• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NYC Screws The Pooch: Goodby 25,000 Jobs With Their Pay

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
In addition to the 25,000 jobs, Amazon would've brought $2.5 billion in Amazon investment and eventually 8 million square feet of office space to Long Island City as part of its investment announced last November. The Seattle-based company said it would have generated "incremental tax revenue of more than $10 billion over the next 20 years as a result of Amazon’s investment and job creation."
OUCH!

I don't understand the opposition's position...

Amazon faced fierce opposition over the tax breaks it was offered in New York, with critics complaining that the project was an extravagant giveaway to one of the world's biggest companies and that it wouldn't provide much direct benefit to most New Yorkers.
I don't understand, 25,000 potential jobs is a game changer. And it's Amazon. There is no better financial anchor to invest in.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
OUCH!

I don't understand the opposition's position...


I don't understand, 25,000 potential jobs is a game changer. And it's Amazon. There is no better financial anchor to invest in.
It's corporate welfare. It's states competing for jobs instead of jobs competing for states. They get huge tax breaks despite the fact a company like Amazon can clearly and obviously do just fine without them. Indiana is really bad about doing that, and it's made the state into an ocean of low-paying jobs that offer little outside of manufacturing.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
It's corporate welfare.
I get it, but New York gets something out of this, too. People will move to New York to work there, bringing taxes with them. More employment isn't a terrible thing, is it?
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
It's corporate welfare. It's states competing for jobs instead of jobs competing for states. They get huge tax breaks despite the fact a company like Amazon can clearly and obviously do just fine without them. Indiana is really bad about doing that, and it's made the state into an ocean of low-paying jobs that offer little outside of manufacturing.

Amazon lowest paying jobs now start at $15/hour. Say goodbye to 25,000 New York state taxpayers ....


raw
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
People will move to New York to work there, bringing taxes with them.
Probably not enough to matter.
Corporations should play be the same rules. States don't compete for us, they don't give us lucrative tax breaks to move, why should an entity who does not need the tax break get them? If they want a new place, like everybody else they should pay for it on their own.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's corporate welfare. It's states competing for jobs instead of jobs competing for states. They get huge tax breaks despite the fact a company like Amazon can clearly and obviously do just fine without them. Indiana is really bad about doing that, and it's made the state into an ocean of low-paying jobs that offer little outside of manufacturing.
I'd like to see it be illegal for government to give tax breaks to particular companies.
To give deals to some companies, but not to others....ripe for corruption.
States & cities should compete by providing a generally attractive business climate.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
States & cities should compete by providing a generally attractive business climate.
They states and cities should also be able to ask "why are you coming here?" instead of the corporation asking them "why should I come here?" Really, a state like Indiana should demand any company wanting to come in to explain how it will provide jobs for the college grads it can't keep. But, instead, it hands out the big bucks, in the form of tax breaks, to get legions of manufacturing jobs in while loosing about half of all it's college grads (per degree, the state is so bad it only manages to keep about 25% of its engineering grads). And it hurts the state because basically it means the state is subsidizing the education of a workforce who is not going to stay.
New York is better than that. They don't need that. They need to keep attracting jobs the "old fashioned way" rather than sucking up to a welfare whore.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Well it appears that NYC has screwed the pooch, and the thanks can go in a great part to AOC and her minions. Virginia says thanks.

That's a nice, right-wing political rant. And I do agree that NYC is out of whack. but here are some facts about the history and the one who really had the power to kill the project:

Liberal Activists Didn’t Kill the Amazon Deal. Robert Moses Did.

The most lasting legacy of New York’s power broker is that it’s now impossible to build anything in the city.
...
It wasn’t always like this. Before Gov. Hugh Carey agreed to give the state assembly and senate the power to veto any major public project through the PACB—a deal he made in 1976 in a desperate but successful attempt to keep the New York from dissolving into bankruptcy—generations of men like Moses regularly dictated the terms of every public development. But today, even the combined power of the governor and mayor was unable to face down obstruction from Michael Gianaris, the state senate’s PACB appointment, a man who happened to represent the area where Amazon wanted to locate its new campus. Like Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2005 proposal to build an Olympic Stadium on Manhattan’s West Side, this little-known public functionary proved an unbreachable barrier.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That too would mean corruption.
Companies would bribe for permission because they'd be
treated individually, rather than generally.
Instead, all they should need to do is meet applicable laws.
Why shouldn't the state expect that an incoming business will serve the purpose of bettering the people of the state? Why shouldn't they ask how they plan to do that?
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Probably not enough to matter.
Corporations should play be the same rules. States don't compete for us, they don't give us lucrative tax breaks to move, why should an entity who does not need the tax break get them? If they want a new place, like everybody else they should pay for it on their own.
That’s patently false. People change states based on tax issues all the time.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Why shouldn't the state expect that an incoming business will serve the purpose of bettering the people of the state? Why shouldn't they ask how they plan to do that?
Because they'd apply different standards based upon whims, bribes, NIMBYs, etc, etc.
Tis better to have a body of laws which apply to all. Then a business need only obey
the law & be profitable....no official will demand payment for permission to exist.
Similarly, no business wanting exceptions to laws will attempt to bribe officials.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Because they'd apply different standards based upon whims, bribes, NIMBYs, etc, etc.
Tis better to have a body of laws which apply to all. Then a business need only obey
the law & be profitable....no official will demand payment for permission to exist.
Similarly, no business wanting exceptions to laws will attempt to bribe officials.
In a healthy and unhealthy society, there really is no getting rid of those things. Even if you lop the heads of complainers off, more will complain yet.
 
Top