It's yet another perfect example of government gone wild. It's one thing for to use taxpayer monies to create jobs and job opportunity (i.e., education). That's a reasonable expectation within the scope of gov's governing.
However, it's another thing for gov to buy jobs - and thus votes - by effectively subsidizing some mega-corporation. If Amazon needs money, that's what Wall Street is for. If Wall Street isn't willing to give Amazon et al money then that's a red flag and taxpayers should naturally stand clear.
Some might say, "But without such things Amazon would have to raise prices, and that's not good for consumers." But it's the consumers that paid the __higher__ taxes to supply the subsidy. The difference is, with the latter method the gov gets to skim some off the top.
Bottom line: The taxpayer / consumer loses. Politicians and Big Inc win.
Literally the opposite. The tax gains out number the tax breaks 3 to 1. Each one of these $150k jobs will net NY state $13.8k of income tax per year and (at least) $2500 of sales tax. The tax break per job is $4800 per year (the $48k figure you may have seen is over ten years).
Are these software jobs? I don't know if they'll be attracting more people in such a tight labor market, or just bumping up rates for those who already here.
There's plenty of unfulfilled demand for software engineers in NY, what does Amazon offer to add to supply?
Gains? From more road repair? Higher housing costs (read: more welfare state). Other services? Etc. Etc. Etc. You're making it sound like there's only upside.
Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz. My gawd, they struggle to govern, and that's their job. Pockets are being lined - once again - at the expense of the tax payers.
"Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?
> Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz
Says you. I think they do a better job buying that biz than many of the other biz's they buy with public funds. If you want to see pockets being lined, look to things that don't have returns on investment or are poorly managed in real corrupt ways (ala many public pension plans). Not comparing dollar spent to dollar spent of tax money compared to benefits makes it clear some are just anti-private-sector.
> "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?
Are you implying that the average salary to get the incentives isn't going to be 150k/yr as stated their agreement?
The gov's job is to govern. Period. How about we let it get that right before it starts branching off into things it's has little or no expertise in.
Again. The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. __The Gov__ has said that. Whether you're listening or not is up to you.
> The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz.
More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it. I can definitely sympathize with those applauding them for taking less as a way to promote growth.
> "More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it."
How so? One is within a reasonable scope of governing. That is, most citizens want and expect a reasonable amount of economic stability. The others are outside of scope and simple a tool that politicians use to buy votes. And if that's going to be the case, then the least we can do is be honest about it. Denial doesn't make it any better.
Just because something has persisted doesn't make it right.
The fact is, Amazon (and others) played __our__ elected officials/ representatives against each other __at our collective expense (read: to Amazon's benefit).__
Not only that, __we__ paid to help Amazon find a new HQ location. So now imagine all the communities that did __not__ win.
Finally, imagine is that time and money was not put into a roll of the dice?
This was a __big__ win for Amazon. This was a big win for politicians. As for the taxpayers all across the country and going forward, the true benefits should be questioned. If we dare.
Neoliberalism, Milton Friedman and the free market crowd have been demonizing government for decades now and successfully lobbied for the removal of regulations since the 80s leading to the housing bubble, education loans and exploding tuition costs, buybacks and rampant financialization.
This banking crisis, fraud, education loan bubble is the direct result of 30 years of neoliberal free market policies. Yet instead of owning up to their mistakes in an act of brazen revisionism and fraud they are blaming the government for listening to them, and this is taken seriously. This is ideology.
A govt hijacked to promote special interests is not a government, its a plutocracy.
Um. Wasn't it the gov that committed to policy of more home ownership? It was the leader here. It helped to craft and define the direction once it opened up the dereg gates.
<sidebar>
It's important to note: "Dereg" !== free market. Dereg is a nice word politicians like to toss around, but ultimately, that typically translates into some other set of rules, typically favoring some entity over another.
The gov is VERY fond of taking sides, gaming markets, etc. It might be presented otherwise, but it's still trying to exert unnatural influence.
</sidebar>
And didn't it do the same for making cheap student loans available to more students? Students who weren't really "college material"? Wasn't BHO still championing higher edu __for all__ - because it plays well in the polls - all the while knowing the monster that had been created and still wasn't properly fixed? Yes, such antics are great for buying votes but it ultimately drives up the price.
If the gov (read: votes) is involved - as it was with this Amazon deal - then the market __is__ being manipulated. Anything beyond that is lip stick on the proverbial pig.
What if I told you that any government under capitalism will ultimately always end up as a plutocracy, a government by the rich for the rich is fundamentally different than one by the working class for the working class, although the later has been proven difficult to maintain under democratic systems at large.
Just because there are other and potentially better/easier ways to graft and siphon money out of the system (such as those you listed) doesn't mean that this person isn't allowed to think this 'lesser' one is just as morally bankrupt and from a business standpoint a foolish decision.
Agree and I usually try to stay on point and not whataboutist, but I had to address general comments about use of funds and role of government in parent and ggp.
Totally understood. Just wanted to make it obvious that if something is bad, a bigger bad doesn't make the other less bad. I think we're on the same page here.
That's fair, but how much of that will go towards compensating people who will be driven out of north/west Queens and north Brooklyn as a result of rising rents?
That's because the city doesn't let people build enough new supply. THAT'S REALLY BAD. And it's the fault of city government, not Amazon or any other company.
Actually, my understanding is there is a fairly significant amount of housing (pretty much everywhere?) that for one reason or another is kept off the market. (Likely due to some other gov policy? Maybe?)
That is, there is capacity but supply is being held back.
Application of tax policy does not seem like a "market" that local governments should "compete" in.
I understand this does happen internationally, between nations. Not that it is a good thing, but seems very difficult to stop. However, at first glance, it seems absurd to me to allow this to occur within a single nation, between the different sub-localities. How does this benefit the US as a whole?
Yup. You can't tilt the board and say it was "fair".
If a given community put out a RFP / RFQ that said, "Here are our assets. Here are something things we might be able and willing to offer...Which of you are interested in coming here?"
Perhaps not free market, but certainly closer to fair and less corrupt.
Except NY state won't gain any income tax from people who fill these jobs but live out of state (NJ or CT). If you've ever worked in NYC, you know that this will be a non-trivial proportion of people. Factoring that into account, it's not clear at all that NY state will see a positive return on this.
The tax gains would always outnumber the tax cost for any business, which is why the city government is favoring corporate over small business, that employ way more people for a lot less monopoly rents.
Disagree. The freedom for a community to spend funds in ways they want is much more free than the opposite. Also disagree with your bottom line. In many cases (e.g. ones where abatements were given in my community) it lowered the tax rate over time.
If this was a community decision why is there pushback in LIC? Because, it wasn't a community decision. It was the gov using taxpayer money to subsidize one of the largest most successful companies in the world.
Fact: The Gov created the housing bubble.
Fact: The Gov created the student loan bubble.
Fact: The abatements in __your__ community came out of someone else's pocket. That money had to come from somewhere.
Ignoring the other facts as guff, this is a common misunderstanding:
> The abatements in __your__ community came out of someone else's pocket. That money had to come from somewhere.
Abatements are not gifts, they are reductions. The money that was not taken did not have to come from anywhere. The reductions did not amount to a negative total (not even close in my case), and therefore the abatements essentially amount to a sale price, not below cost. In other cases, such as sports teams, the benefits of the trade-offs are not as easily recognized because they are not purely financial. But here, it is simpler to understand the bulk discounts in exchange for economic growth.
> "Abatements are not gifts, they are reductions."
Yes. But you make it sounds like the gov services being provided was also reduced. Is that the case? If not, then that means the services being provided still have to be paid for. So if it's not your community, then where do you think that money is coming from?
> But you make it sounds like the gov services being provided was also reduced
No. I stated, "The reductions did not amount to a negative total" which includes public services. I am saying the new tax income more than covers the services needed. Cost per resident is not linear. Again, these are sales prices, not below-cost prices. Governments are reducing tax rates to significantly increase tax totals, a reasonable investment.
> where do you think that money is coming from?
The same place it otherwise would, just at a reduced bulk rate.
Let's also note that FoxConn is not Amazon. Also, NYC doesn't really have a problem attracting employers - especially not one who is likely to crush their local economy one same day deliver at a time.
Your point is valid. But the scale and precedent of this latest "deal" is more questionable.
It's yet another perfect example of government gone wild.
I like how you tacitly acknowledge the large corporate entity shares a little responsibility in there at the end. Yes, this is a government failure but it is also the logic of capitalism at work, which says that money should come before all other considerations. Government is rather corrupt, but it is business that has corrupted it.
It's yet another perfect example of government gone wild. It's one thing for to use taxpayer monies to create jobs and job opportunity (i.e., education). That's a reasonable expectation within the scope of gov's governing.
However, it's another thing for gov to buy jobs - and thus votes - by effectively subsidizing some mega-corporation. If Amazon needs money, that's what Wall Street is for. If Wall Street isn't willing to give Amazon et al money then that's a red flag and taxpayers should naturally stand clear.
Some might say, "But without such things Amazon would have to raise prices, and that's not good for consumers." But it's the consumers that paid the __higher__ taxes to supply the subsidy. The difference is, with the latter method the gov gets to skim some off the top.
Bottom line: The taxpayer / consumer loses. Politicians and Big Inc win.