Economy Is New York giving Amazon corporate welfare?

Not in favor of governments picking winners and losers. So I guess it's only small businesses they're trying to crush.
That's also a primary issue. It's like they're letting Jon Jones use steroids and have an IV weight-cut for his upcoming bout against Joseph Benevidez whom they hold to the normal rules.
 
@HockeyBjj

But I would also say in instances like this, or stadiums, it is much more easier to tie to guaranteed short term and long term growth to them. The tax subsidies are contingent on guaranteed infrastructure and jobs that will remain for decades to come.

But blanket cuts with no guarantees for everyone just make deficits. I would be more in support of corporate tax cuts if they were contingent on wage growth at a specific corporation... but giving them a shit load of money with no contingencies just means you're giving them a shitload of money with no contingencies.

I think we could find some common ground in regards to an element of guarantees with mandatory paybacks if certain minimums are not met

Cheers for an actual Rational discussion here
 
Well.. even if it benefits the top. The top will be living and working and paying taxes directly to the local economy and spending there indefinitely for decades to come.
Maybe, but it's directly benefiting Amazon, the behemoth company, over their start-up / mid-sized competitors.
 
That's also a primary issue. It's like they're letting Jon Jones use steroids and have an IV weight-cut for his upcoming bout against Joseph Benevidez whom they hold to the normal rules.

Actually it's more like they're letting Conor McGregor promote his whiskey on the cage contingent on him showing up and making everyone hundreds of millions of dollars.
 
Corporate Welfare has become a meaningless talking point. Not all corporate welfare is the same nor is it all bad.

For instance, if now or even better right after the auto Sector collapse, Detroit (Michigan) could have attracted into the area many large multinational companies, thru tax holidays or other incentives. who otherwise would locate elsewhere, it can certainly be justified by Michigan to give those huge tax holidays instead of looking at the massive loss of infrastructure, jobs and increased welfare payments they instead experienced.

So would anyone say Michigan should not give corporate welfare in that case?

But what happens is short sighted and narrow minded people then look at the Amazon's, Googles, and other companies who get that 'corporate welfare' and see their huge profits and they get petty about it. Again Amazon and Google were fine setting up somewhere else where conditions were better but for whatever reason certain Cities/States, want to lure them to a location they might otherwise not go to. So as long as you look at the specific REASONS for the corporate welfare and those are valid then it should not be of concern.
 
That there's a conspiracy theory afoot?
Tard out on your own. In means the money is literally being paid to bezos, idiot. It's also funding a corporation (and rich individusls) that directly shrinks the very tax base paying for it all.

That money should bevpaid to business ventures that employee people at living wages that need the money to break even or profit, starting out.

The conspiracy theory? The government is robbing citizens and giving that money directly to already super-wealthy people.
 
Sounds more like investment than welfare.
And it certainly can be.

Can you imagine if some struggling Countries in Africa could lure massive Amazon, Google and other job providers in with Corporate Welfare. Zero corporate tax.

Would that be a bad thing, if all of a sudden they had masses of people working and paying income tax and the cry was 'but...but.. why does not the corporation pay tax'. Imagine instead blocking the Corporate Welfare, the companies choosing not to go there and Country stuck with a huge social cost of not having employment available?

Of course Corporate Welfare can be good in scenarios like that. Corporations should pay no tax anyway. It is regressive. Only distributions (dividends, bonuses, payroll) should be taxed and all at the full Payroll rate. Then companies would be highly incentive to keep the money in the company and push growth, which means more jobs instead of paying out cash.

The politicization of corporate tax is a mistake and it should have never been done.
 
I think we could find some common ground in regards to an element of guarantees with mandatory paybacks if certain minimums are not met

Cheers for an actual Rational discussion here

Haven't looked at this specifically but as a corporate tax accountant these incentives usually have clawback provisions.

they have a base year where they measure the jobs and wages the company puts in the area and you have to maintain that level for so many years. If employment/wages drop you have to pay the money back or you just don't receive it. It depends on how the benefits are structured (Income tax relief, property tax relief etc...
 
Your post is correct though I think you could make an argument that those corporate incentives are monopolistic in nature in that they’re really only offered to sufficiently large companies with dominant market share, who then use those incentives to further buttress their competitive advantage. I can’t fault a given city for making the play though you could argue that the feds should stamp out the behavior.

I mean I guess I cannot disagree with you at face value. Giving big business huge incentives will in turn create a major disadvantage for smaller ventures. But on the other hand each state and local government is basically competing against each other to bring more jobs in and thus more money into the area. Texas is a prime example of this. They were successfully able to poach many jobs from CA through tax breaks and the Enterprise Fund.
 
And it certainly can be.

Can you imagine if some struggling Countries in Africa could lure massive Amazon, Google and other job providers in with Corporate Welfare. Zero corporate tax.

Would that be a bad thing, if all of a sudden they had masses of people working and paying income tax and the cry was 'but...but.. why does not the corporation pay tax'. Imagine instead blocking the Corporate Welfare, the companies choosing not to go there and Country stuck with a huge social cost of not having employment available?

You usually write pretty well. What the heck happened?

Of course Corporate Welfare can be good in scenarios like that. Corporations should pay no tax anyway. It is regressive. Only distributions (dividends, bonuses, payroll) should be taxed and all at the full Payroll rate. Then companies would be highly incentive to keep the money in the company and push growth, which means more jobs instead of paying out cash.

The politicization of corporate tax is a mistake and it should have never been done.

I can see an argument for no corporate (or income) taxes, but all the tradeoffs have to be taken into account. If we replace corporate and income taxes with a national land-value tax and higher capital gains and estate taxes, I'd be fully on board.
 
Yeah, the left generally opposes corporate giveaways, and Carlson types have no consistent principles but dislike Amazon.

I don't know... Carlson seems to be trying to re-brand himself as a vigilant and angry anti-corporate welfare crusader.
 
i was under the impression that Texas and NY exclusively attract business through means like this......


We tried.

I am happy they passed on Austin..traffic and housing prices suck already here.

I understand the concept of giving incentives to businesses. It brings jobs..but.....seems to fuck the taxpayer.
 
Tard out on your own. In means the money is literally being paid to bezos, idiot.

I'm sorry you're grumpy.


And it certainly can be.

Can you imagine if some struggling Countries in Africa could lure massive Amazon, Google and other job providers in with Corporate Welfare. Zero corporate tax.

Would that be a bad thing, if all of a sudden they had masses of people working and paying income tax and the cry was 'but...but.. why does not the corporation pay tax'. Imagine instead blocking the Corporate Welfare, the companies choosing not to go there and Country stuck with a huge social cost of not having employment available?

Of course Corporate Welfare can be good in scenarios like that. Corporations should pay no tax anyway. It is regressive. Only distributions (dividends, bonuses, payroll) should be taxed and all at the full Payroll rate. Then companies would be highly incentive to keep the money in the company and push growth, which means more jobs instead of paying out cash.

The politicization of corporate tax is a mistake and it should have never been done.

Whether the investment is good or bad, I don't know. I do agree that businesses should all have to play by the same tax rules.
 
I'm always skeptical of how much these incentive packages really drive these HQ decisions.

At the end of the day companies need talented employees to function and compete in our capitalist society. They aren't picking their HQ location on tax incentives unless everything else is equal.

Amazon either has to go somewhere that has human capital or a place where they now they can get human capital to relocate.

NYC and DC are key destinations because they a re rich in human capital with great University's.

They may have relocated there regardless of incentive packages.
 
Yeah, the left generally opposes corporate giveaways, and Carlson types have no consistent principles but dislike Amazon.
And Cuomo and DeBlasio. I suspect he'd (and his types) love to see AOC pick a fight with NY Liberals.
 
Companies like that need to be brought under strong government authority and or control. They are the enemy to unions, the working class and greater income equality. Amazon, walmarts etc.

And companirs like exxon and BP need to be owned by their national governments.
 
You usually write pretty well. What the heck happened?



I can see an argument for no corporate (or income) taxes, but all the tradeoffs have to be taken into account. If we replace corporate and income taxes with a national land-value tax and higher capital gains and estate taxes, I'd be fully on board.
haha, Typing on phone and no proof reading.

Anyway, yes no corporate tax. Tax all distributions out and all stock piled cash after a certain point.

Reward reinvestment for growth (which benefits ALL stakeholders (citizens, govt, cities, shareholders, etc)) and tax any distributions out.
 
Start-up/mid-sized competitors can't guarantee they'll be there for decades in the future.
You pretty much guarantee they won't be when you provide assistance to Amazon in setting up and competing with them in your city.

I will admit, the Amazon HQ could have helped revitalize or develop other cities, but Amazon wants NY (which has the talent and infrastructure already there) more than NY needs Amazon. NY didn't offer them the biggest tax incentive package, so it wasn't the size of the tax package that attracted Amazon, it was the city itself (same with DC). Therefore Amazon got a bunch of free money for doing what people had guessed it was already going to do.
 
Back
Top