22 ms·

I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. > Incredi

I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. > Incredibly, I have heard city and state elected officials who were opponents of the project claim that Amazon was getting $3 billion in government subsidies that could have been better spent on housing or transportation. This is either a blatant untruth or fundamental ignorance of basic math by a group of elected officials. The city and state 'gave' Amazon nothing. Amazon was to build their headquarters with union jobs and pay the city and state $27 billion in revenues. The city, through existing as-of-right tax credits, and the state through Excelsior Tax credits - a program approved by the same legislators railing against it - would provide up to $3 billion in tax relief, IF Amazon created the 25,000-40,000 jobs and thus generated $27 billion in revenue. You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner. Actually, you do. Amazon already created jobs in NYC, without any handouts needed. Google recently announced they'd create more jobs, and they didn't expect a handout to do so. By the above logic, a 9:1 return for Amazon jobs is a good deal. What about the Google jobs? Do those count as infinite return? If so, more infinite returns, and less 9:1 returns, please. Or is there something else at work here?

graeme 8y ago
If google creates jobs in long island city, they would get the same handout though. Any company locating there does: it's a program NY state and NYC made to encourage development outside of Manhattan.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  So in other words, you're suggesting that the handout was baked in from the get go because the HQ was in Queens, and Amazon being Amazon had nothing to do with it? If that's the case, the media have done a terrible job reporting this.
  - CoolGuySteve 8y ago
    $500mm was specific to Amazon in terms of a land grant and property rights. That site is currently a plastic factory next to a Superfund site and the infamous Queensbridge projects though. It's likely the cit/state would make the same concessions to anyone that could place clean high income jobs in the area.
  - orangecat 8y ago
    you're suggesting that the handout was baked in from the get go because the HQ was in Queens, and Amazon being Amazon had nothing to do with it? Mostly, yes. About $2.5 billion of the tax benefits were "as of right", meaning they're available to any company that fulfills certain requirements. There was also a separate Amazon-specific $500 million grant to assist with construction. More details at http://www.gothamgazette.com/state/8110-a-closer-look-at-the-tax-incentives-in-the-amazon-deal http://www.gothamgazette.com/state/8110-a-closer-look-at-the... If that's the case, the media have done a terrible job reporting this. Shocking, isn't it?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sublupo 8y ago
      So then what was the point of the heavily publicized hq2 search? If, in the end, Amazon chose a deal that was available to everyone, then what did they negotiate?
      - tedunangst 8y ago
        Other cities could attempt to beat NYC's standing offer.
  - graeme 8y ago
    Yup, that's exactly it. As others mentioned, $2.5 billion of the three billion were credits any company can access. $500 million was related to the site amazon chose, a dilapidated area which the state wanted to encourage development of. (I mean the specific HQ site within LIC)
  - jdhn 8y ago
    >the media have done a terrible job reporting this. I believe that they've reported it the way that they wanted to. The media knows that outrage sells, and when the public is already suspicious of rich tech companies, there's no reason to accurately report the facts. Here's a personal anecdote. My mom thought that Amazon was outright being given $3 billion to come to NYC, and said that it was unfair that they were getting the money before they hired anybody. She didn't even know that the tax credits were performance based until I told her.
  - graycat 8y ago
    > If that's the case, the media have done a terrible job reporting this. From the media, you expected something else? For a more general explanation, see my post in this thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19236564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19236564
- throwaway0220 8y ago
  > If google creates jobs in long island city, they would get the same handout though. Nops [1][2]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/google-to-invest-usd1-billion-in-nyc-no-tax-incentives-needed.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/google-to-invest-usd1... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-city-expansion-1541636579 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-cit...
  - kelnos 8y ago
    Your first link references Google buying a building in Manhattan, which is not Long Island City, and so that doesn't apply. Not sure about your second link because it's behind a paywall.
  - graeme 8y ago
    You didn't read your articles very well. Google is investing in new york. The tax credits were for companies in a specific part of new york, in this case long island city. Google is not in long island city or in an area eligible for these particular credits.
- Redoubts 8y ago
  So what was the deal Amazon negotiated, and why does the public opinion matter on what ultimately is just a land purchase?
  - afiori 8y ago
    as far as i understand, amazon negotiated with other cities to see if they could get a better deal than with new york
tehlike 8y ago
I cant see why hq2 location cannot be based on bidding. Tax breaks are part of negotiation. Math is clear.
- sp332 8y ago
  Well the laws should be applied equally to everyone, including tax laws. That's a pretty simple principle. If you're going to make an exception, you need to reassure people that rule of law is still a thing and you're not just letting a company buy a different set of laws for themselves, which is kinda what this looks like.
  - thoughtstheseus 8y ago
    Yeah, hopefully the next time an $800B company developing cutting edge software/tech wants to locate in an economically stressed area stakeholders do better job reassuring people the rule of law still applies.
  - tehlike 8y ago
    I get the rule of law aspect, but law leaves room for negotiation for this, otherwise someone woyld have sued the city, no?
  - icelancer 8y ago
    > Well the laws should be applied equally to everyone, including tax laws. Do you feel this way about all laws, including drug laws regarding possession and mandatory minimums?
- endorphone 8y ago
  The math isn't clear at all. Amazon is putting countless other businesses, who employ countless hundreds of thousands, out of business. That's just the nature of capitalism and efficiency, but when they demand special treatment to do so..that's just perverse.
  - tehlike 8y ago
    For centuries businesses come and go. I am sure at every level of government incentives happen. Tax break is an incentive. Other businesses could get expedited approvals or permits, some might get licenses etc. Part of american way of doing business, really.
berberous 8y ago
If you want to somehow ban the concept nationally, fine, but otherwise if a city/state doesn't play the incentive game they will probably just lose out to others that will.
- endorphone 8y ago
  NYC, San Francisco, and a few other areas have absolutely no need for incentives. They're very robust, energized areas, and don't need to beg for employers to come there and leverage the dynamics and workforce. Amazon's ridiculous dog and pony show -- which wasted outrageous amount of public time and money -- was absolutely dystopian: Company that already is one of the largest in the world, with an enormous competitive advantage, demands even more competitive advantage. And let's be real -- Amazon mostly deals in what are zero sum markets. That I bought a camera and some cookies from Amazon just stopped me from buying it from someone else. Further it's worth looking at LA and the NFL. The NFL takes advantage of governments -- usually desperate governments -- to build their stadiums for them, and when LA didn't play ball the NFL went sulking out of town. Eventually they went back, paying for the stadium and all ancillary costs, out of their own pockets, with zero incentives. Because in the end it simply makes sense.
  - prepend 8y ago
    Long Island City is not Manhattan. They do benefit from giving incentives as they are not a robust, energized area. Thus the plastic factory/ superfund site with no jobs.
    - endorphone 8y ago
      Long Island City is directly opposite Manhattan (and to reply to the other comment, is most certainly a part of NYC), is extremely lucrative property, and much of it has sat unused largely because property owners have been trying to rezone as residential (where it is worth hundreds of millions an acre). NYC is extremely robust. NYC doesn't need Amazon, and never needed Amazon. And contrary to the claims in the linked letter (a spittle laden diatribe of someone mad that they didn't get their way), there was opposition right at the very outset. Significant opposition. Opposition that Long Island City doesn't want to be Manhattan, for instance.
freewilly1040 8y ago
This was different than organic job growth because of the number of jobs at stake: > Amazon chose New York and Virginia after a year-long national competition with 234 cities and states vying for the 25,000-40,000 jobs. For a sense of scale, the next largest economic development project the state has completed was for approximately 1,000 jobs What's the goal of tax policy? There's a) achieving the appearance of fairness, and b) maximizing revenue for your constituents. The two goals are not always aligned. If you care more about fairness, then sure, the tax law is the tax law and you should hold the line no matter what. Personally I'd rather maximize revenue, especially here where the knock effects on the economy were pro-growth.
- icelancer 8y ago
  > Personally I'd rather maximize revenue, especially here where the knock effects on the economy were pro-growth. Agreed, not to mention the blow this strikes against the state's willingness to be "open for business" as the NY State Budget Director pointed out.
- wbl 8y ago
  Being fair would mean accepting Amazon was going to get the statutory incentives.
kortilla 8y ago
>I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. Every company that would have built in Long Island city is eligible for the same tax credit program. Using the word “handout” is propaganda designed to make you think the government wasn’t still taking in more than was credited. Amazon did not get this without bringing in tens of billions more tax revenue. >so, more infinite returns, and less 9:1 returns, please. >Or is there something else at work here? Yeah, those infinite returns don’t exist. Nobody else is building in LIC with that scale so there is no comparable thing providing “infinite returns”. Even if there was a company doing so, it would be eligible for the same tax credits. Amazon wasn’t getting an Amazon-specific handout. Even if all companies weren’t getting it, I sure as hell would want 25,000 jobs that bring 70% of normal tax revenue for 10 years instead of adding a trickle of jobs at normal tax revenue that doesn’t even reach 25k jobs in 10 years.
asabjorn 8y ago
You are addressing the quote: > You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner. I think you are here making a moral argument of sorts. Why is it morally better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a project with incentives that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k jobs? I simply don't see a viable argument that this was morally right, and wonder what argument you have that the facts we know support this proposition. So far the opponents have not provided a "morally better" alternative to provide Queens with 25-40k jobs, unionized secure jobs for vast amounts of families, and a tax base necessary to invest in Queens that has received very little investment in decades. They have "hopes and dreams", but destroy the only path we had to get there. Due to this we can't improve the offerings of progressive government services for the people living in Queens. Real kids, families, elderly and youth seeking opportunity is affected by this. These facts seems to show conclusively that this what the activists achieved was morally wrong.
- icelancer 8y ago
  > Why is it morally better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a project with incentives that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k jobs? Because people who rail against deals like this take zero responsibility for any of the consequences. It's all of the fun moral policing and none of the downside. It's great to be an activist.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    In fairness, the real reason, at least in NYC... is that they never end up in a situation where they get 100% of nothing. Google and Amazon have thousands of jobs in NYC, and they will move thousand more there in the future. For these people in NYC, they don't know the consequences of not having loads of places to work. For them, it really is a situation of "Heads we win! Tails we win slightly less!".
    - afiori 8y ago
      Well if Amazon could not find 25k employee in the given time they would not receive the 3 billions in tax relief
DenisM 8y ago
> What about the Google jobs? Do those count as infinite return? If so, more infinite returns, and less 9:1 returns, please. I could give you one cent tomorrow in exchange for nothing, you will have an infinite return in a day. Or I can given you $2 tomorrow in exchange for $1 today, a relatively modest 100% return in a day. End of the day you either gained one dollar or one cent. The dollar buys you more thing. That's the difference between a handful of Google jobs and tens of thousands of Amazon jobs. Could you repeat the one cent thing? Maybe a few times but it will also take a few more "days", and probably won't reach one hundred repetition any time soon. This is a shallow and/or low-throughput well, only so much water can be drawn from it.
microcolonel 8y ago
> I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. When you set your basic taxes high enough, it no longer makes sense for some people to do business in your jurisdiction rather than another, so in order to convince those businesses to do business in your jurisdiction (and still generate revenue), you must reduce the effective tax burden on that business. If you do not reduce the effective tax burden, they will leave (which is what you see). The fact that some other businesses are willing to have some offices in your jurisdiction at full price is neither here nor there. Use empathy to predict the behaviour of people under your system, and use accounting to get the figures; it is not difficult to see why tax incentives make sense in a place like NY. If you don't want to see your state and local government pander to individual companies, then lower the cost of doing business for everyone in the state.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway. If it was really as big a factor as pundits claim we would see a lot of jobs in unincorporated areas - yet instead they are in places where populations and infastructure are. Essentially it is a reverse of why there is a sticky price point of items disconnected from actual price - it is what the market will bare. If the fundamentals of an area are good the appropriate response to people demanding concessions leaving is "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway. All else being equal, companies should really be doing what is right for themselves. If it's more costly to be in your community, then your shallow assumptions about their "actual needs" do not, and should not, factor in.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Doesn't the fact that Amazon did in fact leave kind of prove you wrong?
credit_guy 8y ago
> I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. Not sure whether the moral of the story here isn't simply that a triple negative should be a non-starter
Justsignedup 8y ago
Not missing anything really. Sure it creates jobs, but honestly with how much we're paying for it, we're better off literally giving this money directly to people's bank accounts. It'll go further. NY is not hurting for jobs. NY has so many jobs, in fact it doesn't have enough housing for the number of workers here. That's the real problem.

graeme 8y ago

If google creates jobs in long island city, they would get the same handout though. Any company locating there does: it's a program NY state and NYC made to encourage development outside of Manhattan.

ddebernardy 8y ago
So in other words, you're suggesting that the handout was baked in from the get go because the HQ was in Queens, and Amazon being Amazon had nothing to do with it? If that's the case, the media have done a terrible job reporting this.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  $500mm was specific to Amazon in terms of a land grant and property rights. That site is currently a plastic factory next to a Superfund site and the infamous Queensbridge projects though. It's likely the cit/state would make the same concessions to anyone that could place clean high income jobs in the area.
- orangecat 8y ago
  you're suggesting that the handout was baked in from the get go because the HQ was in Queens, and Amazon being Amazon had nothing to do with it? Mostly, yes. About $2.5 billion of the tax benefits were "as of right", meaning they're available to any company that fulfills certain requirements. There was also a separate Amazon-specific $500 million grant to assist with construction. More details at http://www.gothamgazette.com/state/8110-a-closer-look-at-the-tax-incentives-in-the-amazon-deal http://www.gothamgazette.com/state/8110-a-closer-look-at-the... If that's the case, the media have done a terrible job reporting this. Shocking, isn't it?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sublupo 8y ago
    So then what was the point of the heavily publicized hq2 search? If, in the end, Amazon chose a deal that was available to everyone, then what did they negotiate?
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      Other cities could attempt to beat NYC's standing offer.
- graeme 8y ago
  Yup, that's exactly it. As others mentioned, $2.5 billion of the three billion were credits any company can access. $500 million was related to the site amazon chose, a dilapidated area which the state wanted to encourage development of. (I mean the specific HQ site within LIC)
- jdhn 8y ago
  >the media have done a terrible job reporting this. I believe that they've reported it the way that they wanted to. The media knows that outrage sells, and when the public is already suspicious of rich tech companies, there's no reason to accurately report the facts. Here's a personal anecdote. My mom thought that Amazon was outright being given $3 billion to come to NYC, and said that it was unfair that they were getting the money before they hired anybody. She didn't even know that the tax credits were performance based until I told her.
- graycat 8y ago
  > If that's the case, the media have done a terrible job reporting this. From the media, you expected something else? For a more general explanation, see my post in this thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19236564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19236564
throwaway0220 8y ago
> If google creates jobs in long island city, they would get the same handout though. Nops [1][2]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/google-to-invest-usd1-billion-in-nyc-no-tax-incentives-needed.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/google-to-invest-usd1... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-city-expansion-1541636579 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-cit...
- kelnos 8y ago
  Your first link references Google buying a building in Manhattan, which is not Long Island City, and so that doesn't apply. Not sure about your second link because it's behind a paywall.
- graeme 8y ago
  You didn't read your articles very well. Google is investing in new york. The tax credits were for companies in a specific part of new york, in this case long island city. Google is not in long island city or in an area eligible for these particular credits.
Redoubts 8y ago
So what was the deal Amazon negotiated, and why does the public opinion matter on what ultimately is just a land purchase?
- afiori 8y ago
  as far as i understand, amazon negotiated with other cities to see if they could get a better deal than with new york

tehlike 8y ago

I cant see why hq2 location cannot be based on bidding. Tax breaks are part of negotiation. Math is clear.

sp332 8y ago
Well the laws should be applied equally to everyone, including tax laws. That's a pretty simple principle. If you're going to make an exception, you need to reassure people that rule of law is still a thing and you're not just letting a company buy a different set of laws for themselves, which is kinda what this looks like.
- thoughtstheseus 8y ago
  Yeah, hopefully the next time an $800B company developing cutting edge software/tech wants to locate in an economically stressed area stakeholders do better job reassuring people the rule of law still applies.
- tehlike 8y ago
  I get the rule of law aspect, but law leaves room for negotiation for this, otherwise someone woyld have sued the city, no?
- icelancer 8y ago
  > Well the laws should be applied equally to everyone, including tax laws. Do you feel this way about all laws, including drug laws regarding possession and mandatory minimums?
endorphone 8y ago
The math isn't clear at all. Amazon is putting countless other businesses, who employ countless hundreds of thousands, out of business. That's just the nature of capitalism and efficiency, but when they demand special treatment to do so..that's just perverse.
- tehlike 8y ago
  For centuries businesses come and go. I am sure at every level of government incentives happen. Tax break is an incentive. Other businesses could get expedited approvals or permits, some might get licenses etc. Part of american way of doing business, really.

berberous 8y ago

If you want to somehow ban the concept nationally, fine, but otherwise if a city/state doesn't play the incentive game they will probably just lose out to others that will.

endorphone 8y ago
NYC, San Francisco, and a few other areas have absolutely no need for incentives. They're very robust, energized areas, and don't need to beg for employers to come there and leverage the dynamics and workforce. Amazon's ridiculous dog and pony show -- which wasted outrageous amount of public time and money -- was absolutely dystopian: Company that already is one of the largest in the world, with an enormous competitive advantage, demands even more competitive advantage. And let's be real -- Amazon mostly deals in what are zero sum markets. That I bought a camera and some cookies from Amazon just stopped me from buying it from someone else. Further it's worth looking at LA and the NFL. The NFL takes advantage of governments -- usually desperate governments -- to build their stadiums for them, and when LA didn't play ball the NFL went sulking out of town. Eventually they went back, paying for the stadium and all ancillary costs, out of their own pockets, with zero incentives. Because in the end it simply makes sense.
- prepend 8y ago
  Long Island City is not Manhattan. They do benefit from giving incentives as they are not a robust, energized area. Thus the plastic factory/ superfund site with no jobs.
  - endorphone 8y ago
    Long Island City is directly opposite Manhattan (and to reply to the other comment, is most certainly a part of NYC), is extremely lucrative property, and much of it has sat unused largely because property owners have been trying to rezone as residential (where it is worth hundreds of millions an acre). NYC is extremely robust. NYC doesn't need Amazon, and never needed Amazon. And contrary to the claims in the linked letter (a spittle laden diatribe of someone mad that they didn't get their way), there was opposition right at the very outset. Significant opposition. Opposition that Long Island City doesn't want to be Manhattan, for instance.

freewilly1040 8y ago

This was different than organic job growth because of the number of jobs at stake: > Amazon chose New York and Virginia after a year-long national competition with 234 cities and states vying for the 25,000-40,000 jobs. For a sense of scale, the next largest economic development project the state has completed was for approximately 1,000 jobs What's the goal of tax policy? There's a) achieving the appearance of fairness, and b) maximizing revenue for your constituents. The two goals are not always aligned. If you care more about fairness, then sure, the tax law is the tax law and you should hold the line no matter what. Personally I'd rather maximize revenue, especially here where the knock effects on the economy were pro-growth.

icelancer 8y ago
> Personally I'd rather maximize revenue, especially here where the knock effects on the economy were pro-growth. Agreed, not to mention the blow this strikes against the state's willingness to be "open for business" as the NY State Budget Director pointed out.
wbl 8y ago
Being fair would mean accepting Amazon was going to get the statutory incentives.

kortilla 8y ago

>I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. Every company that would have built in Long Island city is eligible for the same tax credit program. Using the word “handout” is propaganda designed to make you think the government wasn’t still taking in more than was credited. Amazon did not get this without bringing in tens of billions more tax revenue. >so, more infinite returns, and less 9:1 returns, please. >Or is there something else at work here? Yeah, those infinite returns don’t exist. Nobody else is building in LIC with that scale so there is no comparable thing providing “infinite returns”. Even if there was a company doing so, it would be eligible for the same tax credits. Amazon wasn’t getting an Amazon-specific handout. Even if all companies weren’t getting it, I sure as hell would want 25,000 jobs that bring 70% of normal tax revenue for 10 years instead of adding a trickle of jobs at normal tax revenue that doesn’t even reach 25k jobs in 10 years.

asabjorn 8y ago

You are addressing the quote: > You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner. I think you are here making a moral argument of sorts. Why is it morally better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a project with incentives that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k jobs? I simply don't see a viable argument that this was morally right, and wonder what argument you have that the facts we know support this proposition. So far the opponents have not provided a "morally better" alternative to provide Queens with 25-40k jobs, unionized secure jobs for vast amounts of families, and a tax base necessary to invest in Queens that has received very little investment in decades. They have "hopes and dreams", but destroy the only path we had to get there. Due to this we can't improve the offerings of progressive government services for the people living in Queens. Real kids, families, elderly and youth seeking opportunity is affected by this. These facts seems to show conclusively that this what the activists achieved was morally wrong.

icelancer 8y ago
> Why is it morally better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a project with incentives that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k jobs? Because people who rail against deals like this take zero responsibility for any of the consequences. It's all of the fun moral policing and none of the downside. It's great to be an activist.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  In fairness, the real reason, at least in NYC... is that they never end up in a situation where they get 100% of nothing. Google and Amazon have thousands of jobs in NYC, and they will move thousand more there in the future. For these people in NYC, they don't know the consequences of not having loads of places to work. For them, it really is a situation of "Heads we win! Tails we win slightly less!".
  - afiori 8y ago
    Well if Amazon could not find 25k employee in the given time they would not receive the 3 billions in tax relief

DenisM 8y ago

> What about the Google jobs? Do those count as infinite return? If so, more infinite returns, and less 9:1 returns, please. I could give you one cent tomorrow in exchange for nothing, you will have an infinite return in a day. Or I can given you $2 tomorrow in exchange for $1 today, a relatively modest 100% return in a day. End of the day you either gained one dollar or one cent. The dollar buys you more thing. That's the difference between a handful of Google jobs and tens of thousands of Amazon jobs. Could you repeat the one cent thing? Maybe a few times but it will also take a few more "days", and probably won't reach one hundred repetition any time soon. This is a shallow and/or low-throughput well, only so much water can be drawn from it.

microcolonel 8y ago

> I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. When you set your basic taxes high enough, it no longer makes sense for some people to do business in your jurisdiction rather than another, so in order to convince those businesses to do business in your jurisdiction (and still generate revenue), you must reduce the effective tax burden on that business. If you do not reduce the effective tax burden, they will leave (which is what you see). The fact that some other businesses are willing to have some offices in your jurisdiction at full price is neither here nor there. Use empathy to predict the behaviour of people under your system, and use accounting to get the figures; it is not difficult to see why tax incentives make sense in a place like NY. If you don't want to see your state and local government pander to individual companies, then lower the cost of doing business for everyone in the state.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway. If it was really as big a factor as pundits claim we would see a lot of jobs in unincorporated areas - yet instead they are in places where populations and infastructure are. Essentially it is a reverse of why there is a sticky price point of items disconnected from actual price - it is what the market will bare. If the fundamentals of an area are good the appropriate response to people demanding concessions leaving is "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway. All else being equal, companies should really be doing what is right for themselves. If it's more costly to be in your community, then your shallow assumptions about their "actual needs" do not, and should not, factor in.
- aetherson 8y ago
  Doesn't the fact that Amazon did in fact leave kind of prove you wrong?

credit_guy 8y ago

> I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. Not sure whether the moral of the story here isn't simply that a triple negative should be a non-starter

Justsignedup 8y ago

Not missing anything really. Sure it creates jobs, but honestly with how much we're paying for it, we're better off literally giving this money directly to people's bank accounts. It'll go further. NY is not hurting for jobs. NY has so many jobs, in fact it doesn't have enough housing for the number of workers here. That's the real problem.