Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Phisher, Jul 11, 2019.
Tax incentives and not the equivalent to paying for something.
We can argue over if the entire bundle of potential tax incentives should be labelled as a discount or as a payment but it's going to be based on how they're ultimately structured. That's a waste of time when we all know what we're discussing.
Doesn't matter how they're structured they are never a payment. In fact they increase tax revenue from the employees in every instance.
If you can find a single in which tax incentives are indeed payments do share it.
Expanding is quite different from setting up HQ2.
It's a timing issue. If the city structure the incentives such that the corporation calculates its tax liability and then the city refunds/rebates some portion of that - it's a payment. Additionally if the incentive is structured as a subsidy. They might simplify the transfer process but the effect is a payment.
If the incentives are structured such that the corporation is calculating its liability on a reduced percentage or with greater deductions then you're looking at a discount.
But I don't think that's the argument you're making. I think you're saying that all tax incentives are not payments because the money in play is tax revenue to begin with and the incentive isn't coming out of a pre-existing funds. But like I said above that's a timing issue and pretty much irrelevant when discussing the theoretical/speculative value of tax incentives.
It was a zhit deal. NYC was gonna provide half of the incentives and NY State the other half. The $30 billion figure was projected over the course of 30 years or some zhit, meanwhile the tax 'breaks' were up front.
-New York City, meanwhile, will provide business income-tax credits worth $897 million and a property-tax break worth $386 million
-Up to $1.2 billion will be in the form of state tax breaks under the state's Excelsior Jobs Program
-The remaining $325 million to $505 million will be in the form of cash grants
LOL, why does the richest company in the world need all these cash breaks? NYC is one of the largest markets in Murka and the World. Amazon needs NYC more than NYC needs Amazon. Its not about them 'cutting a check to Amazon'. Its about NYC playing the capitalist game and beating Amazon and holding out and getting Amazon to expand anyways without giving them all these breaks.
'Oh but so and so projected if NYC gave them 3 billion in tax breaks Amazon would have built a super-duper HQ there and NY would have made 30 billion 50 years from now'
Or maybe Amazon would have pulled out after they got all their breaks and incentives or closed down their HQ or tried to renegotiate a better deal later. In the end they came to NYC and are expanding anyways and NYC isnt paying a dime. If a company did this all the crony capitalist whores in here would be praising them but since its an 'evil gubment' ofc theyre mad NYC didnt bend over and lube up for a corporation like they would have.
Basic fvking business: NYC isnt paying a damn thing and is getting tax revenue from Amazon anyway.
At least a half billion of it was cash grants so yeah youre basically framing free money as a 'tax break'.
I actually have no opinion on the specifics of the deal as I have not researched it. But politicians doing shit deals and throwing around money needlessly would be no surprise to me.
What i took issue with was AOC's clearly stupid statement celebrating about how with driving Amazon away they would now have $3B to spend on teachers and other needs instead. A position many on the left seem to believe.
The thing that needs more scrutiny than this but won't get it is the Tesla welfare up in Buffalo for bogus solar.
So you 100% agree there would never be an increase in revenue without the new business?
How were those monies to be paid?
Or was it to be taxes forgiven?
I'd venture to guess they'll see a loss this year in her district. Or at the very least slowing growth.
What are you talking about? Where did I say anything related to whether or not there would be an increase in revenue?
Are you arguing with something I've actually said or are you arguing with some generality said by someone else and you're misattributing it to me?
I literally just wrote multiple paragraphs on why the structure of tax incentives impacts whether they are payments or not (in response to your concern that I said "Why pay for what you can get for free?" which is a turn of phrase, not meant to be taken literally but ok whatever).
Now you're asking me if there would never be an increase in revenue without the new business but that's such an open-ended question that it doesn't make any sense. A municipality can always raise their tax rates and generate new revenue without new business. The existing businesses could increase their profit margins and thus create new taxable revenue. But those are such an obvious answers that you can't be asking me that - so your question has to have some other baseline which you haven't articulated and it definitely doesn't follow from anything I've written.
I have no idea what you're trying to convey.
No they were 'grants'.
: something granted especially : a gift (as of land or money) for a particular purpose
Separate names with a comma.