The Government should not pick winners and losers. It is unfair for one company to get these great incentives. Also, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing all their monetary benefits for choosing the city. I am glad that both sides agree that this is wrong.
> the taxpayer ends up subsidizing all their monetary benefits
The taxpayer in NY ends up better off after this deal; even critical articles like the OP acknowledge that the subsidies are dwarfed by the increase in tax revenues that the state will gain.
To recap, Amazon is getting ~$1.5b in performance-pegged tax breaks over 10 years. The OP gives an estimate of $14b over 25 years in tax revenue added; that gives $5.6b over the same 10 year period, or over $4b net gain to NY taxpayers.
Note, if the office turns out to be less successful at generating tax revenue than projected, then the tax breaks scale down.
There are legitimate arguments against this kind of deal, such as that it encourages a race to the bottom where desperate cities offer close to zero net taxes. But we're pretty clearly quite far away from that equilibrium; cities still have bargaining power in these negotiations.
>The taxpayer in NY ends up better off after this deal;
you added a qualifier that OP did not add. Yes, the new york taxpayer is better off, but this is rent-seeking behavior
New York is better off by subsidizing Amazon in the same sense as Luxembourg is better off compared to other European countries by being a tax haven. Hardly something applaudable.
NY taxpayers are collectively paying for something of benefit to them with their tax dollars. It's something which can only be paid for by aggregating many people's money together, and creates a spillover benefit for the people paying for it.
No, this is not comparable to a simple tax collection. In the usual case, people leverage a tax on people or property within their own jurisdictions to fund programs. That is to say, they themselves pay for their services.
What is happening here is that New York creates an incentive that is supposed to motivate Amazon to move economic activity out of some other location in the US to New York, at the disadvantage of everyone else, who now can either enter into this competition and erode their own tax base, or take the loss.
If you could simply increase your tax revenue by giving tax money away to companies, you would have invented a magical tax money printing machine.
by funding a startup you are adding competition to the market. Funding startups is not a zero sum game. In fact fostering a local entrepreneurship community that can compete with amazon on the market would be to the benefit of workers, the economy, and citizens. Transplanting existing Amazon jobs from one place to the other, is a zero sum game.
>The taxpayer in NY ends up better off after this deal; even critical articles like the OP acknowledge that the subsidies are dwarfed by the increase in tax revenues that the state will gain.
Maybe. But what if all the other cities/States collude - or independently - for the benefit of their taxpayers, decide to give Amazon a “personalized tax deal” like NY/NYC gave Amazon...only to Amazon’s detriment?
If other states/cities are going to take the good employers with custom tax deals I think everyone else should make sure those subsidized companies aren’t also eating up their local economies/businesses.
Boosterism is more popular with taxpayers (a category which more or less all voters fall into) than your comment lets on.
> I am glad that both sides agree that this is wrong.
Saying so don't make it so? Of course there are large camps on both sides that dislike this kind of deal, but I don't think boosterism is universally unpopular with voters. This wasn't a shady, "backroom" deal. Governor Cuomo and Northam have both been extremely open about their support for luring Amazon with benefits.
