4 ms·

> I'm not sure I follow. How does rejecting business development and turning away thousands of high paying (and thus, paying high taxes) jobs help reduce povert

> I'm not sure I follow. How does rejecting business development and turning away thousands of high paying (and thus, paying high taxes) jobs help reduce poverty? Because allowing this kind of behavior creates a race to the bottom, where the end state is that no company ever pays any tax. The only way to avoid this situation, if you don't have a higher-level government entity banning it entirely, is to grow a backbone and say no. And it isn't as if NYC is hurting for jobs. > How are we supposed to help the impoverished and build the middle class if we destroy job opportunities? I can just as easily flip this question on its head: how are we supposed to help the impoverished if we allow companies to play hostage-taker with jobs and ultimately drive their tax rate to 0?

manfredo 8y ago
> I can just as easily flip this question on its head: how are we supposed to help the impoverished if we allow companies to play hostage-taker with jobs and ultimately drive their tax rate to 0? Because even if their corporate tax rates are reduced, their employees still pay income and sales taxes. Other posters estimated that Amazon's NYC workers would be paying close to half a million in income taxes alone each year. Not to mention you're being intellectually dishonest as framing this as "dropping their tax rate to 0". Amazon's tax break is a temporary incentive. When the tax incentives expire, Amazon will be paying taxes like any other company. The New York government estimated that the deal would bring in 27 billion over 15 years, yielding an 800% ROI.