3 ms·

A company that made boatloads of profit, not revenue, profit, wanted tax breaks was opposed by someone who cares for the average joe. Not the software developer

A company that made boatloads of profit, not revenue, profit, wanted tax breaks was opposed by someone who cares for the average joe. Not the software developer. The guy working at the deli. Don’t be surprised. It really sucks how amazon played the game. If they agreed to no tax breaks, all that is mentioned in the link above would be headlines instead. But no. They never wanted to commit to that. Both sides are at fault and the general public suffered because of politics.

tomnipotent 8y ago
Except that tax breaks were astronomically dwarfed by the additional tax income that would have been created. She didn't care about the "average joe", she cared about her image and grandstanding to score political points.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  How do you know it would be less tax income than would be created by other businesses moving into LIC? You don't -- no one does, because AFAIK that analysis hasn't been done yet.
  - wdewind 8y ago
    There is no other comparable plan of this scale, so there is no meaningful way to do this analysis. "In my 23 years in the State Capitol, three as Budget Director, Amazon was the single greatest economic development opportunity we have had...For a sense of scale, the next largest economic development project the state has completed was for approximately 1,000 jobs."
    - nerdponx 8y ago
      All the more reason to spend the extra time and effort making sure we understand the effects.
subpixel 8y ago
You don't need to work at the deli. I work in tech, live in the neighborhood, and oppose Amazon landing here.
wdewind 8y ago
"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."
- nerdponx 8y ago
  Yes, it's wrong to say "we can spend that $3bn elsewhere". That said, the $3 billion is not the full price tag (externalities, etc.) and the $27 billion is not the whole story (can we see your raw data please?).
  - wdewind 8y ago
    What are the other externalities that are not already addressed by taxes? Would they be more adequately addressed by other companies paying the same taxes? I'm not sure which raw data you'd like, but if you can be more specific I'll do my best to find it.
smokeyj 8y ago
The guy working at the deli may have sold more inventory. New deli shops would have opened up, creating more jobs. Using the deli guy as a pawn for your political agenda.. not cool. Not understanding basic economics and speaking on behalf of deli-guy who probably has a solid grasp of supply and demand. Not cool.
- lancesells 8y ago
  "New deli shops would have opened up, creating more jobs." I don't know enough to have any opinion on whether it's a good or bad thing but I can tell you new deli's don't open up in these situations. Local businesses close and corporations open up shop. Chipotles and Pret-A-Manger's will take their place. Maybe the deli guy can work for them.
  - iscrewyou 8y ago
    Thanks. This is exactly what I was aiming for. As I read the OP's comment, I was trying to find a way to tackle it but it just seems like a moot point getting through to someone like that.
    - smokeyj 8y ago
      But the comment agrees with me. I'm okay with the nitpick. Chipotle still pays minimum wage and taxes. Am I supposed to be outraged by Chipotle? Or am I supposed to look down at people employed by Chipotle? It's like paradoxical wokeness where you become classist yourself and look down at people with real jobs. I'm sure many students would be happy to work for Chipotle and then work for Amazon after graduation. The local community could have spent the increase in tax revenue on providing social services. I understand you oppose the deal not out of some economic principal but from a moral principle. But even the moral principle is wrong. Taxation has been used to incentivize behavior since the inception of taxation. Turning away funds that could benefit the needy, out of a principle to help the needy? That's a head scratcher.
aurailious 8y ago
> The guy working at the deli. This guy would have made a lot of money selling sandwiches to tech workers.

tomnipotent 8y ago

Except that tax breaks were astronomically dwarfed by the additional tax income that would have been created. She didn't care about the "average joe", she cared about her image and grandstanding to score political points.

nerdponx 8y ago
How do you know it would be less tax income than would be created by other businesses moving into LIC? You don't -- no one does, because AFAIK that analysis hasn't been done yet.
- wdewind 8y ago
  There is no other comparable plan of this scale, so there is no meaningful way to do this analysis. "In my 23 years in the State Capitol, three as Budget Director, Amazon was the single greatest economic development opportunity we have had...For a sense of scale, the next largest economic development project the state has completed was for approximately 1,000 jobs."
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    All the more reason to spend the extra time and effort making sure we understand the effects.

subpixel 8y ago

You don't need to work at the deli. I work in tech, live in the neighborhood, and oppose Amazon landing here.

wdewind 8y ago

"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."

nerdponx 8y ago
Yes, it's wrong to say "we can spend that $3bn elsewhere". That said, the $3 billion is not the full price tag (externalities, etc.) and the $27 billion is not the whole story (can we see your raw data please?).
- wdewind 8y ago
  What are the other externalities that are not already addressed by taxes? Would they be more adequately addressed by other companies paying the same taxes? I'm not sure which raw data you'd like, but if you can be more specific I'll do my best to find it.

smokeyj 8y ago

The guy working at the deli may have sold more inventory. New deli shops would have opened up, creating more jobs. Using the deli guy as a pawn for your political agenda.. not cool. Not understanding basic economics and speaking on behalf of deli-guy who probably has a solid grasp of supply and demand. Not cool.

lancesells 8y ago
"New deli shops would have opened up, creating more jobs." I don't know enough to have any opinion on whether it's a good or bad thing but I can tell you new deli's don't open up in these situations. Local businesses close and corporations open up shop. Chipotles and Pret-A-Manger's will take their place. Maybe the deli guy can work for them.
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  Thanks. This is exactly what I was aiming for. As I read the OP's comment, I was trying to find a way to tackle it but it just seems like a moot point getting through to someone like that.
  - smokeyj 8y ago
    But the comment agrees with me. I'm okay with the nitpick. Chipotle still pays minimum wage and taxes. Am I supposed to be outraged by Chipotle? Or am I supposed to look down at people employed by Chipotle? It's like paradoxical wokeness where you become classist yourself and look down at people with real jobs. I'm sure many students would be happy to work for Chipotle and then work for Amazon after graduation. The local community could have spent the increase in tax revenue on providing social services. I understand you oppose the deal not out of some economic principal but from a moral principle. But even the moral principle is wrong. Taxation has been used to incentivize behavior since the inception of taxation. Turning away funds that could benefit the needy, out of a principle to help the needy? That's a head scratcher.

aurailious 8y ago

> The guy working at the deli. This guy would have made a lot of money selling sandwiches to tech workers.