i mean dont they have offices in NYC already?
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
i mean dont they have offices in NYC already?
Also want to point out, it was very obvious using simple math that the total tax benefits would have been well in excess of the $3 billion just in the 10 year period in which those benefits would be received. Those subsidies would have expired after those 10 years.
I think the crux of the argument is around whether or not subsidies should be provided to corporations, and I get that. But it's quite obvious that from a financial benefit perspective to the city and state, Amazon coming in would have been a boon.
It's not obvious and simple that a company with a well documented history of tax avoidance in addition to a billion-plus dollar pre-committed tax reduction would have a net positive impact to the city or state, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Any new employment is a boon to a local economy.
I don’t see how you could say it is a slam dunk that this deal would have had a benefit greater than other new employment. I think there is a strong counter argument that this would have been less effective than normal new hiring.
I don’t see how you could say it is a slam dunk that this deal would have had a benefit greater than other new employment. I think there is a strong counter argument that this would have been less effective than normal new hiring.
I agree at at a city and state level it would have likely been a financial boon, but I also think it's questionable whether or not it would have been enough of a boon to those most effected negatively. To my point previously about the benefits not necessarily being uniformly distributed.
There's a decent amount of literature out there that shows that tax breaks aren't a very high performing form of stimulus vs. infrastructure spending or more direct forms of socially beneficial stimuli.
The tax incentives were contingent upon certain employee numbers and average salaries being reached. The income tax for those individuals alone would have well covered the tax incentives.
This is completely fair. Like I said, I understand why people are/were against this. I just wanted to clarify in regards to net tax revenue for the city/state, how it all shook out.
If an engineer working for Google in tribeca moves to work for Amazon in LIC, how has the city or state benefitted incrementally?
By having the Google engineer backfilled?
ETA: I'm under the impression that Amazon coming in wouldn't result in jobs being lost elsewhere, but if I'm mistaken, then I guess that does change things a bit.
So every time a new business opens in the city every job is incremental?
This guy is taking on the infamous Sorkin and just schooled him on a basic point of reimbursement that’s sorks refuses to acknowledge.
This is a huge loss for the City and the State as well as all the surrounding businesses. Because of the egos of a few local politicians and the fools they were able to get to back them NYC has turned its back on the future, and in the mind of business(READ THAT AS JOBS) a place that they should move too.
I am a small business owner. I have seen the damage done by Amazon to retail. I have always found it interesting that the same people that hate Walmart will shop on Amazon.
I have never ordered anything on Amazon, although my wife and kids do to my disgust.
Even I see what a huge loss this is.
Could you imagine if Cape Canaveral's elected officials tried to stop that project because a few assholes had a problem with the noise?
I am a small business owner. I have seen the damage done by Amazon to retail. I have always found it interesting that the same people that hate Walmart will shop on Amazon.
I have never ordered anything on Amazon, although my wife and kids do to my disgust.
Even I see what a huge loss this is.
Could you imagine if Cape Canaveral's elected officials tried to stop that project because a few assholes had a problem with the noise?
Who was effected negatively, and how. Keep in mind I like you so not trying to be an ass.
The tax incentives were for 10 years and would then go away.
No doubt this, like any major development, would have negative impacts on some people, such as nearby renters who would face rising rents and increased traffic, among other changes. It is absolutely impossible to avoid it.
It's not a zero-sum game though, as many others benefit. This is the center of the debate with just about any project big or small.
Why you don't have a job. These are jobs of the future. Jobs for your kids. Not coal burning jobs.
The question was over how many years would this become tax revenue neutral. I didn’t make it clear. Sorry
