4 ms·

I'm glad they dropped it. There are some grounded concerns: * Amazon is one of the most successful enterprises in human history and should not require support

I'm glad they dropped it. There are some grounded concerns: * Amazon is one of the most successful enterprises in human history and should not require support from taxpayers beyond their voluntary patronage of Amazon itself. * Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and presented without community input or oversight * While amazon is talking about bringing middle and upper-income jobs to these communities, overall amazon has a documented history of paying poverty wages despite its tremendous financial success * State and local governments probably shouldn't be diverting billions of their citizen's tax revenue to lure corporations who will only impact a tiny subset of their citizenry. Does the taxpayer in Buffalo New York benefit if their tax money goes to fund some HQ in Queens, if the bulk of the state's tax capture is just "handed" right back to Amazon? With that said, there's nothing wrong with large organizations asking state and local governments to expedite things like site identification, planning, zoning, permitting, licensing, environmental studies, etc since you're talking about a MASSIVE undertaking during a short window of time. But beyond that, governments should avoid a race to the bottom with this stuff.

noahA 8y ago
Would the bulk of the taxes paid by Amazon be paid back? The article said that Amazon would get $3 billion in existing credits (i.e. not deal specific, just business tax credits) and would be paying ~$27 billion. Seems like a steal for NY.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Look at this beyond the scope of Amazon. If the basic premise here is that any company should get a tax break if they are capable of hiring enough workers whose tax payments would exceed their employer's tax payments, all you're doing is just shifting the tax burden onto the workers in the form of regressive income, sales, and property taxes.
  - johncolanduoni 8y ago
    For there to be an actual increase in tax revenue for the state via income tax, those workers would have to be receiving higher salaries than they would have otherwise, would they not? Or emigrating from somewhere else, which they would be unlikely to do if they are not receiving an increase in compensation.
  - jzwinck 8y ago
    You assume there is no economy of scale for government spending. For example, building a road to serve 10 million people may be cheaper per capita than a road for 1 million people. Same on the revenue side: doing a single large deal for $27B is probably cheaper than doing a thousand deals for $27M.
Permit 8y ago
> * Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and presented without community input or oversight > * State and local governments probably shouldn't be diverting billions of their citizen's tax revenue to lure corporations who will only impact a tiny subset of their citizenry. I haven't been following this closely. What did New York offer Amazon that it does not offer any other company? In the linked article the author states that Amazon would have been claiming existing tax credits. Did they receive anything else (not offered to any other new businesses)? If so, the linked article seems to be presenting the argument in bad faith. If not, you seem to be describing the offer in bad faith.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Rezoning and eminent domain, resulting in massive windfall for Plaxall https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/plastics-company-another-winner-blockbuster-amazon-deal https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/plastics-company-a... (Yes, some of that land is being purchased in a private sale, but its value is now significantly greater because of the city's rezoning and ability to stich-together workable parcels through eminent domain)Long island City residents aren't terribly happy about that. Then there's the whole Excelsior tax credit scheme which Amazon really stretches. It's normally just 6.85% of wages per net new job. Amazon's is significantly greater. https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program
  - chrismcb 8y ago
    Use of eminent domain is disgusting and that alone is enough to kill the deal IMHO. Using eminent domain for a private business is wrong. It seems like New York does that too often.
- blacksqr 8y ago
  Yes, the letter asks us to believe that Amazon, after a lengthy nationwide search, ultimately chose a deal that only offered credits that were already on the books. If the benefits of the deal are already available to all comers, why doesn't Amazon just continue with its plan?
yawboakye 8y ago
Amazon isn't taking money from the government. They're getting a relief of $3 billion IF they fulfill their promise. I'd take 25k-40k jobs for my people over $3 billion in taxes any day. As the director quoted the governor, the best social program is still a job.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Many companies in New York create jobs for the state. Some even more than Amazon, and generate even greater amounts tax revenue. Are they too entitled to tax relief? Amazon is a tremendously successful company. You start handing it tax breaks and you begin walking down the path of making it a government-sanctioned monopoly.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    This is what detractors of the deal keep saying. You can speculate on the organic growth rate of the NY economy all you want. But at the end of the day, there are 25,000 - 40,000 jobs which definitely won’t be coming to Long Island City now.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      That's not obviously true. The land is still there. Other companies could use it. Unless everything Amazon might have purchased goes totally undeveloped, the impact is less than the 25k jobs. And given the time horizons involved, I'd take that bet.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        Anyone else who proposes to develop at the scale that Amazon was proposing, would likely be achieving similar tax incentives as to what Amazon was offered. Particularly since the terms of the deal were made public, that becomes an anchor point for any similar discussions. There is no question that organic growth will eventually create 25,000-40,000 jobs. But the net present value (NPV) of that future job creation is significantly reduced after applying the discount. So even the same number of jobs is not a comparable economic impact.
Svoka 8y ago
What's wrong with giving Amazon billion dollar for building an office? Just to put it in perspective, lets say they would create 30000 jobs with average pay of $80000/year. That is $2.4 billion in just salaries over single year. According to random tax calculator I found online it is about 0.7 billions in taxes every year. This is crazy ROI. If I could put money which would have 70% safe yearly return that would be insanely awesome investment.
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  foxconn made very similar promises in wisconsin. that worked out really poorly indeed. GE made similar promises in boston. that’s worked out really poorly indeed.
  - thereisnospork 8y ago
    And amazon's incentives were tied to the number of jobs and how much they paid.
    - hprotagonist 8y ago
      so were GE’s.
      - thereisnospork 8y ago
        So how did Boston get fleeced? (genuinely curious, not overly familiar with the GE situation.)
        hprotagonist 8y ago
        kind of a slow moving crap fest. They’re going to repay some tax breaks, at least in theory, but we’ve dropped 160mil into renovations for a site that probably will never happen. https://www.universalhub.com/2019/ge-give-back-87-million-tax-breaks-because-it-no https://www.universalhub.com/2019/ge-give-back-87-million-ta... , https://www.universalhub.com/ge https://www.universalhub.com/ge has a long running chronology.
zamalek 8y ago
> Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and presented without community input or oversight The letter specifically addresses this. That $3B was effectively a loan with massive ROI.
- pas 8y ago
  I think, based purely on the separation of concerns, it'd be good if states wouldn't finance loans to companies. It's problematic, because it's hard for states to provide equal treatment (ever firm should be equal in the eyes of the law), states shouldn't be in the business of analyzing business plans and taking on risk. That said, NY would have probably benefited from HQ2, though it's not that there's a lack of upward forces on the salaries of those jobs there, not to mention real estate.
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    "loan" is here a figure-of-speech, not an actual loan. It was a $3b tax incentive, where amazon would still be paying $27b in taxes over the same period.
rossjudson 8y ago
Interesting. None of your concerns have anything to do with New York. Each would apply anywhere Amazon would choose to build.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Yes, that’s largely the point. I don’t think Amazon (or any company like amazon) should receive massive tax credits for jobs it needs to create anyway.
inoop 8y ago
> Does the taxpayer in Buffalo New York benefit if their tax money goes to fund some HQ in Queens, if the bulk of the state's tax capture is just "handed" right back to Amazon? You have to be exceptionally uninformed to believe that taxpayer money from Buffalo was being used to lure Amazon. In reality, Amazon was getting a $3bn discount on their tax bill, which would have still come out to $27bn over the same period. The majority of this $27bn would go to the state. Given that western New York gets more in state funding than it pays in taxes, this would have been net positive for Buffalo [1]. Second, Amazon would have brought 25k high paying jobs to LIC, at an average pay of $150k/year. In addition, there would have been thousands of secondary jobs in construction, restaurants, building management, and so on. All that state tax money is now going to Virginia and Tennessee. [1] https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/oct/14/chris-jacobs/state-spends-more-western-new-york-it-receives-tax/ https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/oct/14/c... edit: go Sabres!
tootahe45 8y ago
This reads a bit like "we could've used that 3 billion to pay for teachers". This logic is flawed because the 3b is created by Amazon in the first place.

noahA 8y ago

Would the bulk of the taxes paid by Amazon be paid back? The article said that Amazon would get $3 billion in existing credits (i.e. not deal specific, just business tax credits) and would be paying ~$27 billion. Seems like a steal for NY.

spamizbad 8y ago
Look at this beyond the scope of Amazon. If the basic premise here is that any company should get a tax break if they are capable of hiring enough workers whose tax payments would exceed their employer's tax payments, all you're doing is just shifting the tax burden onto the workers in the form of regressive income, sales, and property taxes.
- johncolanduoni 8y ago
  For there to be an actual increase in tax revenue for the state via income tax, those workers would have to be receiving higher salaries than they would have otherwise, would they not? Or emigrating from somewhere else, which they would be unlikely to do if they are not receiving an increase in compensation.
- jzwinck 8y ago
  You assume there is no economy of scale for government spending. For example, building a road to serve 10 million people may be cheaper per capita than a road for 1 million people. Same on the revenue side: doing a single large deal for $27B is probably cheaper than doing a thousand deals for $27M.

Permit 8y ago

> * Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and presented without community input or oversight > * State and local governments probably shouldn't be diverting billions of their citizen's tax revenue to lure corporations who will only impact a tiny subset of their citizenry. I haven't been following this closely. What did New York offer Amazon that it does not offer any other company? In the linked article the author states that Amazon would have been claiming existing tax credits. Did they receive anything else (not offered to any other new businesses)? If so, the linked article seems to be presenting the argument in bad faith. If not, you seem to be describing the offer in bad faith.

spamizbad 8y ago
Rezoning and eminent domain, resulting in massive windfall for Plaxall https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/plastics-company-another-winner-blockbuster-amazon-deal https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/plastics-company-a... (Yes, some of that land is being purchased in a private sale, but its value is now significantly greater because of the city's rezoning and ability to stich-together workable parcels through eminent domain)Long island City residents aren't terribly happy about that. Then there's the whole Excelsior tax credit scheme which Amazon really stretches. It's normally just 6.85% of wages per net new job. Amazon's is significantly greater. https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program
- chrismcb 8y ago
  Use of eminent domain is disgusting and that alone is enough to kill the deal IMHO. Using eminent domain for a private business is wrong. It seems like New York does that too often.
blacksqr 8y ago
Yes, the letter asks us to believe that Amazon, after a lengthy nationwide search, ultimately chose a deal that only offered credits that were already on the books. If the benefits of the deal are already available to all comers, why doesn't Amazon just continue with its plan?

yawboakye 8y ago

Amazon isn't taking money from the government. They're getting a relief of $3 billion IF they fulfill their promise. I'd take 25k-40k jobs for my people over $3 billion in taxes any day. As the director quoted the governor, the best social program is still a job.

spamizbad 8y ago
Many companies in New York create jobs for the state. Some even more than Amazon, and generate even greater amounts tax revenue. Are they too entitled to tax relief? Amazon is a tremendously successful company. You start handing it tax breaks and you begin walking down the path of making it a government-sanctioned monopoly.
- zaroth 8y ago
  This is what detractors of the deal keep saying. You can speculate on the organic growth rate of the NY economy all you want. But at the end of the day, there are 25,000 - 40,000 jobs which definitely won’t be coming to Long Island City now.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    That's not obviously true. The land is still there. Other companies could use it. Unless everything Amazon might have purchased goes totally undeveloped, the impact is less than the 25k jobs. And given the time horizons involved, I'd take that bet.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      Anyone else who proposes to develop at the scale that Amazon was proposing, would likely be achieving similar tax incentives as to what Amazon was offered. Particularly since the terms of the deal were made public, that becomes an anchor point for any similar discussions. There is no question that organic growth will eventually create 25,000-40,000 jobs. But the net present value (NPV) of that future job creation is significantly reduced after applying the discount. So even the same number of jobs is not a comparable economic impact.

Svoka 8y ago

What's wrong with giving Amazon billion dollar for building an office? Just to put it in perspective, lets say they would create 30000 jobs with average pay of $80000/year. That is $2.4 billion in just salaries over single year. According to random tax calculator I found online it is about 0.7 billions in taxes every year. This is crazy ROI. If I could put money which would have 70% safe yearly return that would be insanely awesome investment.

hprotagonist 8y ago
foxconn made very similar promises in wisconsin. that worked out really poorly indeed. GE made similar promises in boston. that’s worked out really poorly indeed.
- thereisnospork 8y ago
  And amazon's incentives were tied to the number of jobs and how much they paid.
  - hprotagonist 8y ago
    so were GE’s.
    - thereisnospork 8y ago
      So how did Boston get fleeced? (genuinely curious, not overly familiar with the GE situation.)
      - hprotagonist 8y ago
        kind of a slow moving crap fest. They’re going to repay some tax breaks, at least in theory, but we’ve dropped 160mil into renovations for a site that probably will never happen. https://www.universalhub.com/2019/ge-give-back-87-million-tax-breaks-because-it-no https://www.universalhub.com/2019/ge-give-back-87-million-ta... , https://www.universalhub.com/ge https://www.universalhub.com/ge has a long running chronology.

zamalek 8y ago

> Most of these "deals" were put together secretly without input from the public. Millions (or in NY's case, billion+) of dollars were packaged and presented without community input or oversight The letter specifically addresses this. That $3B was effectively a loan with massive ROI.

pas 8y ago
I think, based purely on the separation of concerns, it'd be good if states wouldn't finance loans to companies. It's problematic, because it's hard for states to provide equal treatment (ever firm should be equal in the eyes of the law), states shouldn't be in the business of analyzing business plans and taking on risk. That said, NY would have probably benefited from HQ2, though it's not that there's a lack of upward forces on the salaries of those jobs there, not to mention real estate.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  "loan" is here a figure-of-speech, not an actual loan. It was a $3b tax incentive, where amazon would still be paying $27b in taxes over the same period.

rossjudson 8y ago

Interesting. None of your concerns have anything to do with New York. Each would apply anywhere Amazon would choose to build.

spamizbad 8y ago
Yes, that’s largely the point. I don’t think Amazon (or any company like amazon) should receive massive tax credits for jobs it needs to create anyway.

inoop 8y ago

> Does the taxpayer in Buffalo New York benefit if their tax money goes to fund some HQ in Queens, if the bulk of the state's tax capture is just "handed" right back to Amazon? You have to be exceptionally uninformed to believe that taxpayer money from Buffalo was being used to lure Amazon. In reality, Amazon was getting a $3bn discount on their tax bill, which would have still come out to $27bn over the same period. The majority of this $27bn would go to the state. Given that western New York gets more in state funding than it pays in taxes, this would have been net positive for Buffalo [1]. Second, Amazon would have brought 25k high paying jobs to LIC, at an average pay of $150k/year. In addition, there would have been thousands of secondary jobs in construction, restaurants, building management, and so on. All that state tax money is now going to Virginia and Tennessee. [1] https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/oct/14/chris-jacobs/state-spends-more-western-new-york-it-receives-tax/ https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/oct/14/c... edit: go Sabres!

tootahe45 8y ago

This reads a bit like "we could've used that 3 billion to pay for teachers". This logic is flawed because the 3b is created by Amazon in the first place.