Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 131
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    91,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    No, but the argument against it was all about the money, so a dollar more would be opposite of a losing deal.

    The question really about the amazon proposed plan vs what actually goes in that space taking all of the money into account (corporate taxes, property taxes, income taxes, business to local shops, taxi revenue, real estate, future deals that are made possible by having Amazon there, etc). It requires some speculation, and it's entirely possible they never hit their target numbers of employees as DB said, but it's also possible they exceed them ... all of that compared to what they get to replace Amazon in that space. I'm fine with them choosing not to bend over for Amazon, but I think calling THIS a win is ... well ... a lie.
    When has this ever happened? The same argument gets made with new sports stadiums and never comes to fruition. I find it very odd to believe that there would have been more jobs than promised when Amazon only created about 1,500 jobs without the tax benefits they negotiated as opposed to the fanciful 25,000 that was discussed. If the 23,500 jobs that didn't get created would have happened with the massive tax cuts and benefits that were negotiated, then as soon as those benefits were reduced or removed, would they have just faded away?
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    No, but the argument against it was all about the money, so a dollar more would be opposite of a losing deal.

    The question really about the amazon proposed plan vs what actually goes in that space taking all of the money into account (corporate taxes, property taxes, income taxes, business to local shops, taxi revenue, real estate, future deals that are made possible by having Amazon there, etc). It requires some speculation, and it's entirely possible they never hit their target numbers of employees as DB said, but it's also possible they exceed them ... all of that compared to what they get to replace Amazon in that space. I'm fine with them choosing not to bend over for Amazon, but I think calling THIS a win is ... well ... a lie.
    There were other arguments against it some did not address net financial gain or lose at all. Otherwise I agree


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    9,979
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Except the thing they were holding out for was a tax break, not a hand out, they would only get the money AFTER paying taxes, plus there is all the taxes on the employees, including payroll taxes and income taxes the city lost out on.
    It was a terrible decision.
    How can you say that when NYC got a better deal by holding out? Sears put that same con on Chicago got the lower tax deal and still didn't give out that many jobs (under 500). I wish Chicago had an AOC, we would get a better deal like NYC did.

    Do you normally fall for right-wing bs like this? These businesses are trying to con cash strapped cities out of paying their fair share of taxes. The money the city doesn't get from them they will get from the peons or give fewer services.
    Last edited by WES445; 12-08-2019 at 02:51 PM.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,132
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    How can you say that when NYC got a better deal by holding out? Sears put that same con on Chicago got the lower tax deal and still didn't give out that many jobs (under 500). I wish Chicago had an AOC, we would get a better deal like NYC did.

    Do you normally fall for right-wing bs like this? These businesses are trying to con cash strapped cities out of paying their fair share of taxes. The money the city doesn't get from them they will get from the peons or give fewer services.
    This is a stupid post. They got a better deal by holding out? Yeah they only lost many numerous jobs and potential financial gains from it. They won big time!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,737
    Amazon is precisely what’s wrong.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    This is a stupid post. They got a better deal by holding out? Yeah they only lost many numerous jobs and potential financial gains from it. They won big time!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So it definitely wouldn't have been an Ashley furniture situation then.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,133
    QUOTE=Brewersfan255;33287049]This is a stupid post. They got a better deal by holding out? Yeah they only lost many numerous jobs and potential financial gains from it. They won big time!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


    Ba ba boom. Ba da bing!!!![

    And people keep skirting around how the main deal that we blew would have changed an entire area of NYC for generations to come.

    We screwed this up…big time.

    And would everyone feel a little better if we said "a lot of jobs" instead of "25,000 jobs?" You now, like we changed "global warming to "climate change" soon to be called something else more palatable.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,960
    Brown lady bad?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,960

    Amazon moves to NYC despite *not* receiving $3 billion in tax-funded subsidies

    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    QUOTE=Brewersfan255;33287049]This is a stupid post. They got a better deal by holding out? Yeah they only lost many numerous jobs and potential financial gains from it. They won big time!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Ba ba boom. Ba da bing!!!![

    And people keep skirting around how the main deal that we blew would have changed an entire area of NYC for generations to come.

    We screwed this up…big time.

    And would everyone feel a little better if we said "a lot of jobs" instead of "25,000 jobs?" You now, like we changed "global warming to "climate change" soon to be called something else more palatable.[/QUOTE]





    Adding 25,000 jobs over 10 to 15 years to an area that had added 200,000 over the past tens years might not be a needed or positive transformation. Overall this may have been a deal that would have benefited NYC- I’m leaning that way though I understand while locals would have been against it and also understand people have philosophical issues with it. Regardless I think you are you are going over board bc you hate the brown lady


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 12-08-2019 at 09:30 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,995
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    When has this ever happened? The same argument gets made with new sports stadiums and never comes to fruition. I find it very odd to believe that there would have been more jobs than promised when Amazon only created about 1,500 jobs without the tax benefits they negotiated as opposed to the fanciful 25,000 that was discussed. If the 23,500 jobs that didn't get created would have happened with the massive tax cuts and benefits that were negotiated, then as soon as those benefits were reduced or removed, would they have just faded away?
    In what you bolded I literally was softening the language by saying it's just possible, int the first part of the sentence I said it's entirely possible they never do. I don't know why you pick such a soft non-position to argue.

    I don't know every deal made by every municipality with some sweetener to a company, but I'm sure they have been exceeded some just as I am sure they have not been exceeded some. My point was this deal didn't need to meet or exceed the estimate to still be a good deal for the municipality ... the question is what is the deal they get to replace it for that space ... does the municipality make more money in the end after all things are factored in when comparing the Amazon deal and whatever replaces it ... so far it's looking like a pretty big loss to not get the Amazon deal.

    You seem to be assuming that this new Amazon tenancy is the same as the previous one. This is not a second HQ like the other deal was setup to be. They are still going forward with the other location ... they were looking at 55k employees for their 3 new locations, some of those "lost" jobs are moving to the other new locations, some have gone to other existing locations.

    There were 3500 Amazon workers in NY already, now there are going to be 5000, but it's not any part of the other deal.

    The tax benefits were conditional and wouldn't have happened if Amazon didn't earn them.

    And this was far from AOC's most shining moment ... she wanted to take the non-existent $3B and build houses with it ... how is she going to spend money that isn't coming in because the newly created office building and the surrounding hanger on businesses are not there to earn the money to owe the tax to earn the credits? Just amazing.

    Again, I have no issue with someone deciding they don't want their municipality to be changed by big business, let alone facilitate it financially ... more power to them. But from a money perspective and from a PR perspective ... AOC and NY lost there.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,995
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    There were other arguments against it some did not address net financial gain or lose at all. Otherwise I agree
    Sure. I totally get the idea of not wanting rent to go up, wanting to keep the big dog down as long as possible to put off the death of mom and pop, not wanting the traffic, not wanting the restaurants and stores to go hipster, parking, etc.

    And, unfortunately for Mom and Pop the big box stores that did most of the damage to them are outmatched too. And online shopping is already in NYC in a big way.

    The only reason I'm limiting it to the money is because AOC talked so much about the money.

    I've lived in a few places that ended up being "gentrified", and as far as I can see there isn't really a way to stop it and not have the people who had made up the community slowly getting priced out. Rent control doesn't do it, regulation doesn't stop it once it's started, and you can't keep it from starting without ignoring crime and letting it run rampant, and even that's not enough to always stop it. Cities are stupid expensive and they keep growing in population faster than they grow in residences and services and with scarcity comes rising prices, and rising prices brings money, and money brings gentrification and even higher prices.

    So, yeah, I understand there were other issues than just the money.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    91,143
    Maybe I'm crazy but I don't believe that Amazon wouldn't have gotten the money had they failed to live up to their end of the deal. I imagine that they wrote the bill and handed it to the legislature for passage.
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Amazon is precisely what’s wrong.
    I can see that argument because I like quality products in a quality store, but people not supporting them isn't Amazon's fault. And Amazon hasn't been particularly predatory to competing businesses in their policies.

    Great customer service, great prices, low relative overhead, as well as the killer which is that they actually sell some really great products too ... something Walmart has a harder time doing because of their "cheap" reputation. But if it wasn't Amazon selling everything online it would be any number of other companies. Walmart most likely ... except for the great customer service and quality products.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,995
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    So it definitely wouldn't have been an Ashley furniture situation then.
    Any deal can go to ****. The Amazon deal had no chance of losing NYC $3B which is the number thrown around a lot.
    Last edited by Scoots; 12-08-2019 at 10:56 PM. Reason: typo

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    29,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I don't think she negotiated anything, she got some small part of the population riled up, got the media to talk about it, and made it not worth it for Amazon to put up with it.

    Google offered free unlimited internet to everyone in San Francisco. San Francisco made it such a pain in the *** that Google decided not to do it. It's not that they couldn't do it, nor was them not doing it good for San Francisco or the people there ... but I'm sure some people on the SF city council decided that it meant that they "won". They COULD have saved their citizens literally hundreds of millions of dollars with, from what I could see from looking at the contract, no downside to SF. All Google wanted was access to the city utility poles to install equipment ... no cost to SF, Google was even going to pay for the power for the wireless units.

    It sure looks to me like, in this case, NYC lost in the end. AOC didn't get Amazon's business out of NYC, they were there already, they were just looking for another place for administrative offices, and those will find a place elsewhere it seems.
    Oh maybe not, I dont really know any details

    I was just tryina irk sluggo
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •