Amazon planning second headquarters with 50,000 jobs

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

It is also likely that the current mega corporations are the cause of the decrease in new business startups in the United States. These large monopolies and oligopolies are not good for society and shouldn’t be given tax breaks to encourage their further dominance.

There was a time when the U.S. broke up corporations the size of Amazon.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There was a time when the U.S. broke up corporations the size of Amazon.

Remember when the US stopped Microsoft from integrating internet explorer into windows.

[MelBridgeman]

Let's stay on topic people. The issue at hand is how NY should spend that extra 3 billion they just saved from Amazon backing out. Should it be used to fix the subway or hire more teachers as Trump Left suggests? Where would like to see that money go if you were a resident of her district?

[nfotiu]

Jeez, is there no middle ground in any of these arguments any more.

3 billion from NY governments was probably too much to be giving a company like Amazon and there were valid reasons to oppose it. I don't get how corporate welfare can be seen as such a great thing by right wing/pro capitalist types.

VA paid 550 million and have worked out a deal to build a 1 billion dollar for VA Tech to build a campus on site. The 550 million will be more than paid back by the increase in local/state taxes almost immediately. The VA Tech campus will give a lot of opportunities for Virginians. Some sort of incentives for large companies makes sense. They are bringing enough to the table to negotiate some give and take on local taxes.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's stay on topic people. The issue at hand is how NY should spend that extra 3 billion they just saved from Amazon backing out. Should it be used to fix the subway or hire more teachers as Trump Left suggests? Where would like to see that money go if you were a resident of her district?

Translation: after my attempt to deflect this into generic capitalism failed I now think we should ignore it and talk about the original topic.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Jeez, is there no middle ground in any of these arguments any more.

3 billion from NY governments was probably too much to be giving a company like Amazon and there were valid reasons to oppose it. I don't get how corporate welfare can be seen as such a great thing by right wing/pro capitalist types.

VA paid 550 million and have worked out a deal to build a 1 billion dollar for VA Tech to build a campus on site. The 550 million will be more than paid back by the increase in local/state taxes almost immediately. The VA Tech campus will give a lot of opportunities for Virginians. Some sort of incentives for large companies makes sense. They are bringing enough to the table to negotiate some give and take on local taxes.

Would these jobs have remained in the United States without the subsidy? If the answer is yes then all of the things you lost would have been obtained somewhere without the subsidy.

Also this increase in tax base needs to deal with a rapid influx of people, increased homeless due to rising property values, increased transportation demands and all the other issues this massive construction brings. Just saying the taxes brought in outweigh the subsidy doesn’t tell the whole story. The corporate and property taxes corporations pay are required to fund programs for the citizens in the state.

Amazon wanted to go to Virginia, they did not need a subsidy to be economic so why should they get one?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

Translation: after my attempt to deflect this into generic capitalism failed I now think we should ignore it and talk about the original topic.

No one confused trickle down economics policies being synonymous with capitalism - except you

[zamler]

NY wasn't giving Amazon anything they were tax breaks, $3 billion on $27 billion in tax revenue. That doesn't seem like a bad investment to me.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by zamler

NY wasn't giving Amazon anything they were tax breaks, $3 billion on $27 billion in tax revenue. That doesn't seem like a bad investment to me.

it's a massive loss for a jurisdiction already highly taxed and a couple billion short in the budget this year. Not something to be celebrated especially when you don't understand what a tax break is..and Trump Left has an economics degree apparently

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

No one confused trickle down economics policies being synonymous with capitalism - except you

lol ok, that's why your immediate reaction to a repudiation of trickle down was to point out how much capitalism helps people.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GGG

Would these jobs have remained in the United States without the subsidy? If the answer is yes then all of the things you lost would have been obtained somewhere without the subsidy.

Also this increase in tax base needs to deal with a rapid influx of people, increased homeless due to rising property values, increased transportation demands and all the other issues this massive construction brings. Just saying the taxes brought in outweigh the subsidy doesn’t tell the whole story. The corporate and property taxes corporations pay are required to fund programs for the citizens in the state.

Amazon wanted to go to Virginia, they did not need a subsidy to be economic so why should they get one?

The jobs wouldn't have gone to Virginia. Your statement only makes sense if it was federal money.

I'm not saying the subsidies narrowly outweigh the taxes though. VA gives up 600 million short term and gets billions in the short term and tens of billions in the long term. Money that will build better transportation infrastructure and university campuses to the benefits of everyone.

Maybe they would have chose Northern VA anyway, maybe they would have picked Maryland if it was going to be DC all along. The VA deal made sense for everyone and will almost assuredly be a good deal for the state.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol ok, that's why your immediate reaction to a repudiation of trickle down was to point out how much capitalism helps people.

I said trickle down works better than anything else ever tried...but that is based on what i think the end result would be. The Capitalism comment was an after thought. Sorry for the confusion. If i had to chose between lowering taxes on the rich or raising them - I know which one will I would chose. People will always find ways to pay as little as possible.

High-income earners paid $4.6-billion less in taxes in 2016 despite higher rate for top 1 per cent

The Liberal Party’s campaign platform said a new top tax bracket would raise nearly $3-billion a year, but an analysis of recently released data from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) shows the expected benefit didn’t materialize.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...-2016-despite/

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I said trickle down works better than anything else ever tried...but that is based on what i think the end result would be. The Capitalism comment was an after thought. Sorry for the confusion. If i had to chose between lowering taxes on the rich or raising them - I know which one will I would chose. People will always find ways to pay as little as possible.




https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...-2016-despite/

Except there's no proof of this. The US' greatest economic times were during a period of significantly higher taxes on the highest earners. And even the honest billionaires admit this. The others don't want to say anything because they of course want to keep more of their money. We just had more evidence of this less than a year ago when the tax cuts resulted in no job growth, but bonuses and stock buybacks.

The stock market is not the economy. Profits need to be pushed into the working middle classes so they can use the money to consume to drive the economy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The jobs wouldn't have gone to Virginia. Your statement only makes sense if it was federal money.

I'm not saying the subsidies narrowly outweigh the taxes though. VA gives up 600 million short term and gets billions in the short term and tens of billions in the long term. Money that will build better transportation infrastructure and university campuses to the benefits of everyone.

Maybe they would have chose Northern VA anyway, maybe they would have picked Maryland if it was going to be DC all along. The VA deal made sense for everyone and will almost assuredly be a good deal for the state.

This is the problem,

Maryland and Virginia shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom to offer tax breaks to canabalize jobs from eachother. When governments compete on tax breaks for corporations citizens lose.

This is effectively the Arena debate. If no one subsidized arenas, Salary Caps would be lower and leagues could easily afford they own. Because cities can steal teams by providing free or subsidized arenas the public in general loses and the dollars that could have been used to build arenas is split between the players and the owners. (Yes I acknowledge that subsidizing Amazon on the local level has significantly better returns then a sports team)

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

Except there's no proof of this. The US' greatest economic times were during a period of significantly higher taxes on the highest earners. And even the honest billionaires admit this.

Not sure how you define greatest economic times - but it's been a mix bag

here is a list of boom times in the US...notice 1982 to 1990 on that list.


https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/30/new...ory/index.html

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Not sure how you define greatest economic times - but it's been a mix bag

here is a list of boom times in the US...notice 1982 to 1990 on that list.


https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/30/new...ory/index.html

Unless you have some way to parse the lowering interest rates with the tax cuts I’m not sure you can claim tax cuts as a reason. Boom cycles follow bust cycles is probably a more reasonable explanation.

You can also go through that list and see government spending as a potential driver of booms as well

[nik-]

Again, that's all stock market. That's not the real economy.

Of course when companies can slash and export workers and be more profitable, with more automation, their stocks are going to boom.

The underlying engine of the economy, middle class buying power, has stagnated since Reagan, and no president, regardless of party, has really done anything to fix it.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by GGG

Unless you have some way to parse the lowering interest rates with the tax cuts I’m not sure you can claim tax cuts as a reason. Boom cycles follow bust cycles is probably a more reasonable explanation.

I never made that claim - just disputing that boom times and high tax rates aren't mutually exclusive. I agree with your statement...Who really knows..I can find an economist that will argue any view point, it's highly subjective "science"

[nik-]

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that high tax rates cause booms. Just that they don't actually limit them.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by nik-

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that high tax rates cause booms. Just that they don't actually limit them.

I agree