Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder if Cuomo will pull it off going back in?
An awful lot of the leeching political class are counting on big number jobs for family and friends.

He won't. How could he without even more incentives? In the end NYC will just give the grant away to a less deserving company so there will be no savings either.

Cuomo pretty much admitted that it's not an attempt to actually lure back Amazon. He's trying to tell other big corporations that the State is still willing to play ball.

That said, I don't see how Amazon is "more deserving" than any other company.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder if Cuomo will pull it off going back in?
An awful lot of the leeching political class are counting on big number jobs for family and friends.

He won't. How could he without even more incentives? In the end NYC will just give the grant away to a less deserving company so there will be no savings either.

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder if Cuomo will pull it off going back in?
An awful lot of the leeching political class are counting on big number jobs for family and friends.

fikonj wrote:
The observant reader will also see that numbers 3, 4, 6 and 7 on the Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses industry list are also Amazon companies...

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[quote]
Dude, there is no capital in some hidden account being handed over. The REAP and ICAP funds were refundable tax credits that Amazon would have been given.

OK then. It's a $500 million grant (not a tax cut) plus $1.2 billion in tax cuts not connected to the number of jobs, plus $1.2 billion linked to job cuts. Happy now?

We should note that tax cuts are not actually a free lunch. That is only the case if it is evident that there is no other way those tax revenues would be generated, which is definitely not the case -- unless you believe that HQ 2.5 would have imported most or all of its 25,000 of its hires from out of state, and that the lot will lie fallow for decades now that Amazon has decided not to build there.

We should also note that the claims about "$27.5 billion in tax revenues!!!" are, well... exaggerated. Where did the claim originate, by the way? In two economic impact statements, one released to the public (NY State) and one not (NYC).

Roughly speaking, half is NYC tax revenues, half is NY State tax revenues. It's over a 24 year period -- and the headline number does not account for inflation. The authors of the NY State report, however, did use 2019 dollars, and said NY State would get around $9 billion before the impact of tax cuts. So, right off the bat we can cut it to approximately $20 billion.

One big problem is that those statements were based on Amazon only opening only one additional headquarters, with a staff of 40,000. Instead, Amazon chose to open two HQs, and hire 25,000 employees in NYC. So, unless Amazon plans to hire 15,000 employees more than it originally planned, we can further cut the total to roughly $12 billion.

Aaaand.... That figure doesn't include the incentives. Again, about $1.7 billion is not linked to the number of jobs. We'll reduce the job-linked tax credits to $720m. So, now we are down to about $9 billion.

Guess what? Amazon says it's going to add 5000 employees to NYC anyway, with no tax breaks. Almost none of the expected income is corporate taxes (surprise!), it's income and sales taxes on employees. That means Amazon's additional workforce will still pay another $1.25 billion in taxes. So, now we are down to $7.75 billion. Over 24 years.

Let's shave off another chunk, shall we? The reality is that Amazon wasn't going to put HQ2.5 in Oneonta, meaning they weren't going to import 25,000 new employees to NY (city and/or state); in fact, a big reason why they wanted to open another HQ in NYC is because the techie employees they want are already here and/or were already planning to move to NYC. And they weren't $150k/yr jobs for high school grads; Amazon wants highly educated employees, the kind that have no problem finding work in NYC today. So, what are we down to now? Maybe $4 billion in additional tax revenues over 24 years, based on $2 billion in subsidies? Somehow, Amazon fleeing because it didn't want to tolerate unions doesn't seem like such a huge loss.

Ultimately, it seems pretty clear that Amazon needs NYC far, far more than NYC needs Amazon.

I will say there is no guarantee that those funds will be used for future job development. However, it's clear that lots of people just grabbed a big number and ran with it, without bothering to even think about it.

bodhipooh wrote:
[quote]
Dude, there is no capital in some hidden account being handed over. The REAP and ICAP funds were refundable tax credits that Amazon would have been given.

Dolomiti wrote:
Unsurprisingly, AOC flipped the script on her billboard critics, pointing out that it's funded by billionaires (notably the Mercers, big Trump backers), who are clearly not trying to reach local Queens / New Yorkers with a billboard in Times Square.

http://gothamist.com/2019/02/21/aoc_times_square_billboard.php

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

slim26 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Tax revenue 27 billion, tax break generated from that 3 billion. AOC is as stupid about math as she is on everything else.

Why, because she doesn't think NYC should bend over backwards for a corporate behemoth?

This was not a free lunch. Amazon was not gifting NYC with billions in tax revenues. See post #153 above.

No, its because she stated she would rather spend "the capital" elsewhere. There is no capital, Amazon is the capital, and the tax breaks were future breaks that hinge on their job creation numbers. BU cum laude degree in economics apparently isn't worth all that much.

Hopefully she was a better bartender - she should go back to working for tips.

And I'm a liberal.

You also happen to be wrong.

There definitely was capital involved. In fact, $1.8 billion is NOT tax breaks, it is actual outlays from NYC and NY to Amazon:

Amazon will receive $897 million from the city’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) and $386 million from the Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP). It will receive an additional $505 million in a capital grant and $1.2 billion in “Excelsior” credits if its job creation goals are met. That brings the total amount of public funds granted to $2.988 billion—in other words, the city and state will pay Amazon $48,000 per job.
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098 ... ong-island-city-explained

And again, these grand plans have a way of not working out. Companies employ fewer people than promised, or the jobs aren't as good as promised, or they find ways to avoid paying taxes. Amazon even threatened to leave Seattle because it didn't want to pay a proposed tax.

Sounds like someone was paying attention....

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

slim26 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Tax revenue 27 billion, tax break generated from that 3 billion. AOC is as stupid about math as she is on everything else.

Why, because she doesn't think NYC should bend over backwards for a corporate behemoth?

This was not a free lunch. Amazon was not gifting NYC with billions in tax revenues. See post #153 above.

No, its because she stated she would rather spend "the capital" elsewhere. There is no capital, Amazon is the capital, and the tax breaks were future breaks that hinge on their job creation numbers. BU cum laude degree in economics apparently isn't worth all that much.

Hopefully she was a better bartender - she should go back to working for tips.

And I'm a liberal.

You also happen to be wrong.

There definitely was capital involved. In fact, $1.8 billion is NOT tax breaks, it is actual outlays from NYC and NY to Amazon:

Amazon will receive $897 million from the city’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) and $386 million from the Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP). It will receive an additional $505 million in a capital grant and $1.2 billion in “Excelsior” credits if its job creation goals are met. That brings the total amount of public funds granted to $2.988 billion—in other words, the city and state will pay Amazon $48,000 per job.
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098 ... ong-island-city-explained

And again, these grand plans have a way of not working out. Companies employ fewer people than promised, or the jobs aren't as good as promised, or they find ways to avoid paying taxes. Amazon even threatened to leave Seattle because it didn't want to pay a proposed tax.

Sounds like someone was paying attention....

slim26 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Tax revenue 27 billion, tax break generated from that 3 billion. AOC is as stupid about math as she is on everything else.

Why, because she doesn't think NYC should bend over backwards for a corporate behemoth?

This was not a free lunch. Amazon was not gifting NYC with billions in tax revenues. See post #153 above.

No, its because she stated she would rather spend "the capital" elsewhere. There is no capital, Amazon is the capital, and the tax breaks were future breaks that hinge on their job creation numbers. BU cum laude degree in economics apparently isn't worth all that much.

Hopefully she was a better bartender - she should go back to working for tips.

And I'm a liberal.

slim26 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Tax revenue 27 billion, tax break generated from that 3 billion. AOC is as stupid about math as she is on everything else.

Why, because she doesn't think NYC should bend over backwards for a corporate behemoth?

This was not a free lunch. Amazon was not gifting NYC with billions in tax revenues. See post #153 above.

No, its because she stated she would rather spend "the capital" elsewhere. There is no capital, Amazon is the capital, and the tax breaks were future breaks that hinge on their job creation numbers. BU cum laude degree in economics apparently isn't worth all that much.

Hopefully she was a better bartender - she should go back to working for tips.

And I'm a liberal.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Tax revenue 27 billion, tax break generated from that 3 billion. AOC is as stupid about math as she is on everything else.

Why, because she doesn't think NYC should bend over backwards for a corporate behemoth?

This was not a free lunch. Amazon was not gifting NYC with billions in tax revenues. See post #153 above.

Monroe wrote:
Tax revenue 27 billion, tax break generated from that 3 billion. AOC is as stupid about math as she is on everything else.

neverleft wrote:
.
(Times Square billboard)

135jc wrote:
Wow. Amazing like many here she still doesnt get it.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/20/alexandr ... t-understand-amazon-deal/

135jc wrote:
Wow. Amazing like many here she still doesnt get it.

https://nypost.com/2019/02/20/alexandr ... t-understand-amazon-deal/

Dolomiti wrote:
The only people really getting screwed are the real estate speculators who thought they could screw Amazon employees by purchasing apartments now, and selling or renting high in a few years. A life lesson for those who think there is such a thing as a sure winner in real estate...

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Kurtmcdirt wrote:
If people read Amazon's statement they would see the part where Amazon says they already have 5,000 workers in NYC and they will add more. NYC is going to get the tax revenue from these workers and not have to give the world's richest man any incentives.

A good portion of those existing jobs are not the type of high paying jobs that would have come from having HQ2 here. The cumulative loss in salaries is almost 4 BILLION annually.

The state (and the city) bent over backwards because the the projected revenue from those 25K jobs would have paid for those incentives over time, and then some.

RichMauro wrote:
A large question remains to be answered: there were other cities and states offering quite a bit more in incentives. For instance, Newark had about six billion dollars in the pot. So why did Amazon choose the NY area? They had to know that Unions were going to scramble to get into their buildings (they're presently trying to organize a hundred million dollar Staten Island distribution center). When this thing is looked at under closer scrutiny I've a feeling that more reasoning of a personal nature (read Bezos) will come to light. There's more than meets the eye and good investigative journalism will uncover it.

RichMauro wrote:
A large question remains to be answered: there were other cities and states offering quite a bit more in incentives. For instance, Newark had about six billion dollars in the pot. So why did Amazon choose the NY area? They had to know that Unions were going to scramble to get into their buildings (they're presently trying to organize a hundred million dollar Staten Island distribution center). When this thing is looked at under closer scrutiny I've a feeling that more reasoning of a personal nature (read Bezos) will come to light. There's more than meets the eye and good investigative journalism will uncover it.