Amazon's HQ2 moving to Northern VA and NYC; 2/14: Amazon pulls out of NYC after public backlash!

[Perfectson]

Congrats on reading so far between the lines you made a new statement for yourself.

I'm talking about the way corporations are defended by politicians in whatever pretzel logic makes sense to justify an action. Corporations as people was the start for a lot of people. That corporations need these incentives to come and that they're "job creators" are what matters. That the net benefit of jobs will somehow wipe away any ill-effects. That corporate taxes are a burden.

But when the argument is made in favor of Green deals, fixing infrastructure like Flint, or public assistance. The money isn't in the budget. Or it's socialism.

As if corporate welfare is some made up ideal by liberals who hate wealthy bootstrappers.

Regular people see politicians going to bat for them and the populist/socialist AOC/Bernies are gaining tractions for doing the opposite.

Again you're making up arguments .


Green new deal costs money

Amazon is investing and paying taxes ...youre comparing spending money on expensive programs that don't currently exists with no means to pay for them vs. Giving an incentive to a company where the roi per dollar rebated is 900%.

Amazon is still paying taxes....them not being in NY = 0% taxes paid . Instead of frothing at the mouth over a corporation getting a deal why don't you take a step back and understand why and how there's a huge positive of the deal

 

[Perfectson]

Asking questions is regulation now



All that and cant stand up to scrutiny for business practices

Throw rocks and hide your hands. Stop being naive. It wasn't scrutiny , socialist were gearing for a war .

Asking questions ? Amzn negotiated a deal with state officials. It was handshake deal. Then socialist got involved and started demanding other shyt and challenging every aspect . The path was being built to additional regulations such as higher taxes , additional unions , and whatever else I've seen being hurled . Muthafukkaz were asking for ice cream socials and dog parks at the end of it all. It was ridiculous. You are either being naive or severly miscommunicating what was happening

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Think corporate welfare isn’t a waste? Read these studies

“Striking a Balance: A National Assessment of Economic Development Incentives” is a working paper available from the W.E. Upjohn Institute in Kalamazoo. Its authors incorporated nearly 2,500 firms from 35 states into their analysis — including 180 from Michigan — and matched them to information culled from the National Establishment Time-Series Database, something close to a business census, from 1990 through 2014. This allowed the scholars to track the performance of these firms, which received incentives, against a control group of firms that did not.

Speaking about state incentives to firms, the authors found “little evidence that they generate new jobs or other direct economic benefits to the states that employ them.” Specifically, “establishments that received an incentive experienced employment growth that was 3.7 percent slower than non-incentivized establishments.” The authors also divvied up their analysis by firm size and found that incentives may be more effective for smaller enterprises.

Another paper found at the Upjohn Institute website this year: “‘But For’ Percentages for Economic Development Incentives: What percentage estimates are plausible based on the research literature?” The author reviewed 30 studies and 34 estimates, and reports that between 75 percent and 98 percent of incentivized firms “would have made a similar decision location/expansion/retention decision without the incentive.” In other words, as little as 2 percent of the incentive deals examined were necessary. This study was underwritten (partially financed) by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, one of the state’s two jobs agencies and one that the Mackinac Center has demonstrated does unnecessary incentive work.

In February, the Mackinac Center released its study, “An Assessment of the Michigan Business Development Program (MBDP),” a review of a Snyder administration initiative that was designed to replace the expensive, failed and ultimately shuttered Michigan Economic Growth Authority tax incentive program. We found that for every $500,000 in MBDP subsidies paid out through 2016, there was an associated loss of some 600 jobs in the county in which the corporation’s project was located. In other words, the program cost, rather than created, net new jobs.

Another 2018 paper, “Do Business Subsidies Lead to Increased Economic Activity? Evidence from Arkansas’s Quick Action Closing Fund (QACF),” looked at state incentives for firms and employment at the county level in Arkansas. The authors found “little evidence to suggest that the QACF creates significant job and establishment growth.” This Arkansas program shares some characteristics with the Michigan Business Development Program described above.

Lastly, two scholars at Southern Methodist University published their study, “Targeted State Economic Development Incentives and Entrepreneurship,” which found a “robustly negative relationship between development incentives and patent activity,” the latter being a proxy for entrepreneurial activity. They did find a positive link between incentives and percentages of large businesses in a region, but they also found a negative association with percentages of small businesses. The authors said these findings are consistent with large companies being able to crowd out smaller ones in the competition for capital, which often includes state subsidies.

The scholarly literature on state and local incentives is as clear as can be hoped for from a diverse array of scholars studying a particular subject over time. They mostly conclude that incentive programs are ineffective.

My hope for the new year is that lawmakers look back at the mountain of evidence demonstrating that their corporate welfare programs don’t work, cut them out and redirect any savings to more effective development tools, such as across-the-board tax cuts or road infrastructure.

 

[Perfectson]

Think corporate welfare isn’t a waste? Read these studies

“Striking a Balance: A National Assessment of Economic Development Incentives” is a working paper available from the W.E. Upjohn Institute in Kalamazoo. Its authors incorporated nearly 2,500 firms from 35 states into their analysis — including 180 from Michigan — and matched them to information culled from the National Establishment Time-Series Database, something close to a business census, from 1990 through 2014. This allowed the scholars to track the performance of these firms, which received incentives, against a control group of firms that did not.

Speaking about state incentives to firms, the authors found “little evidence that they generate new jobs or other direct economic benefits to the states that employ them.” Specifically, “establishments that received an incentive experienced employment growth that was 3.7 percent slower than non-incentivized establishments.” The authors also divvied up their analysis by firm size and found that incentives may be more effective for smaller enterprises.

Another paper found at the Upjohn Institute website this year: “‘But For’ Percentages for Economic Development Incentives: What percentage estimates are plausible based on the research literature?” The author reviewed 30 studies and 34 estimates, and reports that between 75 percent and 98 percent of incentivized firms “would have made a similar decision location/expansion/retention decision without the incentive.” In other words, as little as 2 percent of the incentive deals examined were necessary. This study was underwritten (partially financed) by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, one of the state’s two jobs agencies and one that the Mackinac Center has demonstrated does unnecessary incentive work.

In February, the Mackinac Center released its study, “An Assessment of the Michigan Business Development Program (MBDP),” a review of a Snyder administration initiative that was designed to replace the expensive, failed and ultimately shuttered Michigan Economic Growth Authority tax incentive program. We found that for every $500,000 in MBDP subsidies paid out through 2016, there was an associated loss of some 600 jobs in the county in which the corporation’s project was located. In other words, the program cost, rather than created, net new jobs.

Another 2018 paper, “Do Business Subsidies Lead to Increased Economic Activity? Evidence from Arkansas’s Quick Action Closing Fund (QACF),” looked at state incentives for firms and employment at the county level in Arkansas. The authors found “little evidence to suggest that the QACF creates significant job and establishment growth.” This Arkansas program shares some characteristics with the Michigan Business Development Program described above.

Lastly, two scholars at Southern Methodist University published their study, “Targeted State Economic Development Incentives and Entrepreneurship,” which found a “robustly negative relationship between development incentives and patent activity,” the latter being a proxy for entrepreneurial activity. They did find a positive link between incentives and percentages of large businesses in a region, but they also found a negative association with percentages of small businesses. The authors said these findings are consistent with large companies being able to crowd out smaller ones in the competition for capital, which often includes state subsidies.

The scholarly literature on state and local incentives is as clear as can be hoped for from a diverse array of scholars studying a particular subject over time. They mostly conclude that incentive programs are ineffective.

My hope for the new year is that lawmakers look back at the mountain of evidence demonstrating that their corporate welfare programs don’t work, cut them out and redirect any savings to more effective development tools, such as across-the-board tax cuts or road infrastructure.

This is poor research .

Again how is debating different then spending. If you can't understand the difference between the two you should not be in this debate. Giving tax rebates to entice a corporation to do business in your district which generates jobs and tax revenue is not the same as spending money out of tax coffers on investments. False parallelism and false narrative...

 

[Perfectson]

Yahoo is now part of Oath

AOC putting on for her people

Now believes her supporters are the ones which ended the government shutdown .


Also states that new york doesn't need someones jobs, which she called "scraps" .

Amazon comes with green jobs that have less investment dollars than her new green deal package and she a attacks them

Meanwhile amazon has invited her to their factories to show the work conditions after she lied to the public about deplorable work conditions , despite amazon offering $15 min wages

 

[tru_m.a.c]

 

[Perfectson]

I read this guy's article, it makes no sense. I have no idea where he got his tax theory from but it's inaccurate.

1. Amazon does produce profits . The article makes it seem like amazon makes nonprofit and thus pays no income taxes, this is wrong


2. It's all in tax laws and how they are written which allows amazon to not pay taxes.

A) .some profits are overseas, so they owe no us taxes on this profit.

B) .There are carry forward rules, where you can carry forward losses from prior years to offset profits in future years and also deferred tax assets.

C) .any investment in R&D and other items has potential to be tax deductible and amazon spends a lot in these areas


Between these 3 items and the fact that taxable income is quite different than profits , you gave a LEGAL situation where amazon pays little to no taxes federally.

 

[Strapped]

I heard a guy on fox news & liquid say they make no money , while having the riches man on paper

 

[storyteller]

Think corporate welfare isn’t a waste? Read these studies

“Striking a Balance: A National Assessment of Economic Development Incentives” is a working paper available from the W.E. Upjohn Institute in Kalamazoo. Its authors incorporated nearly 2,500 firms from 35 states into their analysis — including 180 from Michigan — and matched them to information culled from the National Establishment Time-Series Database, something close to a business census, from 1990 through 2014. This allowed the scholars to track the performance of these firms, which received incentives, against a control group of firms that did not.

Speaking about state incentives to firms, the authors found “little evidence that they generate new jobs or other direct economic benefits to the states that employ them.” Specifically, “establishments that received an incentive experienced employment growth that was 3.7 percent slower than non-incentivized establishments.” The authors also divvied up their analysis by firm size and found that incentives may be more effective for smaller enterprises.

Another paper found at the Upjohn Institute website this year: “‘But For’ Percentages for Economic Development Incentives: What percentage estimates are plausible based on the research literature?” The author reviewed 30 studies and 34 estimates, and reports that between 75 percent and 98 percent of incentivized firms “would have made a similar decision location/expansion/retention decision without the incentive.” In other words, as little as 2 percent of the incentive deals examined were necessary. This study was underwritten (partially financed) by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, one of the state’s two jobs agencies and one that the Mackinac Center has demonstrated does unnecessary incentive work.

In February, the Mackinac Center released its study, “An Assessment of the Michigan Business Development Program (MBDP),” a review of a Snyder administration initiative that was designed to replace the expensive, failed and ultimately shuttered Michigan Economic Growth Authority tax incentive program. We found that for every $500,000 in MBDP subsidies paid out through 2016, there was an associated loss of some 600 jobs in the county in which the corporation’s project was located. In other words, the program cost, rather than created, net new jobs.

Another 2018 paper, “Do Business Subsidies Lead to Increased Economic Activity? Evidence from Arkansas’s Quick Action Closing Fund (QACF),” looked at state incentives for firms and employment at the county level in Arkansas. The authors found “little evidence to suggest that the QACF creates significant job and establishment growth.” This Arkansas program shares some characteristics with the Michigan Business Development Program described above.

Lastly, two scholars at Southern Methodist University published their study, “Targeted State Economic Development Incentives and Entrepreneurship,” which found a “robustly negative relationship between development incentives and patent activity,” the latter being a proxy for entrepreneurial activity. They did find a positive link between incentives and percentages of large businesses in a region, but they also found a negative association with percentages of small businesses. The authors said these findings are consistent with large companies being able to crowd out smaller ones in the competition for capital, which often includes state subsidies.

The scholarly literature on state and local incentives is as clear as can be hoped for from a diverse array of scholars studying a particular subject over time. They mostly conclude that incentive programs are ineffective.

My hope for the new year is that lawmakers look back at the mountain of evidence demonstrating that their corporate welfare programs don’t work, cut them out and redirect any savings to more effective development tools, such as across-the-board tax cuts or road infrastructure.

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

Again you're making up arguments .


Green new deal costs money

Amazon is investing and paying taxes ...youre comparing spending money on expensive programs that don't currently exists with no means to pay for them vs. Giving an incentive to a company where the roi per dollar rebated is 900%.

Amazon is still paying taxes....them not being in NY = 0% taxes paid . Instead of frothing at the mouth over a corporation getting a deal why don't you take a step back and understand why and how there's a huge positive of the deal

Truth.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

C) .any investment in R&D and other items has potential to be tax deductible and amazon spends a lot in these areas

Drone program counts as R&D?

Or is it the Amazon Uber program?

 

[Perfectson]

Drone program counts as R&D?

Or is it the Amazon Uber program?

probably both - if they aren't generating revenue they could still count as R&D

 

[Secure Da Bag]

probably both - if they aren't generating revenue they could still count as R&D

 

[Secure Da Bag]

probably both - if they aren't generating revenue they could still count as R&D

Offtopic: Why can't I file my entire college tuition or certificate classes as R&D and get a bigger tax refund?

 

[FAH1223]

Truth.

Amazon paid $0 in federal taxes last year.

Amazon’s business model from the beginning was based on using tax arbitrage to kill competitors. That’s what more tax subsidies for Amazon produce, a transfer of activity from everyone else to Amazon.

It's predatory, its authoritarian, it should be illegal.

THIS is why people are pissed.



It's not enough to beat back Amazon from New York. We must do more | Matt Stoller

Simply saying ‘no’ to its headquarters isn’t enough – Amazon should be investigated for abusing monopoly power


‘The time has come for America’s antitrust enforcers to join in the task of bringing Amazon to heal.’ Photograph: Mark Lennihan/AP

This week, Amazon abandoned a plan to open a second “headquarters” in New York City, after citizens rebelled against the idea of paying almost $3bn in subsidies and tax incentives to one of the world’s biggest corporations. But simply saying “no” to Amazon’s coercive terms is not enough. New York citizens should now demand that the state’s Attorney General Tish James begin investigating the corporation for abusing its power as a monopoly.

One reason the idea of subsidizing Amazon with New York city and state tax monies was so galling is that the corporation is already extracting so much wealth from the region. Amazon for more than a decade has steadily battered the American book publishing industry, which is largely based in New York, and which employs tens of thousands of residents. The corporation has done so through thuggish negotiating tactics, including simply refusing to sell a publisher’s inventory unless they agreed to a detailed list of concessions.

Similarly, Amazon a few years ago used age-old predatory pricing tactics to essentially bankrupt Diapers.com, a business located in the New York city suburb of Jersey City, by underpricing its rivals. In the end Diapers.com sold itself to Amazon, which shut the operation down.

It’s not just New Yorkers who are suffering from Amazon’s abuse of its monopoly control over many of America’s most high-profile markets. Amazon’s current business model is a threat to anyone who wants to make or sell things in America. Take the case of the small company, Fuse Chicken, one of the hundreds of thousands of enterprises that must sell their wares and services through Amazon, due to that corporation’s dominance of online commerce.

In this case the founder of Fuse Chicken, who had left his day job to design high-quality phone charging accessories, discovered that Amazon was helping Chinese counterfeiters to sell knock-off versions of his product under the Fuse Chicken brand name. This is not uncommon; even large companies like Birkenstock and Nike have reported big problems with counterfeits on Amazon’s marketplace. In the case of Birkenstock, Amazon refused to stop counterfeiting unless the shoe maker agreed to sell its whole catalogue through Amazon. That sounds less like legitimate business tactics and more like mob extortion.

As legal scholar Lina Khan has observed, Amazon’s business model is predicated upon a suite of anti-competitive coercive tactics in which it exploits its power over the core infrastructure of commerce. The attempt to extort New York City was just the latest episode.

The initial decision by Amazon to locate in New York was part of a Hunger-Games-style bidding contest in which the corporation asked for concessions and proposals from cities across North America for a supposed second headquarters.

Amazon’s retreat was a setback for a host of politicians, none more so than Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. Cuomo, who jokingly offered to change his name to Amazon Cuomo, lashed out at critics of the deal, attacking elected leaders who “put their own narrow political interests above their community”.

Since the news that Amazon was pulling out, Governor Cuomo has led the attacks on the citizens who opposed his backroom deal with Amazon. But let’s be clear. New York didn’t say no to Amazon. What New York said no to was Amazon’s outrageous terms, which were reached through a secret process with no input from the communities that will be most affected. The leader of the opposition to these terms, state Senator Mike Gianaris, actually argued that there were ways Amazon could make this deal work. And even without this deal, Amazon is hiring and expanding in New York.


A protest in front of an Amazon store in Queens. Photograph: Carlo Allegri/Reuters

The pushback came from community activists, as well as courageous politicians like state Senators Michael Gianaris, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Jessica Ramos, and councilmen Corey Johnson and Jimmy Van Bremer. But the opposition to the deal did not only come from individual citizens, politicians, and grassroots groups. The former mayor Michael Bloomberg also attacked the Cuomo-DeBlasio deal as a naïve giveaway, as did existing businesses in the city who opposed the unfair subsidies.

It’s easy to see why the deal is a bad idea on its own merits. These kinds of subsidies generally don’t work as advertised; on average, only a quarter of the jobs promised by such bribes end up going to local residents who would otherwise be unemployed. If Governor Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio want to invest $3bn in New York, they’d get a much bigger bang for their citizens’ bucks if they used it to create three times as many jobs in housing or transportation. And if they want to help New York business, they would stand up to predatory monopolies like Amazon, or deal with excessive rents from real estate interests.

It’s not only the citizens of New York who are waking up to the need to deal with Amazon’s abuse of its monopoly middleman position. In India, the government recently banned the corporation from selling its own products in direct competition with the products of other companies. Across Europe, antitrust enforcers in Brussels and in a growing number of countries have launched investigations of the corporation.

The time has come for America’s antitrust enforcers to join in the task of bringing Amazon to heal. The reason Amazon was able to grow so huge, and act so badly, is that for a generation now, America’s antitrust law enforcers have refused to enforce the law. One person who can begin to correct that problem is New York’s own new attorney general, Tish James. This week New Yorkers saw they could chase a bully away from their treasury. Now they should demand that their government punish Amazon for the gangster-like business tactics the corporation has used to pillage New York businesses.