Prominent New Yorkers Are Trying To Get Amazon To Bring Back HQ2 (cnet.com) 275
The New York Times reported Thursday that an open letter will be published in the Times on Friday that asks Amazon to reconsider its decision to walk away from its plan to build a 25,000-employee campus in Long Island City, Queens. The company pulled the plug on the project, dubbed HQ2, following vocal and persistent opposition to the plan after it was announced three months ago. CNET reports: The letter was signed by the CEOs of Mastercard, Warby Parker, Goldman Sachs, Tishman Speyer and Jetblue, among others. The presidents of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and state AFL-CIO, which were expecting thousands of construction jobs to come from the project, also signed, as did U.S. Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Carolyn Maloney. "We know the public debate that followed the announcement of the Long Island City project was rough and not very welcoming," the letter stated. "Opinions are strong in New York -- sometimes strident. We consider it part of the New York charm! But when we commit to a project as important as this, we figure out how to get it done in a way that works for everyone."
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also had several conversations with Amazon, including CEO Jeff Bezos, about bringing back the project, the Times said. The letter and Cuomo's behind-the-scenes efforts are part of the latest fallout since Amazon abandoned HQ2 in New York. The opposition has celebrated the exit as a victory for grassroots campaigns and a stand against lavish government incentives for new development plans. Amazon was slated to get about $3 billion in tax breaks for building the project. Supporters, who weren't as vocal during the run-up to Amazon leaving, expressed shock and consternation about Amazon's decision and worried that New York would appear unfriendly to new businesses. While the business community was broadly seen as in favor of the project, the letter shows how both the camps supporting and opposing HQ2 included unions and Democratic U.S. congress members.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also had several conversations with Amazon, including CEO Jeff Bezos, about bringing back the project, the Times said. The letter and Cuomo's behind-the-scenes efforts are part of the latest fallout since Amazon abandoned HQ2 in New York. The opposition has celebrated the exit as a victory for grassroots campaigns and a stand against lavish government incentives for new development plans. Amazon was slated to get about $3 billion in tax breaks for building the project. Supporters, who weren't as vocal during the run-up to Amazon leaving, expressed shock and consternation about Amazon's decision and worried that New York would appear unfriendly to new businesses. While the business community was broadly seen as in favor of the project, the letter shows how both the camps supporting and opposing HQ2 included unions and Democratic U.S. congress members.
Amazon would be stupid to reconsider. (Score:3, Insightful)
That location is too unstable and the cost of doing business is too stupid.
Get rid of occasional cortex and amazon might think about it again.
money-mouth (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?
Re:money-mouth (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?
It is hard to say because each scheme is different, and you can't roll the experiment forward and then roll it back and try it again without the subsidy. Reality only has one timeline.
But we can say that on average they are a net loss. Amazon was going to expand no matter what. Without the subsidy they would have chosen the location based on the best business efficiency. So all the subsidy did was pay to pull the potential HQ from one city to another.
These subsidies are a Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org]. Each city feels compelled to offer subsidies because the other cities are doing the same. But they would be collectively better off if none of them did so.
Re: (Score:3)
They wouldn't be collectively better off since they are not a collective. Only one gets the benefit.
Only one gets this facility. But hundreds of companies make relocation decisions every year, and plenty of them are offered tax incentives that are effectively subsidies. Many states and cities have bureaucracies to manage all the payouts.
It is a rotten inefficient and unfair system (small companies rarely get the subsidies), that provides no net benefit to the public. This sort of self-destructive race-to-the-bottom is exactly why the commerce clause exists in the US Constitution. Congress should ban t
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, corporate tax rates have always been different than individual tax rates...
For that matter, some individuals pay taxes at a higher (or lower) rate than others.
No, there's no requirement in the Constitution that tax rates must be the same for everyone and every entity....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is unconstitutional to have laws that include exceptions for specific, named people or companies.
Indeed. These are "bills of attainder" and are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.
Re: (Score:2)
But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.
It would be trivially easy to argue that it restricts state and local governments. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that protections in the Constitution apply to the states as well as the federal government. They just reaffirmed this last week [scotusblog.com] (9-0 decision that the 8th Amendment applies to the states).
Re: (Score:2)
These are the same sacks of shit who, with a straigbt face, will tell you, "This isn't an income tax. It is a just tax proportional to your income."
Re: (Score:2)
An income tax was implemented during the Civil War, but they were later ruled as unconstitutional, as they clearly were.
Federal (but not state) income taxes remained illegal until 1913, when the 16th Amendment [wikipedia.org] to the US Constitution specifically authorized congress to levy an income tax.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pay your fair share" means, in places like this, paying gigatons extra for things well beyone basic services. As if the purpose of private existence is to be a workhorse for populist ideas.
So free people choose to go somewhere else. "Here, voters. Live with the politicians you gleely elect as they scream how evil we are. Well, we are evil in their eyes, so I am sure you are happy to see our evil say bye."
Re:money-mouth (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Finland I can cite quite a few off the top of my head. For example, pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.
Same goes for things like huge cellulose and carton factories also typically located in a small township willing to give a lot more of subsidies and tax breaks than large city. And in return, the company tends to pay a huge share of local tax income, as well as employ people. One needs not look beyond what happens to towns that have such a factory go broke and/or leave to understand the impact and importance of inviting and keeping industry.
Re:money-mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
The subsidies have to come from somewhere. If you tax the town residents 10% of their income to subsidize the nickel smelter, that is equivalent to giving the smelter NO subsidy, and them just paying their workers 10% less, and then those workers will have 10% less to spend on other goods and services in the town.
The result is the same, except without the overhead and inefficiency of the government collecting the taxes and paying the subsidies.
Without the subsidies, it would also be easier for other business to locate in the town and offer alternative jobs that didn't require a subsidy. A big problem with subsidies, is that once they are in place, they come to be seen as entitlements, and are politically difficult to turn off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:money-mouth (Score:4, Insightful)
Without the subsidies, the businesses just clump together and nobody benefits but the already-rich.
I see. So corporate welfare is actually a way to keep the rich in line. Thanks for clarifying that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either give them more money out of taxes as a sort of tithe to sate their greed
Can you cite an actual historical example of greed being sated by handouts or subsidies?
Re: (Score:2)
If not, how do you propose they fund things?
By fair and equitable taxation. Maggie's Pie Shop should not have to pay more taxes than Amazon.
If so, how do you propose ensuring that jobs are available to the populous?
That is not the purpose of government. Where governments have seen "creating jobs" as their purpose, the result is generally worse than where governments leave that to the private sector.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how subsidies work. They generally do not tax the residents to give the company money (though I suppose they could). Instead, they take the form of "if you move to this area and employ X people at a salary of at least Y, we'll give you a Z% discount on your taxes". Since these are usually local deals, the taxes are usually property tax related, as that is the only taxes that the local government has power over. States might also chip in, which is where income tax reductions could come into pl
Re:money-mouth (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh boy.
Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland.
Also, subsidies for nickel smelters in Lapland are part of a sensible industrial/economic policy that includes free (or nearly free) education, universal health care, etc etc. Finland is actually a civilized place and would be a wonderful place to live if it wasn't dark for six months of the year.
The situation is very different in the US. Every time...EVERY TIME...a company promises 10,000 high-paying jobs for an area if they just let them not pay taxes, it really turns out to be 100 high-paying jobs and 9,900 shit jobs and 8000 of those get laid off within three years. The entire thing is nothing but a late-stage capitalist boondoggle.
And it's not even that the companies coming into US municipalities are allowed to not pay a certain amount of taxes. It's much worse than that. The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.
Re: (Score:3)
Lapland is going to exist without smelters too. But just like New York, it's going to have to adapt to being significantly poorer. So the subsidies for New York's crumbling subway for example won't be as affordable, and Lapland municipalities would have to apply for state aid to perform its legally mandated educational functions. As some already do.
As for the rest, I get the feeling you've bought Sanders' lies about Scandianvian countries being socialist. We have an entire complex interwoven negotiation sys
Re: (Score:2)
You think New York is poor?
Re: (Score:2)
English is my third language, and yet even I know the difference between "poor" and "poorer".
It takes a zealot to intentionally gaslight a post you're replying to by pretending that they have the same meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's talk about "significantly poorer". The population of Finland is what, about 5.5 million people? The GDP of Finland is about $251 billion (USD). The population of New York City is about 8 million people, and the GDP of New York City is over $1.5 TRILLION (with a "T").
The city of New York has a GDP that's about the same as the entire country of South Korea, that has over 51 million people.
You might want to reflect on t
Re: (Score:2)
You just blatantly gaslighted my other post here:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
And now you **"want to talk about" the exact thing you gaslit in a different reply. Hey asshole. Fuck you too. Let's talk about why you gaslight people in such a blatant manner, and then demonstrate clearly that it was intentional by talking about the very thing you tried to just lie about, demonstrating clear understanding of what was said.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation for what? Existence of smelters in Lapland? Have you tried google before trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
You need a citation that having significantly more tax income leads to better economic outcomes for the region?
Ok. My citation is basic mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.
This outright lie invalidated any point you were trying to make. All you proved is you don't understand taxes at all. Income withholding taxes are pass-through taxes, and if the employer knowingly keeps them from the government they are supposed to deposit them towards, people go to jail and companies go under. Income withholding taxes in no way impact a companies' tax liability or credit against a companies tax liability, it's money employees would have paid the state or fed directly but due to volume
Re: (Score:2)
No, my friend. If you look elsewhere in this thread, I have supplied citations and publications that show that indeed, many companies that get state and local tax subsidies which are structured so t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's how it works.
Here is the story:
Re: (Score:2)
The unemployment rate in New York City is about 4% right now. A 5.5% unemployment rate is considered full employment. Giving away the store to Amazon in tax subsidies and abatement to bring in some jobs that might go away in a year or two is bad policy. Amazon will still be using all the services, require all the infrastructure, and somebody
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe your city is at the correct, optimal level of taxes and services, then all residents and businesses should be contributing equally to maint
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That is the communist model of "everyone should have equal outcomes regardless of merit". It simply doesn't work in real life because no two individuals are the same. And businesses ultimately are made out of individuals.
For example, here in Finland the solution to this problem is to have high progressive income taxes, low business taxes, and then have state government, local government, workers' union and employers' union all interlinked in complex network of negotiations over everything from salaries and
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen this mindset in Soviet Union. It's what led to its disintegration when Gorbachev finally decided to fix it. "Better be dirt poor and equal than wealthy but at different income levels".
Re: (Score:2)
And there's the constant bickering and blackmail.
Port Arthur, Texas is an example. The place is heavily oil refineries and ports for incoming crude and outgoing finished products.
Port Arthur is truly a shithole. Efforts to get the refineries (who employ a lot of lower middle class belonging to ineffective unions) to make Port Arthur a more hospitable place result in empty threats to relocate or lay off people and hire contract labour ... shit like that.
Now, Port Arthur is a fucking slum overtaken by gangs w
Re: (Score:2)
Or local conditions are too high risk without subsidies and other commitments from locals.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, I think there was one example of a sports stadium deal working out. Like, literally one. The rest promise economic effects that never materialize and have huge cost overruns.
Re:money-mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
But they'd provide the jobs without the subsidies because they have to run their business somewhere. The only reason it can be argued to "create jobs" is because they provided the sweetest bribe instead of actually being the best city to locate. Why not just outlaw such bribes, and then governments won't have to endure the problems of a prisoner's dilemma.
And let's cut the bullshit, the companies are getting a better deal than the workers already, so "jobs" as an argument can fuck right off.
Re: (Score:2)
Refusing to seize a much bigger chunk of your profits (or in the case of Sesttle, just seizing money, profit or not) is not "subsidizing" them. They earned it. It is you, the taxing government, that they are subsidizing.
Cooperation is a New York value (Score:2)
Yup, if there's one thing you can count on from them, it's compromise [reddit.com].
They can come back (Score:5, Insightful)
No more economic terrorism. No more race to the bottom. Time to stop letting these companies bully us. We're the God Damned US of A. We're better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course thing to keep in mind, why did Amazon really abandon that site. Recent weather patterns indicate that climate change and sea level rise could have some alarming early outcomes and that site is problematic in that regard and really should be considered an unwise long term investment considering the life of the structure. Underwater front investment at this time is pretty unwise gamble.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses don't think that far ahead.
It's "money now, mitigation later." That pattern is ubiquitous. We see it regarding cybersecurity, pollution, fraud, data whoring ...
Re: (Score:2)
>No more economic terrorism
What? You are a bloody demo-moron
Same as everybody else... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
can we PLEASE have our country back?
What was taken from you exactly? It's this kind of vague and useless platitudes that I'm talking about.
time to share some of the wealth
You're likely more wealthy than 99% of the world. Why aren't you sharing all of your wealth with them?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
America has three major political parties: Democrat, Republican, and Capitalism.
Both traditional parties have merged with the Capitalist party and "American values," are gone. Nobody wants those any more.
The voters are playing the lottery hoping they will be prosperous by way of association. Shareholders are greedy motherfuckers who blame corporate heads for shareholder misery.
I'm 73 years old, raised in the oil patch and I can tell you the exact moment this goddam shit all started:
It was the day the f
HQ ZERO (Score:2)
New York already has a very hot economy (Score:2)
The reality is it probably creates more de facto inflation for the average local working stiff, having so much tech and finance there. While all these CEOs would like it as it only has a positive impact for them, really who else's life would it improve? And on the other hand, creating more localized inflation, it would likely harm many more. "The middle children of history." [goodreads.com]
I suspect it's this kind of obliviousness to the average person's life challenges that got Trump, and AOC [wikipedia.org], elected.
New York charm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Amazon had their fill of this New York charm they speak of. Why would any company want to establish an HQ somewhere where they'll be constantly attacked, be it by a vocal minority who would rather be uneducated and unemployed than have someone make money on their work. Too many negative sensational headlines and people who don't read past the headline. In the today's age of social outrage, the negative publicity is not worth it for a global company. They'd rather stay out of the headlines and continue to sell to New Yorkers as customers.
Gentrification, anyone? (Score:2)
Nothing like having the Rich make for another way to inflate the already overpriced real estate of the area by gentrification of the residences that will pop up to fill the need of the jobs.
Too bad most of those jobs will be people moving into the area for them and not locals...
Maybe they'll have shops and other support for the campus that will completely lock out the actual locals, and be exclusive to the Amazon Culture.
Better cities, better states (Score:3)
No having to meet community leaders.
No demands to hire random people from the local area.
Better parts of the USA exist without the demands.
Shop around and find a great state.
Funny, that .. (Score:3)
amusing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Medieval Feudalism Back in Vogue (Score:2)
The feudalism that existed in medieval times, is back in full force.
You have the king (the state nowadays) who controls lords through allegiance. In turn the lords own and control the land (we call them megacorporations today), and serfs who are tied to the land, and work it and the lord (we call them employees now).
The serfs work the land and produce goods, and pay the lord, who in turn takes their toil, lines up his coffers and lives lavishly, and pays the king from the work of others. The serfs live in p
Pre-feudal tribalism, I would say (Score:2)
I’m no expert but today’s situation reminds me more of pre-feudal civilisations, where a king (sometimes, principally considered as unifying war leader) was elected (sometimes, for a short term) by the elite from the elite (so that’s more like the president today, rather than the state); the elite being composed of rival chieftains who (like today’s billionaire investors manipulating mega-corporations) effectively owned a piece of territory and pretty much everything on it (including
Amazon Cuomo can (Score:2)
You had too many prominent politicians bending over and taking it up the ass for Amazon. No Amazon got what it wanted and moved on. There were no real plans to build here.
New Yorkers? Which New Yorkers? (Score:3)
New Yorkers do not want to give up on...
A clear majority of New Yorkers support this project...
Looking at the signatories of the open letter [nyt.com], I can’t help getting the feeling that what they meant by “New Yorkers” is, rather, “New Yorkers that matter”. You know, the ones who own stuff like real estate and businesses.
Re:Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a prominent New Yorker, and I want these imbeciles to stay away from New York
They have the right to locate their business in NYC on the same terms as any other company: Unsubsidized and paying their fair share of taxes.
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:2, Insightful)
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.
Now they will pay $0 billion.
You fucking moron.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion. Now they will pay $0 billion.
Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.
Instead of a $3B giveaway to one business, NYC should be spending the money to improve their infrastructure, and remove the bureaucratic barriers to commerce. That will help all businesses in the city, rather than just one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in disguise?
AOC would not be advocating for less bureaucracy.
In one case you're spending money, in the other you're just not getting the money to spend.
People that believe this should not have credit cards.
See, the $3B invoice you don't send still nets you $27B in paid invoices, so you end up with a huge net positive.
No you don't. Those 25,000 highly skilled workers are not going to sit at home unemployed. NYC has record low unemployment. They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a fundamental misunderstand of macroeconomics. New business increases migration into a state which increases the total GDP (and therefore revenue) of the state. It's not current jobs/population that matter, but future jobs/population. Just look what Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon did for Seattle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you replied to the wrong person, as he said what you said in a nicer way. With less name calling. Probably why he got + mods and you got none. Will be nice when people learn not to be horrible people.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. The huge difference being that in both cases you have committed $3B to attracting a single business to the exclusion of all the other ways in which that money could be spent.
It is amazing how armchair economists who want something suddenly decide that the concept of "opportunity cost" [investopedia.com] doesn't exist and suddenly forget that the key word in the concept is "cost."The dead guy with nobel [econlib.org] is br
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of your failure to provide any evidence to back your assertions of an opportunity cost mattering, you also fail to understand that you can't "commit" $3B that you don't have in the first place. For someone who is so authoritative in their tone, you sure don't seem to understand that you can't spent money you don't even have. Not sending a bill is different from giving away money. You'll find that out when you don't have anyone to send a bill to. In the absence of proof of a better set of investments (you know...that thing you didn't provide) it all falls back on a very simple concept that anyone with half a brain can understand: "something" is greater than "nothing." Oh, and unrealized hypothetical possibilities don't pay the bills either.
What alternative investment opportunities would be lost if Amazon HQ2 comes to New York that exceed the value brought by Amazon HQ2? Provide verifiable sources. We'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why in simple hell this is not modded up.
I don't see a goddam turf war in the HQ2 area where people are fighting over the land.
And, 25,000 workers are not getting a fucking tax break, are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good point. The boom turned to bust. I'm thinking Bezos has a good hand and faked folding.
He's going back in and raising the pot.
Re: (Score:2)
$3B in tax incentives is not the same thing as a $3B tax credit.
I'm not sure I see much practical difference between Amazon owing $27 billion and Amazon owing $30 billion but getting a $3 billion credit so they only pay $27 billion. There are all sorts of technical details but in the end, Amazon is getting a discount. What am I missing?
What I keep coming back to is how unfair this is to other companies wanting to set up shop in Queens. Fair, to me, means we all abide by the same rules and get the same treatment. If I was the CEO of a 1,000 person company, and I wanted u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>Instead of a $3B giveaway to one business
Didn't you just quote, you brainless twat?
>They were going to pay $27 billion
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.
How anti-business is your city when it takes subsidies to get them to locate there?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I missed the deepfake showing the riots as business executives hit the streets at HQ2, fighting a land-grab war, too.
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:4, Informative)
Let's look at what NYC was giving away - 3 billion dollars
What were they gaining- 20,000 jobs averaging 125,000 / year.
The total amount of new income in the city would be 20,000 x 125,000 = 2.5 billion (per year)
NYC would charge 3% income tax on this income which is 75,000,000 per year.
So. Just talking about income tax it would take the city 33 years to break even.
That's not good.
But the state also collects over 6 percent. So that brings it down to 11 years. (It's not truly even as that tax money goes to the state but the state funds a lot of NYC projects so it does count some.)
And finally - those people making 120K plus will be paying sales tax (8.875%) on all purchases except for food and rent. If they buy a condo they pay tax and transfer fees. And their increased spending will mean other jobs, and other income taxes that the city could collect.
So yeah. There's a good case to be made for spending 3 billion in order to get the Amazon jobs.
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:2)
Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.
Which businesses? Do you have any names? AFAIK it is almost impossible to lure a new business to NY State without subsidies.
NY State used to offer 10 years tax-free to lure small businesses into NYC. Cuomo and DiBlasio landed a whale, and you argue it's no big deal, they just need to attract 250 new 100 employee companies that are majority low six-figure jobs to the area to make up the slack.
Trouble is, there aren't 250 100+ employee companies that will move to Queens in the next 10 years without getting, g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:4, Insightful)
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.
Now they will pay $0 billion.
And while Amazon is busy not paying $27 billion, other companies are free to move in, use that land and those people, and pay $30 billion.
Oh, wait, they're not doing that because it's too expensive and difficult to move a business to Queens? Huh. Perhaps someone ought to fix that general problem instead of giving Amazon a special break because they're a large visible deal instead of many small, invisible deals.
(Disclosure: I don't live in Queens, I never have, and how NYC wants to structure their taxes is none of my business. Go ahead and make it difficult, that's good for me personally.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because that's the only thing Amazon sells. I see your point. They're going to go out of business if they stop selling those so why do they need a new HQ. That was your point right?
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:2)
Nice one genius
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Amazon paid $0 in FEDERAL taxes. They pay hundreds of millions to Washington State in state taxes every year. The NY state and local tax revenue to be paid by Amazon was estimated to be in the BILLIONS, that's why most Democrats in the state made the deal to bring them there in the first place.
Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT (Score:2)
employed elsewhere
Exactly, and you've removed the incentive for them to relocate to Queens, so they'll stay outside NYC and pay VA taxes, or TN taxes, or whatever - and that's "better" for NYC?
How?
Re: (Score:3)
Another company is not going to swoop into that area and pay 45,000 people $150k.
Who cares? Companies like Google, Apple, HMOs, etc. still plan on paying thousands of *qualified* employees $150K, and they were still going to pay taxes needed to support infrastructure like subways and roads.
Amazon wasn't going to move 45K tech employees to NYC, and then add 45K*$150K per year. They were going to poach the pool of *qualified* employees already working here, and hopefully the more competitive employer market would attract more qualified tech employees to move to NYC.
I didn't have a probl
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck there are just too many stupid idiots that don't realize there is NO FUCKING 3 BILLION DOLLARS without Amazon. NYC gets FUCKING ZERO , ZERO IF Amazon doesn't go to NYC. Fucking come back when you understand what a fucking know the difference between a tax credit and tax deduction. Fucking "tax rebate" just do this "tax rebate" site:irs.gov , hmmmm that doesn't even exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NYC Nightmare. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's New York. The city where mafia doesn't really do the standard violence racketeering, but the regulations racketeering. Not "it would be a shame if something happened to your business" but "it would be a shame if city [x] inspector was to visit you and be really thorough".
That part of New York is so legendary among people doing business, that it's known even far abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
She is the darling of the Democratic Socialists. I pray you're right but I fear you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless she learns to shut her cry hole, Trump is two terms for sure. She is apparently incapable of learning, being so well indoctrinated..
Re: (Score:2)
You're against Hillary running in 2020. Good thinking. We did dodge a bullet. Thank dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few viable places for new hydro left.
New nuclear generators are more expensive then other renewables in most cases.
(When Ontario eliminated coal generation it, among other things, expanded the capacity of the Niagara hydro generating station and refurbished some nuclear plants.)