Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Path Amazon Rejected

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#51

Post by openloop »

AJ007 wrote: post #43
crumpets wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Corporate welfare is out of hand in this country. That's certainly one view. Another is that these are just breaks on excessive taxes by one government to compete with other governments that have sane corporate taxes in the first place. I don't understand how tax reductions are considered welfare. It's not money the government has already being passed out to Amazon. The government would have still made money in this…

It’s unfair to the companies that don’t get the tax breaks. Politically, I’m not sure having an environment where special rules are granted or exempted by government officials on a selective basis is healthy either.

Agree.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#52

Post by lamarpye »

dtrailin wrote: post #25
dangban wrote: post #6

de Blasio tweeted this after Amazon cancelled: https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1096110674613358593 "working with the community" is code for "bribe" among the community organizer types.

That's an incredibly uncharitable insinuation. Do you think community organizers do it for the money? There are a lot of reasons people choose to advocate but regardless of weather you think they're right they generally do it because they actually believe in something. It's unlikely fighting Amazon is a very profitable venture.

It's unprofitable if you drive them out of town. If you can position yourself as a community liaison rep, it is a sweet gig.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#54

Post by baddox »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #49
_bxg1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks." People aren't allowed to be upset about something just because it's not illegal?

Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves. Corporations are jello.…

Not everyone voted for the ballots which supposedly led to these decisions. Moreover, politicians lie. When government policy doesn’t reflect the desires of the public in an ostensible democracy, I find it odd to blame the people who are ruled instead of the rulers. I don’t know much about George Carlin, but from what little I’ve seen of his political commentary, I doubt he would so quickly jump to blaming the ruled instead of the rulers.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#55

Post by _bxg1 »

boron1006 wrote: post #47
_bxg1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks." People aren't allowed to be upset about something just because it's not illegal?

Most of the tax breaks Amazon used are open for pretty much any company, and have been around for a very long time. But no one seems to want to repeal or fix these laws. In all of this, I haven't seen a single person talk about them. You can't agree to a set of rules then complain when someone actually follows them.

Many people may not even know about them. Encouraging people to channel these feelings into the ballot is well and fine, but let's not pretend there's anything close to a direct coupling between the will of the people and the will of their representatives, much less preexisting laws. People are allowed to be dissatisfied; they don't have to simply lie in the bed that they only had a partial hand in making.

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#56

Post by bogomipz »

crumpets wrote: post #22
bilbo0s wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in fairness, the outrage wouldn't be on his administration in any case. One thing he's conveniently not mentioning is that he was opposed to giving Amazon any tax breaks or other concessions from the start. The state politicians overruled him. Although his position, I suppose, is that Amazon should move to NYC, without any concessions. Which is not altogether off the wall. That's how it should work for ALL comp…

>Corporate welfare is out of hand in this country. That's certainly one view. Another is that these are just breaks on excessive taxes by one government to compete with other governments that have sane corporate taxes in the first place. I don't understand how tax reductions are considered welfare. It's not money the government has already being passed out to Amazon. The government would have still made money in this…

One of the incentives was a $505 million dollar capital grant. That is literally money that state government was going to pass out to Amazon. This is the same state government that appropriated $118 million dollars of the MTAs funding back in 2010. This helped propel NYC's transit system into the dire straits it's currently in.[1]

The money for these sorts of capital grant giveaway always comes from "somewhere."

[1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2010/03/09/albany-didnt-cut-the-...

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#57

Post by jakelazaroff »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #49
_bxg1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks." People aren't allowed to be upset about something just because it's not illegal?

Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves. Corporations are jello.…

Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things!

You can justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior this way. "Either be upset that the system incentivizes slavery, or be upset that the incentives against slavery failed." But definitely don't be upset at the slaveowners!

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#59

Post by jvreagan »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #36
tracer4201 wrote: post #16

I don't understand the outrage towards Amazon. 1. No one forced any of these states/cities to join this bidding contest. They willingly participated. "How dare Amazon put cities against one another in a bidding war?!" Yeah, I put five dealers against one another in a bidding war to get my business the last time I shopped for a car. Amazon can do the same thing. 2. "Jeff Bezos doesn't need our tax breaks!" I bet he do…

It is exploitative. Any company founded in the US is going to use the resources US provides - roads, trade & economic power, the USPS, the talent pool etc for Amazon. When their success is built on that foundation, they owe it to the government (& taxpayers) to return the favor and show some goodwill. Instead, taxpayers subsidize them when they're growing, then they want to cheat as much as legally possible on their…

> then they want to cheat as much as legally possible on their taxes when they're grown up.

If it's legal, it isn't cheating...

Re: The Path Amazon Rejected

#60

Post by whyisthewhat »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #49
_bxg1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have a company taking advantage of the perfectly legal rules that the system set up. OH GAWD better grab pitchforks." People aren't allowed to be upset about something just because it's not illegal?

Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves. Corporations are jello.…

Jeff Bezos, Amazon, billionaires and mammoth corporate entities in general, are not some inert goo. They actively shape the system to work to their own benefit, and they have massively more power and influence than the average citizen and even the average elected official.
Post reply on HN