ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Amazon officially pulls out of New York City

I have a hard time getting hot and bothered about tax incentives to Amazon. All corporations seek them, most states given them, and there's little reason to discriminate. In fact, if I'm a government entity, I think I'd like to give incentives to businesses that are actually profitable, since they're the ones most likely to be around to employ my constituents. Now, it is of course always a fair question whether a given incentive investment makes sense given the return. On that front, some places may be playing defense (avoid losing what you've got), and some may be playing offense (employ people who aren't).

500mm was straight cash grants to Amazon. This was done without any local input or oversight; it was done completely in secret.

As soon as residents raised their hands to question this process Amazon picked up their ball and went home.

NYC is bigger than Amazon. They want some sweetheart deal with zero transparency or local input? Go to some flyover area desperate for jobs and white collar workers. And good luck getting educated people to move there.
 
It's going to be in DC, I'd put it at 70% right now. Bowser wants it, millions spent on DC infrastructure over the last 5 years (395, 695, 295 linked), I expect it to happen sooner than later. We shall see.
In what city do his friends with the best looking wives live?
 
This is a fascinating take. Apparently Cuomo and Bill D, who have fare more insight into the state/city finances than you or I, and in the case of Bill D would not be otherwise be up for giving tax breaks, thought it important enough to the city to try to get them in. But hey, you're right, it's the flyover country that feeds and fuels the country are the idiots.
Few pols can resist taking credit for "creating jobs". Plus it increases their power and campaign contributions. The sucker taxpayers are left holding the bag.
 
Whatever. I have no dog in this fight. If a city wants to turn away 25k high paying jobs and the impact that would have on their economy, more power to them. Someone else will gladly snatch them up and reap the benefits.
 
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic. They weren’t going to be warehouse jobs in NYC. They were $150k high tech jobs.
Oops, misread your post.
But who do you think will get those jobs? People from elite schools throughout the country, no locals who can already command those salaries. That means an influx of people, an increase in stress on infrastructure, more crowding, more traffic, more pollution, increases in COL and taxes. What's not to like?
Other areas of the country need the jobs and would benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Oops, misread your post.
But who do you think will get those jobs? People from elite schools throughout the country, no locals who can already command those salaries. That means an influx of people, an increase in stress on infrastructure, more crowding, more traffic, more pollution, increases in COL and taxes. What's not to like?
Other areas of the country need the jobs and would benefit.
right, but at a minimum, they'd get the increased income tax revenue of jobs that average 100k per year (which as LDN pointed out isn't chump change).
 
Oops, misread your post.
But who do you think will get those jobs? People from elite schools throughout the country, no locals who can already command those salaries. That means an influx of people, an increase in stress on infrastructure, more crowding, more traffic, more pollution, increases in COL and taxes. What's not to like?
Other areas of the country need the jobs and would benefit.

You could use that logic for any company wanting to bring in high paying jobs. So what you’re saying is areas like Long Island City should stay in a state of stasis and not seek to bring in high paying jobs, which as I said before will provide a huge influx of tax revenue for infrastructure, education, etc., because COL will go up and traffic will get worse? I have news for you, when an area grows economically things like an increase in property values and an increase in COL comes along with it. So the answer as a community is to stagnate and have younger people move away for job opportunities?
 
New York State was running pro-business television ads a year ago, promising no taxes for ten years (or something like that), improved state infrastructure, etc. I'm quite surprised that the Long Island City lost an appetite for something that the state was clearly openly pushing. In the end it's probably best Amazon to stay as far away as possible from realms of socialists like AOC before they get addled with an unexpected 70% rate on new taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigarowl
While it might not be popular to say, Amazon doesn’t make the tax laws, they follow them. I would bet that feds pore over the Amazon tax returns annually.
 
While it might not be popular to say, Amazon doesn’t make the tax laws, they follow them. I would bet that feds pore over the Amazon tax returns annually.

That's true. Tax law comes to us from corporate lobbyists who in turn bribe our elected officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nitt1300
Oops, misread your post.
But who do you think will get those jobs? People from elite schools throughout the country, no locals who can already command those salaries. That means an influx of people, an increase in stress on infrastructure, more crowding, more traffic, more pollution, increases in COL and taxes. What's not to like?
Other areas of the country need the jobs and would benefit.
This is a funny argument that I've seen today. Let's say that zero jobs are filled from local applicants. That means that a metropolitan area of over 23 MILLION people increases by 25000. That is a Zero percent increase in people.
 
That's true. Tax law comes to us from corporate lobbyists who in turn bribe our elected officials.
If that was accurate, every company would hire lobbyists to bribe elected officials and none would pay any taxes
 
This is a funny argument that I've seen today. Let's say that zero jobs are filled from local applicants. That means that a metropolitan area of over 23 MILLION people increases by 25000. That is a Zero percent increase in people.

Try thinking about this issue from the perspective of the locality, not the entire city. Better yet, stop thinking about this issue at all because you have nothing to offer the discussion.
 
I'm always amused by such statements. So Amazon paid $0 in FICA taxes, $0 in Medicare taxes, $0 in national telecom taxes, $0 in federal transportation taxes, etc.? I would love to understand how they pull that off, because my company hasn't found a way to avoid these.

I would assume the poster you are responding to was referencing federal income taxes. I also assume you knew that but choose to act dumb to make your sad argument.
 
This is a funny argument that I've seen today. Let's say that zero jobs are filled from local applicants. That means that a metropolitan area of over 23 MILLION people increases by 25000. That is a Zero percent increase in people.

Using numbers hurts their heads.

LdN
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlvnsmly
Try thinking about this issue from the perspective of the locality, not the entire city. Better yet, stop thinking about this issue at all because you have nothing to offer the discussion.

Good one. Because all employees will be brought in from elsewhere and all will live right next door to work. I'm not going to waste my time asking you to think because I already know it would be impossible.

Whatever will the New York area do with an extra 25000 people lol.
 
I would assume the poster you are responding to was referencing federal income taxes. I also assume you knew that but choose to act dumb to make your sad argument.
The original poster should clearly state what he means - federal taxes are significantly different than federal corporate income taxes. Many people see simple misleading headlines and treat it as the complete truth. It's hardly a sad argument to point out that Amazon pays a significant amount of federal taxes each year, even if it pays no federal corporate income taxes in any given year due to tax credits, loss carryovers, etc. If Penn State Football won the National Championship without scoring a single offensive point all year, would you claim that Penn State was a failure and a terrible football team that year because their offense was inept?
 
The original poster should clearly state what he means - federal taxes are significantly different than federal corporate income taxes. Many people see simple misleading headlines and treat it as the complete truth. It's hardly a sad argument to point out that Amazon pays a significant amount of federal taxes each year, even if it pays no federal corporate income taxes in any given year due to tax credits, loss carryovers, etc. If Penn State Football won the National Championship without scoring a single offensive point all year, would you claim that Penn State was a failure and a terrible football team that year because their offense was inept?

A better analogy is if the world's largest nonprofit moved into your town... let's say Unicef, employed 25k people at $150k each would you complain because they pay no federal income tax?

These people will never understand loss carryforwards. Or just how much a company in NYC pays in NYC taxes and Federal taxes outside of net income taxes. Just payroll taxes...

LdN
 
The original poster should clearly state what he means - federal taxes are significantly different than federal corporate income taxes. Many people see simple misleading headlines and treat it as the complete truth. It's hardly a sad argument to point out that Amazon pays a significant amount of federal taxes each year, even if it pays no federal corporate income taxes in any given year due to tax credits, loss carryovers, etc. If Penn State Football won the National Championship without scoring a single offensive point all year, would you claim that Penn State was a failure and a terrible football team that year because their offense was inept?

Read the posted article again and take up any unanswered questions with the author.
 
Nope, they are morons. 25,000 professional jobs has a positive impact on any area, regardless of size. Alexandria Cortez and her peers should’ve diligently explored other options/deals that would’ve been more palpable for them. Openly celebrating 25,000 high paying jobs not coming to your city is arrogance/stupidity to the extreme.
They won't be happy until many areas of this country begin to resemble 2019 Venezuela. The problem is that the morons who are responsible for situations like Venezuela very seldom have to live with the consequences; they just move on and mess up something else, or commit a bunch of pogroms against their loyal subjects.
 
They won't be happy until many areas of this country begin to resemble 2019 Venezuela. The problem is that the morons who are responsible for situations like Venezuela very seldom have to live with the consequences; they just move on and mess up something else, or commit a bunch of pogroms against their loyal subjects.

Or they move from California to Texas, from NYC to Florida, carrying with them their political inclinations.
 
I'm always amused by such statements. So Amazon paid $0 in FICA taxes, $0 in Medicare taxes, $0 in national telecom taxes, $0 in federal transportation taxes, etc.? I would love to understand how they pull that off, because my company hasn't found a way to avoid these.


I would have to look into it further but I’ll offer up an attempted explanation.

AMZN received the benefits that every other company receives in determining its tax liability. It’s not anything specific to AMZN.

Again it’s been awhile but I think what I’m saying is correct.

The compensation issue arises from the fact that AMZN shares have exploded in value. Options granted to employees are valued for financial purposes. If the final exercise price varies from the valuation price, a larger deduction will take place when the shares are exercised and the payout made. Given the likely large spread in share price from grant to exercise, the excess compensation deduction is massive with the corresponding relief from taxes also being massive for AMZN. The metrics here might be options granted and valued at say $300 and exercised at a final price of $2000/share. Also, remember that those individuals exercising options in the money pay taxes on the gain so it is not like the Treasury is not receiving a large amount of tax collections on the options. This benefit is more from the accounting treatment of the recording of the options. This isn’t particular to AMZN.

The second issue is an anamoly of any change in rates. Companies are required to establish the future tax impact of transactions they enter into where tax character is different than book character. Let’s say you have massive amounts of fixed assets. You have financial statement depreciation and then depreciation which is different for tax purposes. The tax depreciation is often accelerated so that tax depreciation exceeds financial statement depreciation in early years whereas financial statement depreciation will exceed tax depreciation in later years when the asset is already fully depreciated for tax purposes but still being depreciated for financial statement purposes. For financials, you are required to establish a deferred tax position for the yearly difference, recognizing that the initial tax benefit you received from tax depreciation exceeding book depreciation will reverse and you will have a future tax liability when the reversal commences until the asset is fully depreciated for both book and tax purposes. Clear as mud right?

Now, the tax law provides benefit to any taxpayer in that situation because the future liability is now recorded at the rates you will pay when the liability takes place in the future. It is correct though to say that companies with large fixed assets took a tax deduction at 35% when tax depreciation exceeded book depreciation and will repay that difference at a much lower rate in the future. But again, this is not particular to AMZN in any way.

The second one was a one timer, the first one being accounting driven should take place as long as their is exercise of options with large grant/exercise difference in price.

Someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: odshowtime
I believe, at some point, Amazon will seriously consider placing a HQ2 in Georgia...the most business friendly state in the Union.

Will be interesting to see if they end up somewhere else or maybe add to their Virginia commitment. That said, New York offers at least one thing, and it's probably the most significant thing, to Amazon that Georgia can't - it's New York, and Georgia isn't. That's why this whole publicized bid thing was such a sham. Amazon picked two of the biggest, wealthiest areas in America for it's HQ2 largely because of reasons other than subsidies, talent, and all the other nonsense everyone mistakenly thought they cared about. What they care about is location and proximity to power. New York and Virginia offer both.
 
way to complex of an issue....clearly, the mayors and governors worked together to come up with incentives to land this deal. Some where of the tax variety. Some were infrastructure. Some were simply logistics. You have to assume this was a good deal for NY because they made the offer. People who come in and protest this simply have no idea how businesses and governments work. If the process was corrupt, that is another thing. But nobody has shown any evidence of corruption.

In the end, I'd be happy to enjoy the tax base and increase in property values here in CLE should Amazon decide to second day ship 25,000 jobs to the area.
 
Good Jobs First: Amazon HQ2, HQ3 Subsidy Awards Costly, Not Yet Fully Accounted For

Washington, DC—Good Jobs First, the watchdog group on economic development incentives, today released the following statement from executive director Greg LeRoy regarding Amazon.com, Inc.’s decision to locate two new headquarters in Long Island City in Queens, New York and Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia:

“The taxpayer costs of these two deals is high, both in absolute terms and on a per-job basis, contrary to Amazon’s artful spin. Together, we believe they exceed $4.6 billion and the cost per job in New York is at least $112,000, not the $48,000 the company used in a selective and incomplete press release calculation.

“Amazon’s statement contains a classic example of cost-benefit apples and oranges. Citing only one New York State incentive, it says the sum ‘equates to $48,000 per job for 25,000 jobs with an average wage of over $150,000…’ Of course, wages cannot be compared to tax breaks since employees pay only a small percentage of their salaries as taxes to offset the tax breaks. And the cost per job in New York is actually at least $112,000 but that is not a full accounting.

“That’s just one way Amazon seeks to obscure just how lavishly it is being subsidized. It is very odd that Amazon’s own press release includes information about its economic development incentives. Such information normally comes only from governors or mayors. It suggests Amazon is trying hard to control the narrative about the cost-benefit numerator, i.e., to minimize the perceived subsidy costs while maximizing the benefits.

“Besides the cost-benefit sleight of hand, the company’s press release mentions but fails to price-tag three large New York subsidies. One is the Relocation and Employment Assistance Program. REAP gives companies a per-employee tax credit of $3,000 per year for up to 12 years, and Amazon projects hiring 25,000 employees. Accordingly, the New York City press release puts the REAP cost at $897 million.

“The second downplayed tax break is the City’s Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP), which, like REAP is an ‘as of right,’ or automatic subsidy that a company receives simply by performing an eligible activity. ICAP partially abates property taxes for up to 25 years, an enormous subsidy if Amazon builds $3.6 billion worth of space, as projected. The City estimates the ICAP subsidy at $386 million.

“Third, New York is also granting Amazon a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), in which, akin to a tax increment financing district, some of Amazon’s property taxes will be diverted away from the city’s general fund and instead be used to enhance the project area, further enhancing Amazon’s property value. Neither Amazon’s statement nor the City estimated the value of this subsidy, which could also reach nine figures.

“Separately, The State award under the Excelsior program is projected at $1.525 to $1.7 billion.

“Neither Amazon or New York’s press release mentions the fact that the Long Island City project site is in an Opportunity Zone, so that high net-worth individuals who have large unrealized capital gains (e.g., long-term Amazon shareholders) can invest in the project and avoid federal capital gains tax. We have no estimate of this cost.

“Similarly, the Amazon press release omits an entire new campus close to its Arlington site, announced today by Virginia Tech University. It will cost $1 billion and ‘was part of the higher education package affiliated with the proposal that led to the selection of Crystal City in Northern Virginia as one of the two new Amazon headquarters locations,’ according to a Virginia Tech press release.

“These four omissions alone—REAP, ICAP, PILOT and the Virginia Tech campus— push the taxpayer costs of the two deals to an unknown level above $4.6 billion, and we are not at all satisfied that such costs are yet fully disclosed.

“We urge public officials to fully disclose the costs and terms of every single form of HQ2 and HQ3 subsidization. New York also states that $2.4 billion in infrastructure improvements have recently been announced in Long Island City.

“Finally, this decision looks like textbook Site Location 101 and a teachable moment about the zero-sum “economic war among the states.” To no surprise, Amazon chose two deep pools of executive talent and political power: the nation’s financial capital and its government capital. The 238-city competition clearly looks to have been a cynical ploy to gin up pressure for more tax breaks on the finalist cities and states. The Virginia location is very close to the Pentagon, perhaps its most profitable client. And as Prof. Scott Galloway has noted, Amazon’s three headquarters will be an average of just 6.4 miles from CEO Jeff Bezos’ three residences.

“The cities making the biggest known subsidy offers did not win the deal: Montgomery County, Maryland at $8.5 billion; St. Louis at $7.3 billion; or Newark at $7 billion. But the pressure of those and other big subsidy offers helped Amazon once again get paid to do what it apparently would have done anyway. The same is true of $1.6 billion in subsidies it has gotten to build data centers and warehouses, even though it must have such facilities to fulfill its cloud-computing and Prime business plans.

“To the 235 places that ‘lost’ HQ2, we also have a message: disclose your first-round bids for HQ2. They are not covered by non-disclosure agreements. You put enormous amounts of time and money into developing these proposals and now they should be repurposed. Toronto disclosed its proposal long ago; it has been downloaded 17,200 times and has helped attract other tech employers.

“We are pleased to learn that Pennsylvania finally capitulated to Freedom of Information litigation and disclosed elements of its offer made in support of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. As we had suspected per our recent article, the state’s offer included a “paying taxes to the boss” subsidy in which Amazon would have kept some of the HQ2 employees’ state personal income taxes, presumably without the employees’ knowledge or consent.

Good Jobs First’s Amazon resources are visible at:https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/amazon .

Editor’s note: Good Jobs First, founded 20 years ago, is a non-profit, non-partisan research group on economic development subsidies. Home to Subsidy Tracker and Subsidy Tracker 2, Good Jobs First has been honored as the leading voice for Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 77 on Tax Abatement Disclosures, the first government accounting rule on revenue lost to corporate tax breaks.
 
Will be interesting to see if they end up somewhere else or maybe add to their Virginia commitment. That said, New York offers at least one thing, and it's probably the most significant thing, to Amazon that Georgia can't - it's New York, and Georgia isn't. That's why this whole publicized bid thing was such a sham. Amazon picked two of the biggest, wealthiest areas in America for it's HQ2 largely because of reasons other than subsidies, talent, and all the other nonsense everyone mistakenly thought they cared about. What they care about is location and proximity to power. New York and Virginia offer both.
They want to suckle off the teat of the government and, by extension, taxpayers. They’re no different than your garden-variety military contractor.
 
They want to suckle off the teat of the government and, by extension, taxpayers. They’re no different than your garden-variety military contractor.

What's funny is it could have went like this:

Amazon: Hey, NoVA and NYC - what are you willing to give us? Calgary will change it's name (boner!).

NoVA: Nothing. Maybe you pay us?

NYC: Same.

Amazon......Ok. Done.
 
way to complex of an issue....clearly, the mayors and governors worked together to come up with incentives to land this deal. Some where of the tax variety. Some were infrastructure. Some were simply logistics. You have to assume this was a good deal for NY because they made the offer. People who come in and protest this simply have no idea how businesses and governments work. If the process was corrupt, that is another thing. But nobody has shown any evidence of corruption.

In the end, I'd be happy to enjoy the tax base and increase in property values here in CLE should Amazon decide to second day ship 25,000 jobs to the area.

You say that now as what sounds like a current home/property owner, but be careful what you wish for. Try being thirty and landing more than a studio in places like DC, Boston, NY. You better make $100k minimum and hope you don’t have student loans. It’s a hugely short sighted gain. Your kids would have to live in Ashtabula to afford housing. You can’t get into a decent house in a good school district within 30 miles of these cities without paying $500k.
 
I think Bezos's ego was bruised. He wants the adoration and love deserving of an economic savior - when he realized it wasn't happening, he cut tail and ran. On one hand, I don't blame him. Whatever issues I had with Amazon picking NoVA and NYC, it wasn't because I didn't think jobs and development are important (it's because I live in NoVA and already dread traffic, and because I think investment in anywhere other than NYC and DC is a smart move for Amazon and for America). How much you want to bet he plops an HQ in Ireland or something? Really stick it to NYC.

Agree...but NY is clearly one of the LAST place you'd go for business right now given taxation, location, politics, real estate costs, cost of living...etc. So it had to be something else. If you went to CLE or Pitt or Indy you'd be hailed as a conquering hero even if you did something like sending dic pix to your friends wife. So, my speculation is that it was influence.

66mN.gif
 
You say that now as what sounds like a current home/property owner, but be careful what you wish for. Try being thirty and landing more than a studio in places like DC, Boston, NY. You better make $100k minimum and hope you don’t have student loans. It’s a hugely short sighted gain. Your kids would have to live in Ashtabula to afford housing. You can’t get into a decent house in a good school district within 30 miles of these cities without paying $500k.
Its a good point. But if you are a home owner, you can ride it up, move, and make a ton. Renting is another story. Locally, property values have taken a hit due to the increase in property taxes along with limits to deductions of property taxes on your federal return. However, directionally, adding 25,000 jobs is a good thing for most people, while a hinderance to some.
 
I have a new policy...no politics and only three posts in a thread. Time to bail out on this before it gets ugly!

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
why should hugely profitable businesses get tax breaks anyway? I thought they were all about the free market

let's give folks like cops, teachers, cab drivers and plumbers the breaks


Oh yes please lets give the Union jobs additional breaks on top of their taxpayer funded bloated salaries and ridiculous pensions. (sarcasm)
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT