Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 131
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,953
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    The move would have been a net positive in tax revenue for the city. As others have said, there were stipulations that amazon had to achieve in order to receive that tax break.

    Also, let me explain what a “tax break” is.... a tax break mean amazon is paying taxes to the city. Not to mention, all those new employees, making good wages, would be taxed as well. In order to receive a tax break, you have to generate tax revenues. So now the city has X in tax revenue. Amazon would have generated an additional $27.5 Billion to that and received a $3 billion tax break. Meaning NYC would now have an additional $24.5 billion in tax revenue. Now they only have X in revenue. This is really simple math.

    I got my numbers because a study commissioned by Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office found that Amazon's presence in New York City would generate $27.5 billion in tax revenue for the state and the city - much more than the incentives.

    So overall the city lost jobs and billions in tax revenue so some politicians could stand on their soap box. Amazon simply found another location. That didn’t lose in the deal. I believe if cities are intelligent they will give tax breaks/incentives to large corporations. Otherwise, when lose corporations move overseas, don’t cry foul.

    The NFL is a different entity. Often, they have leases or contracts with the cities they reside in. They often try to break those leases in order to put pressure on their cities. That being said, they do drive up the tax revenue for a city and contribute to the overall economy as well.

    And crystal city is about 10 mins (5 miles) outside DC so not really a much smaller location...

    So if you have enough money you don't follow the same set of rules as everyone else and get to negotiate them as you go? You also get to go straight the governor to get construction approved etc and don't have to deal with the locals? I understand that there has to be balance between pragmatism and idealism but NYC is doing well (we are not talking about Flint Mi or NYC when Trump made the deals Sluggo mentioned) perhaps it was an appropriate time to say no, try to develop in a way that wouldn't uproot people, and at least pay some lip service to our ideals.
    Last edited by ewing; 12-09-2019 at 11:31 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




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

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,985
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Name someone who doesn't vote base on their household needs? Even the rich vote on their household(s) needs.
    A lot of wealthy people vote democrat which will, if their plans are implemented, cost them money. They are voting their morals rather than for their household needs since their needs are already covered. At least that's my take on it.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    A lot of wealthy people vote democrat which will, if their plans are implemented, cost them money. They are voting their morals rather than for their household needs since their needs are already covered. At least that's my take on it.
    I don’t know. Seems to me that wealthy mainstream Democrats are almost as protective of their own wealth as are wealthy mainstream Republicans.

    Maybe they talk the progressive road, but they do not seem to have walked it much recently (even when they had the chance in Obama’s first two years).

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Webslinger View Post
    Every giant company is here. Facebook, google, microsoft, etc. None needed subsidies and tax breaks, because they know they needed a HQ here in nyc, and that was more than enough incentive. But, please continue the talking point that amazon would have created a fictional 25k jobs, and now it's down to only 1500, LOL.
    Do you know this to be true? I bet there were subsidies, they just didn't make the news.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    I don’t know. Seems to me that wealthy mainstream Democrats are almost as protective of their own wealth as are wealthy mainstream Republicans.

    Maybe they talk the progressive road, but they do not seem to have walked it much recently (even when they had the chance in Obama’s first two years).
    Do you think Ben Affleck votes Republican?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Do you think Ben Affleck votes Republican?
    Where did you manage to come up with that from reading my post?

    Yes, Afflack is a wealthy Democrat. Not surprisingly, he supported Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton (a rogues gallery of mainstream, neoliberal, Wall Street Democrats whose policies had or would have had minimal negative effect on his wealth — or their own for that matter).

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Where did you manage to come up with that from reading my post?

    Yes, Afflack is a wealthy Democrat. Not surprisingly, he supported Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton (a rogues gallery of mainstream, neoliberal, Wall Street Democrats whose policies had or would have had minimal negative effect on his wealth — or their own for that matter).
    I get what you are saying, but the choices are Democrat or Republican, and based on what the politicians say the Dems would take more of Ben's money and yet he seems to be voting Dem based on what he says.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I get what you are saying, but the choices are Democrat or Republican, and based on what the politicians say the Dems would take more of Ben's money and yet he seems to be voting Dem based on what he says.
    There are other choices, just not viable ones under our system (which is dominated by wealth) and more evidence as to why it needs an overhaul.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    9,974
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerbang View Post
    Exactly. A lot of people vote republican, not because they're racist nazis, but because they're better with taxes. People in democrat run states get hammered with property taxes.
    No one ever said that they were racist nazis. And the republican run states who don't get hammer by property taxes tend to have poor healthcare, obesity, even crappier school system, and their citizens have a short life expectancy rates. I am willing to pay the extra for better services so my kids could have a healthy life and a decent education. It isn't about being smart about your taxes. It about being smart about the conditions you wish to raise your kids.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    9,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    I don’t know. Seems to me that wealthy mainstream Democrats are almost as protective of their own wealth as are wealthy mainstream Republicans.

    Maybe they talk the progressive road, but they do not seem to have walked it much recently (even when they had the chance in Obama’s first two years).
    Charles Barkley use to joke when he was poor and struggling he voted democrat, when he became wealthy, he became a republican.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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.
    First Bolded: By what actual measure?

    Second Bolded: Are you so naïve? Companies that make these deals have remarkably low thresholds and in almost every instance meet these artificially low points. If you think there was a chance on earth Amazon wasn't going to receive the tax breaks if they moved their regardless of what they brought to the city, I don't think you know how must of these deals go down.

    But that goes back to something I believe you talked about earlier in the thread, in that this is similar to all the tax breaks sports teams enjoy in exchange for the promise of increasing the economic activity of the area. Most studies show these to be gigantic financial burdens on the cities and the economic activity generated almost always pales in comparison to how much tax incentives and money the cities must pay.

    Not to mention we just had the whole taxable income being stashed overseas argument at the beginning of Trump's presidency. Essentially, the only money NYC was likely going to receive was the income/sales taxes from the new employees, because in all actuality they were probably going to receive very little from Amazon itself (which Amazon knew all along).

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    According to the article from the nation I posted Amazon said the average salary would have been 150,000 and Amazon did not want to pledge to any local hiring. Where did you get the 50,000 number from? They would have been good jobs they were also out of the range of locals at 150.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I read somewhere that the average low-end jobs would be $40-50k on average. That makes sense considering executives make more. Not to mention, in building a new facility/area there would be countless indirect jobs associated with the construction that would be well within range of the community.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    12,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    So if you have enough money you don't follow the same set of rules as everyone else and get to negotiate them as you go? You also get to go straight the governor to get construction approved etc and don't have to deal with the locals? I understand that there has to be balance between pragmatism and idealism but NYC is doing well (we are not talking about Flint Mi or NYC when Trump made the deals Sluggo mentioned) perhaps it was an appropriate time to say no, try to develop in a way that wouldn't uproot people, and at least pay some lip service to our ideals.
    Organizations who bring what Amazon brings, typically get very good tax breaks. The US in competing for those jobs. If not, they can easily go elsewhere.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,953
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Organizations who bring what Amazon brings, typically get very good tax breaks. The US in competing for those jobs. If not, they can easily go elsewhere.
    You could of just said “yes” [emoji3]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,953
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    I read somewhere that the average low-end jobs would be $40-50k on average. That makes sense considering executives make more. Not to mention, in building a new facility/area there would be countless indirect jobs associated with the construction that would be well within range of the community.
    That is true but those construction jobs would not be permanent and would not effect the other potential collateral effects that worried locals (getting prices out etc)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •