Amazon Is Getting More Than $2 Billion For NYC, Virginia Expansions (arstechnica.com) 105
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Over the last year, Amazon has dangled in front of cities the possibility that they could host the company's "second headquarters" -- a massive $5 billion facility that would provide 50,000 white-collar jobs. On Tuesday, Amazon confirmed what had been widely reported: nobody would be getting this massive prize. Instead, the expansion would be split in half, with New York City and Arlington, Virginia, (just outside Washington, DC) each getting smaller facilities that will employ around 25,000 people each. Amazon's Seattle offices will continue to be the company's largest and will continue to be Amazon's headquarters by any reasonable definition. But pretending to have three "headquarters" undoubtedly makes it easier for Amazon to coax taxpayer dollars out of local governments. [...] The tactic seems to have worked, as governments in both locations have offered Amazon hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives to locate their new offices there. Virginia officials appear to have driven a harder bargain than their rivals in New York. Amazon says it's getting $1.5 billion in government incentives for its New York expansion, whereas Virginia is offering a comparatively modest $573 million in direct incentives.
What??? (Score:2)
Re:What??? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a massive scam and the cities in New York and Virginia are going to get anally raped by Amazon. Massive anal rapage. Just wait and see.
First, Amazon will go to Seattle and demand big tax breaks. If Seattle says no, Amazon will threaten to move out and take everything to one of their other locations. Once Amazon squeezes everything they can out of Seattle they'll do the same thing in New York, then they'll do it in Virginia. 100% Guaranteed.
But that's assuming Amazon actually builds these new headquarters. Foxconn is already backpedaling furiously on that factory in Wisconsin. Won't surprise me a bit if Amazon does the same. Once they land all those big juicy tax breaks, all that sweet taxpayer money, the actual number of people Amazon hires will keep going lower and lower.
50,000 people? 50,000 "high paying white collar jobs"? Doing what? What could Amazon possibly need an extra 50,000 people for? That's an extra $5 Billion a year in salaries, at least, probably more. On top of construction costs. For what?
Something smells.
And here's a thought: If the economy is as great as Republicans claim, if wages are up, as claimed, if unemployment is at an all time low, as claimed, why are cities so eager to throw Billions of dollars at Amazon, or Foxconn or any company that promises to create a few jobs?
Re:What??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Foxconn WI will just toll I-94 to get funds back (Score:2)
For Foxconn
WI will just toll I-94 to get funds back
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I heard the GAYpk signal... GAYpk (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when the Republicans lie to you that the Dems will raise taxes on the middle class, for things like this.
Bezos donates heavily, and has nice stories in the WaPo, written for them. All paid for by the middle class, weather they want to or not.
FTFY.
In the mean time it's the Republicans who are cutting taxes for people like Bezos, the Kochs, the Waltons, and all the other billionaires. It's okay to be a billionaire, but even the billionaires have to pay their fair share.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly? How about $417,321,568.37. Is that exact enough?
We elect Congress Critters to decide things like this. They're elected by the majority; usually. Except when the districts have been gerrymandered. Do you have a problem with decisions made by the majority?
But for starters I suggest the tax rates that were in effect when Reagan was president and the Republicans were in control of the Senate. I'd kinda think that if RonRon thought those rates were okay that the average Republican couldn't find too muc
Re: (Score:1)
but even the billionaires have to pay their fair share.
exactly how much is a "fair share"?
Oh boo hoo, another whiny Silicon Valley Republitard Venture Capitalist who thinks the combined Federal + State tax rate is too high at 50%.
in 1985, with Ronny Raygun in office and Bush Sr. was the Senate majority leader the top Federal Tax bracket was 50%. California's top tax bracket was 13%. Add in FICA and Medicare for a total of 70%.
Kinda makes Sweden and Netherlands rates of 50% look good, doesn't it? And that includes Health Care.
Fscking whiny bitches don't know how good they've got it now. Be glad y
Re: (Score:2)
Three words (Score:2)
Bait and switch
Can't the cities rescind their offers since Amazon isn't fulfilling it's end of the deal?
Or are these cities willing to settle for a shared prize?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing would actually be lost, since the headquarters weren't actually there yet anyways... too bad these cities didn't have the balls to stand up and say no, which would have forced Amazon into settling for a lot less from cities that might not have otherwise been in the running.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually in a display of common sense, Toronto and region refused to offer any 'incentives' (my 10 yr old kid is confused as to why they're not called bribes, and I'll grant her that it's a fine line, but Amazon never said paying the refs to choose you was against the rules, so incentives rather then bribes)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca]
Min
Re: Three words (Score:2)
Guess Toronto doesn't need any more jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
It might have been best for Toronto to not win. That city is too big and its suburbs are sprawling onto some of the most productive farmland into the country. Its infrastructure is not growing as fast as the population. I am not certain that it could handle much more growth at least not rapid growth. It's insane to consider living there with an income under $100K. If anything, Toronto dodged a bullet.
Re: (Score:2)
A lawsuit, obviously.
But the same wouldn't stop a city from rescinding its offer when Amazon started changing what it was offering first. I'm disappointed that more cities didn't have the balls to call Amazon on this shameless bait and switch tactic and make them have to settle for not getting anything from anyone, or certainly a whole lot less.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
...and the politicians buy into it wholeheartedly...
Of course they do, it's how your system of government is funded.
You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
Re:Should apply a federal tax to this kind of thin (Score:5, Interesting)
Federal Government should tax these 'gifts' from states to companies at 50%.
No, the federal government should use the commerce clause to ban these incentive payments. They are a corruption of free markets, and are a Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org]. Cities feel obligated to pay up because other cities are doing the same, but we would all be collectively better off if nobody did it. Preventing this kind of destructive race to the bottom is exactly what the commerce clause was designed to prevent.
The incentives are also, arguably, a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Why should Amazon get a sweetheart tax deal that is denied to other businesses?
Much of the rationale for these subsidies is that they "create jobs", which is mostly nonsense. NYC and DC already have very low unemployment, and even lower for people with the skills that Amazon desires. They also have limited housing, limiting the ability of new workers to move in. So Amazon will just suck workers from other companies, rather than creating net new employment, and some of those companies, deprived of their ability to find the workers they need, will move away.
Re:Should apply a federal tax to this kind of thin (Score:4, Insightful)
Run for Senate. Seriously.
You don't understand politics.
In the 2016 presidential election there were two candidates in favor of corporate welfare, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. Between the two of them, they got 94% of the vote.
There were two candidates opposed to corporate welfare, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Between the two of them, they got 4% of the vote.
Bill De Blasio and Andrew Cuomo are offering up these subsidies precisely because they are popular and win votes.
It is not the best policy that wins. It is the best policy that fits on a bumper sticker.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
not comparable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were candidate with problems.
Hillary and Donald were also candidates with problems.
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
So you want the federal government to treat corporations like people? Citizens United [supremecourt.gov] agrees with you on that!
Re: (Score:2)
Why only 50%? Make it 100% and stop this nonsense dead in its tracks.
Let Evers do it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let Evers do it!
What about Tinker and Chance?
Split decision (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping from Portland to Queens is more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Locating in northern Virginia makes sense -- all the internet hubs are there.
Seriously? All of them - there are no hums outside northern Virginia?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a business office, not a data center, so "internet hubs" is not particularly important. Also, "all the internet hubs" being in Virginia is at least 10-15 years out of date - there are large carrier hotels all over the US. "Age of Ultron" notwithstanding, all the Internet traffic doesn't go through any one place.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just N. Virginia. From what I understand, it is in Crystal City, Alexandria. Alexandria and Arlington compose the part of D.C. that isn't part of D.C. Look at the map, D.C. is a diamond bisected (more or less) by the Potomac. The land west of the Potomac is still in the diamond, but owned by Virginia, not technically part of D.C., the city. Anyhow, the point is that it will be expensive putting it there, and traffic is already really bad. In fact, U.S. government employees get a hefty "locality" pa
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, let's end every special deal to get companies to relocate in your state, shut down the economic development office in your state, and rather than invite corporations to locate in your state, dare them to build in your state.
That will get your state economy buzzing in no time - because you treat everyone so "fair."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Without thumbs on the scale in favor of some firms over others, states might be better able to balance their budgets or have lower taxes in the first place obviating the "need" to ignore collecting them for a select few.
The incentives didn't have much effect (Score:3)
Neighboring Newark offered $7 Billion, and Maryland offered $8 Billion. The fact Amazon turned $13 billion in additional incentive down only to locate less than 20 miles from those places shows how much the incentives actually matter. Gov Cuomo seemed surprised NY won, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They couldn't have picked a better place within NYC. 6+ subway lines, the Long Island Expressway, the Long Island Railroad all within easy reach. One of the few areas east of Manhattan that can support tall buildings. Brand new apartment towers that until now had so oversaturated the market, they had to give out free months of rent just to get takers (I guess it was preferred to do that over simply offering lower rents). Brand new hotels as well. Easy drive to their pick of two airports.
Heck if
Bezos world (Score:2)
Its BezosWorld we live in it.
Economic development grants et. al. subsidies do not build tax base. Cities, townships and counties well-intentioned denizens they are; do not drive development – period. At most, they give away tax base. Companies locate by need ordered priority based upon supply and demand.
D.C. supply of power
NYC supply of capital
That's $40K per job.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that they are new jobs, and not just displacing other employers to have the same 25k employees in each zone. After all, with unemployment at 3.5%, and with computer scientists having a lower unemployment rate in general, there probably aren't that many people to hire.
What a pittance (Score:3)
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was offering $4.6 billion [cbslocal.com] over 25 years. Needless to say, the top Republicans in the House and Senate were more than happy to use taxpayer money to prop up a failing private business while at the same time ignoring the $74 billion pension deficit created by another Republican, Tom Ridge.
You people need to get a grip. (Score:3)
Do you believe these cities are idiots who don't understand what they were doing? This is good for city finances. In NYC taxes alone they'll bring in $100M+ if the 100k salary average is correct. Taxes that will hopefully keep going up. Add to that the influx of every day spending to the city and taxes and fees collected. And the usage of 1M ft^2 of vacant office space. Next you have Amazon moving in a few miles from your most dilapidated airport in the city. Traffic issues? Well it was likely just as crappy when Citi was in the entire building. I doubt Amazon is going to pack it in at a 3:1 ratio over what Citi did.
I do get the unfair to competition aspect. But I'm not really sure who that may be that isn't negotiating their own tax breaks wherever they happen to be.
Not saying it's all rosy. But its far from the end of the world for Queens either.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. I base this on every previous incentive deal. Also, on sports stadiums.
Actually, it's more likely that politicians are knowingly screwing their constituents to get headlines they like.
93 million, if 100k each time 25k workers. Assuming they live in NYC. Which at 100k, isn't very certain at all. Probably a lot of commuters.
Re: (Score:1)
I was rounding. And at least know what you are talking about. If your salary comes from NYC you pay NYC payroll tax, commuter or not. This is part of the reason that NY sports players are generally payed more than other markets. They take a close to 4% hit over almost any other market whether they live in the city or not, though more complicated for them as salary earned for a game out of NYC doesn't get taxed.
Again rounding, but at $10/head for lunch that alone is $250k/day, which gets like a 10% tax as we
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe these cities are idiots who don't understand what they were doing?
No. I think they know exactly what they are doing. Making a deal with someone else's money so that they can advertise that they are "bringing in jobs".
Progress (Score:1)
Tax these subsidies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So according to you, they should be taxed at 120% and applies equally to businesses and individuals (to be fair, as per your own comment). Wow! Imagine all the money the government would make from welfare and other government subsidies alone! I think you just solved the government deficit problem! Genius.
Funny (Score:2)
Those times are gone, seems to be and everyone gets drunk on the $ symbol.