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

Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

governor.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 227 posts

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#201

Post by afiori »

endorphone wrote: post #157
prepend wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long Island City is not Manhattan. They do benefit from giving incentives as they are not a robust, energized area. Thus the plastic factory/ superfund site with no jobs.

Long Island City is directly opposite Manhattan (and to reply to the other comment, is most certainly a part of NYC), is extremely lucrative property, and much of it has sat unused largely because property owners have been trying to rezone as residential (where it is worth hundreds of millions an acre). NYC is extremely robust. NYC doesn't need Amazon, and never needed Amazon. And contrary to the claims in the linked…

If I understand you, what you are describing is gentrification.

> Opposition that Long Island City doesn't want to be Manhattan, for instance.

Being converted in a residential area for rich people does not look better.

> there was opposition right at the very outset. Significant opposition.

Considering the level of misinformation and how politically entrenched it was this means less than usual.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#202

Post by afiori »

> Ironically, much of the visible 'local' opposition, which was happy to appear at press conferences and protest at City Council hearings during work hours, were actual organizers paid by one union: RWDSU. (If you are wondering if that is even legal, probably not). Even more ironic is these same elected officials all signed a letter of support for Amazon at the Long Island City location and in support of the application. They were all for it before Twitter convinced them to be against it.

Twitter as of now is a cancer in our society. Is is a fine social and sometimes fun, but do not form your opinion on it.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#203

Post by Nasrudith »

microcolonel wrote: post #153
ddebernardy wrote: post #3

I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. > Incredibly, I have heard city and state elected officials who were opponents of the project claim that Amazon was getting $3 billion in government subsidies that could have been better spent on housing or transportation. This is either a blatant untruth or fundamental…

> I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. When you set your basic taxes high enough, it no longer makes sense for some people to do business in your jurisdiction rather than another, so in order to convince those businesses to do business in your jurisdiction (and still ge…

Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway. If it was really as big a factor as pundits claim we would see a lot of jobs in unincorporated areas - yet instead they are in places where populations and infastructure are. Essentially it is a reverse of why there is a sticky price point of items disconnected from actual price - it is what the market will bare.

If the fundamentals of an area are good the appropriate response to people demanding concessions leaving is "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#204

Post by afiori »

speedplane wrote: post #200
afiori wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if Amazon could not find 25k employee in the given time they would not receive the 3 billions in tax relief

> Well if Amazon could not find 25k employee in the given time they would not receive the 3 billions in tax relief The problem of the deal wasn't the mechanics, it was how it was sold to the public. A competition putting cities against cities, negotiated without any public input, a large tax break to one of the richest companies in the world, choosing already popular cities rather than really investing in a newer one…

Maybe, but as it is pointed out many times here and in the open letter this was basically a replay of Brexit. another commenter said that his mom believed the city would give amazon 3 billions up front. the public approved of the deal, the only demographic to disapprove was the internet.

70% of local residents approved of the deal. that is a lot.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#205

Post by jinushaun »

People are upset about the beauty pageant.

If Amazon had never done their stupid HQ2 search which resulted in the two most obiovus cities “winning”, they would have an HQ2 in NYC already with the same tax breaks. It would’ve all happened behind closed doors.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#206

Post by JetSpiegel »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #181
sitkack wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything amazon loses they lose on purpose. Most of us don’t have the opp to structure our tax liability like this. We are pawns to lose in a game between Alpha Go and the IRS.

Amazon makes money: I suspect you would say "they make too much money!" Amazon loses money: you say "they lose on purpose!" What position would you be happy with? Your position reminds me of arguments I used to have with religious zealots in my family - when people have a religious or moral objection to something (large businesses in this case), then whatever the offending party does is 'sinful' in some way and must…

"Amazon loses money" but Bezos is getting richer. Does not compute.

It's clearly paper losses.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#207

Post by zaroth »

ec109685 wrote: post #172
zaroth wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone else who proposes to develop at the scale that Amazon was proposing, would likely be achieving similar tax incentives as to what Amazon was offered. Particularly since the terms of the deal were made public, that becomes an anchor point for any similar discussions. There is no question that organic growth will eventually create 25,000-40,000 jobs. But the net present value (NPV) of that future job creation is…

So the state should have been happy to give 26B in subsidies then? They could bank the 1B and have 25k to 40k jobs. The math isn’t as clear as you are making it out to be. Google or companies like it will change their investment whether amazon is there or not.

I’m not sure if it was a typo on your part, or you might be misinformed of what the actual deal was that was struck. From TFA;

“Amazon was to build their headquarters with union jobs and pay the city and state $27 billion in revenues. The city, through existing as-of-right tax credits, and the state through Excelsior Tax credits - a program approved by the same legislators railing against it - would provide up to $3 billion in tax relief, IF Amazon created the 25,000-40,000 jobs and thus generated $27 billion in revenue. You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner.“

The crucial point is that there is no cash to bank! The politicians statements that the “money could have been better spent on xyz” was a lie.

The deal was to reduce taxes on future revenue if and only if Amazon met specific (lofty) investment and job creation requirements.

”Make no mistake, at the end of the day we lost $27 billion, 25,000-40,000 jobs and a blow to our reputation of being 'open for business.'”

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#208

Post by microcolonel »

Nasrudith wrote: post #203
microcolonel wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect I'll never get why the notion of giving a tax handout to a company that's one of the most valuable in the world shouldn't be a non-starter. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. When you set your basic taxes high enough, it no longer makes sense for some people to do business in your jurisdiction rather than another, so in order to convince those businesses to do business in your jurisdiction (and still ge…

Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway. If it was really as big a factor as pundits claim we would see a lot of jobs in unincorporated areas - yet instead they are in places where populations and infastructure are. Essentially it is a reverse of why there is a sticky price point of items disconnected from actual price - it is what the market will bare. If the fundamentals of an area a…

> Tax rates seem to be a want bonus compared to their actual needs anyway.

All else being equal, companies should really be doing what is right for themselves. If it's more costly to be in your community, then your shallow assumptions about their "actual needs" do not, and should not, factor in.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#209

Post by Eridrus »

bobthepanda wrote: post #159
asabjorn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are addressing the quote: > You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner. I think you are here making a moral argument of sorts. Why is it morally better to get 100% of nothing than to participate in a project with incentives that give you 9 times return plus create 24-40k jobs? I simply don't see a viable argument that this was morally right, a…

> and a tax base necessary to invest in Queens that has received very little investment in decades. In what alternate universe is this? Queens is hardly Camden or Detroit. The neighborhood in question has 40+ story office and residential towers sprouting up like weeds. Queens is at a record low employment rate ever since this started getting tracked at the county level: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYQUEE1URN .…

LIC does not have many commercial tenants, and none on the scale of Amazon.

It would be a good thing to not concentrate all jobs in Manhattan.

Also, if you walk around LIC, it's not as developed as you might think, sure there are huge buildings, but they're next to empty lots & industrial spaces. It's largely a desirable area because of it's proximity to Manhattan, not really anything intrinsic about the neighborhood.

Re: Open Letter from New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

#210

Post by ec109685 »

zaroth wrote: post #207
ec109685 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the state should have been happy to give 26B in subsidies then? They could bank the 1B and have 25k to 40k jobs. The math isn’t as clear as you are making it out to be. Google or companies like it will change their investment whether amazon is there or not.

I’m not sure if it was a typo on your part, or you might be misinformed of what the actual deal was that was struck. From TFA; “Amazon was to build their headquarters with union jobs and pay the city and state $27 billion in revenues. The city, through existing as-of-right tax credits, and the state through Excelsior Tax credits - a program approved by the same legislators railing against it - would provide up to $3…

Giving amazon the ability to not pay taxes is a subsidy. My question is whether it would still have been a good detail if NY had removed 26B of their tax burden because of the economic benefit?

Where is the line in your view? How much help is too much for a company?

Post reply on HN