in no tax revenue?
bjourne 8y ago
> There seems to be some confusion between Tax-breaks and subsidies. A tax break and a subsidy is exactly the same thing. Amazon is a large and profitable company. The idea that tax payer money should go to subsidies to Amazon is just very insane.

geofft 8y ago

> No Amazon = 0 Taxes. That's not true for a few reasons: - Amazon will still be growing in New York, as confirmed by their press release: "There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams." They just won't get the benefits of the HQ2 deal. So, they'll still be paying taxes. - Other companies will be able to move in to the land and hire the people that Amazon would have hired. They're not the only employer in town. Those companies will pay taxes, which will go to the same government coffers, even if the money doesn't come from Amazon.

wolframhempel 8y ago
- Sure, but this question is about the specific HQ2 deal. There's some amount of Amazon in most US cities. - I've seen the second argument a few times, including this page, but I don't quite get it. These companies haven't moved in yet, leaving Queens as one of the economically weaker areas of NY. Why would they move in now that Amazon doesn't? What changed for them?
- CPLX 8y ago
  Long Island city, which is literally 800 yards from midtown Manhattan, also known as the most successful and robust central business district in the history of world civilization, has exploded with growth over the last 10-20 years, and luxury apartment skyscrapers and employment centers have been sprouting literally as fast as construction workers can put up the scaffolding.
- crazygringo 8y ago
  1) How do you know HQ2 wasn't just a ploy to get additional tax breaks on the expansion Amazon was planning in NYC anyways? And whether Amazon expands specifically with buildings in LIC, or in multiple offices across NYC, doesn't really matter. 2) LIC is booming. Have you seen all the new construction there? The same reasons that now make it attractive for Amazon (different from 10 years ago) also make it attractive to other companies. They just don't get press.

CPLX 8y ago

This keeps getting repeated but it’s nonsense. 1) There was $300-500 million in the deal that was just straight up cash to help them build the HQ area. That’s cold hard taxpayer money that can now be spent on subways or housing or anything else. 2) The idea that there will now be “0” taxes is ridiculous. First of all Amazon itself will likely still expand in NYC anyways, since there were clearly reasons why increasing their presence here was in their interest. And regardless, this is New York, we’re not short of development. Other businesses will just take over that area instead, like they do in every corner and crevice of this densely packed city, and they’ll pay their share of taxes instead.

yostrovs 8y ago
You obviously didn't live in LIC or Williamsburg in the 1990s or early 2000s. Those places were crap for many years without real development. I didn't like the offer Amazon was given but you're wrong to simply assume that someone else will replace Amazon.
- redwood 8y ago
  Uhh today the area is undergoing massive development.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Today is 2019, not the early 2000s. I don’t see how pst fears relate to now.
- subpixel 8y ago
  I lived in Williamsburg in the 90s and can tell you it was an amazing place to live then. It lacked for nothing. In my opinion it is utter crap now, thanks to what you call ‘real’ development.
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    I did too. You couldn't get a meal in the neighborhood, save for awful Chinese or PR food.

woodruffw 8y ago

The argument is not that they are a net negative: it's that they're extracting concessions disproportionate to the benefits they're providing the city. Amazon paid $0 in federal taxes this year[1], and is extremely tight-lipped about their taxes paid at the state and local levels. There's no particular reason to believe that they'll treat NYC any better than the rest of the country. [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal-taxes-this-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/amazon-will-pay-0-in-federal...

rmrfrmrf 8y ago

Are you under the impression that NYC is an undeveloped ghost town currently bringing in no tax revenue?

bjourne 8y ago

> There seems to be some confusion between Tax-breaks and subsidies. A tax break and a subsidy is exactly the same thing. Amazon is a large and profitable company. The idea that tax payer money should go to subsidies to Amazon is just very insane.