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

Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#91

Post by rlanday »

oliwarner wrote: post #58
minikites wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post you're referring to has it backwards, in my opinion. I don't think this deal wasn't bad for the nation at large, it was bad for New York. The solutions presented don't reflect that.

> it was bad for New York And I think that's where our disconnect here is. Most were advertising this deal at a net +$30bn revenue for the state over 10y, even after this $3bn deal. 25,000 highly-paid people brings serious money. Income tax revenue. Sales tax revenue. 25,000 property tax payments. That's before you consider auxiliary businesses you get serving a campus of 25k. What I'm not saying is that New York sho…

States already compete on the basis of tax rates. That’s a very good thing. If you don’t like paying taxes out your butthole in California or New York, you can move to Texas or Nevada. It would be awful if the federal govenement told every state they had to have the same taxes as California. California can get away with abusing its residents because it has beaches and nice weather, but not every state can do that.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#92

Post by bogomipz »

weiming wrote: post #31
melling wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what you’re saying is that there’s not currently $3 billion saved that can now be invested in the schools, subways, etc.

Over some years, Amazon was to pay some $X in taxes. But they were given a break to pay $3b less assuming some goals are met. The city receives $X - $3b. Now the city receives $0.

And NY can allocate that 505 million dollars they were going to give to Amazon in the form of a capital grant for something that will benefit the public like infrastructure.

>"Now the city receives $0."

No, now the city receives zero from Amazon. Or another way to look at it is Now Amazon will get zero access to NYC's talent pool. Meanwhile Google is quietly adding 12K new jobs at a new building in Manhattan and doing so without asking for subsidies or incentives. These will be tax revenues that NYC and NY state didn't have to pay to get. NYC will be just fine.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-cit...

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#93

Post by CPLX »

repsilat wrote: post #77
paulgb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the whole thing has a Karmic feel to it. Amazon used a very public HQ process which turned the process into a public game show. Since they used public pressure on local politicians as a bargaining chip to get a deal done, it feels fitting that it backfired this way.

A little ironic in the other direction too, I think. New Yorkers saw the deal as corrupt favouritism and wanted to stop it from happening. Now New York has even more of a reputation for corruption by making it clear they won't uphold the terms of deals they make. Really, Amazon are lucky the subsidies disappeared before they made significant capital investments, otherwise it would practically have been extortion.

> they won't uphold the terms of deals they make

Who the fuck is “they” I didn’t agree to shit.

That was done by some guy who lives in Albany.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#95

Post by oliwarner »

moosey wrote: post #75
oliwarner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city But they do and I don't think there's any escaping that. It's natural. The problem comes with the various state and local governments wanting to subsidise things like this. They can offer things that perhaps objectively disadvantage the nation but help locally. Of course NY is go bend over backwards to get Amazon HQ2. All those people. All that income…

I'm going to disagree with "It's natural". We have created a business and government environment where it is likely to happen, but we can change that environment at any time, just as Reagan created the current business environment 30 some odd years ago.

I thought it was fairly clear in a context so devoid of nature, natural might suggest logical consequence but you're the second person to quote the word.... So for the record: No, Amazon are not doing it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

And yes, this it a logical side-effect our how our society has developed. Capitalism and globalisation concentrating money into megacorps like Amazon. This is certainly something we can change but the how is kind of important.

I was tackling how states kowtow to big companies to attract and retain them. It sounds like you're in favour of stopping companies ever attaining the critical mass they have, stopping them being a target for that in the first place.

It's an interesting idea, but I suggest it probably breaches a few Constitutional rights. Breaking up massive companies. Limiting companies to sales within their own state, not allowing the transfer of wealth outside the state. All extreme conclusions of stopping an entity like Amazon gaining undue influence.

I'm sure the are some on the far-right who would just suggest a mandated 0% tax. I'm sure states would just find other incentives.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#96

Post by thfuran »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #81
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #5

Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…

The thing is the subsidy was only 10% of the expected tax revenue and only $500mm was exclusive to Amazon (mostly in the form of property rights). The rest is available to anyone who sets up shop outside of Manhattan. As far as tax breaks go it’s fairly minuscule. But because of poor numeracy and a poor understanding of the conditions of the break or the nature of tax deductions, a lot of people had sticker shock at…

So if the subsidy were 95% of expected revenue, would you still support it because hey, 5% is 5%?

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#97

Post by kingkawn »

This is 100% Cuomo’s fault for keeping everything secret, as he always does, and trying to bully all the stakeholders out of having any say. Local NYC politics is brutal, and nobody is gonna roll over their needs just cause someone else says it’s the right thing to do.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#98

Post by whatok »

dingaling wrote: post #86
whack wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now we're going to blame Bezos for using a incentive-program the way it was expressly meant to be used? Perhaps we should also start shaming white collar professionals who take advantage of 401k plans and Mortgage Interest deductions. If they didn't try to reduce their tax bill, that money could have gone to others who actually needed them. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

> Don't hate the player, hate the game Without the players, the game ends. Amazon can afford to pay its own costs many times over. Many SMEs cannot. I'd have had a lot of respect for Amazon had they just chosen a site on logistical criteria and built it out of pocket. Instead, I despise them even more than before.

These tax breaks existed long before Amazon planned on moving to New York. SMEs could and still can utilize them if they choose to do so. There's nothing that prevents them from doing so and they also have more incentives available to them than larger businesses.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#99

Post by rlanday »

crispyambulance wrote: post #13
nkozyra wrote: post #2

I know in the technical sense, calling it Amazons rejection is accurate, but in reality this was a power play of a different kind from the people of the city. While I've not found a consistent stance among people I talked to almost everyone found it at least troubling how Amazon could wield this kind of power. The people who opposed it were vocal and diligent. I'd argue NYC rejected Amazon. More importantly, while ci…

> this really highlighted the kind of leverage a big company can hold over even a huge metropolis. Agree, it was a gross display of cynical power. Amazon played a dozen large cities off each other, forcing each to bend over backward to offer up as much freebies as possible. In exchange for what? A tentative fungible "promise" to deliver 50000 high-pay jobs to the lucky city? In response, even poor cities like Philade…

Well, no, actually it turns out there’s only going to be one HQ2 after all. NYC got complacent.
Post reply on HN