A consumer advocacy group filed the first lawsuit late Friday challenging President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration, suing on behalf of Texas landowners and an environmental group who say they'll be affected by border wall construction.
The case, filed by Public Citizen in federal district court in Washington, DC, is the first of what are expected to be multiple lawsuits challenging Trump's unprecedented decision to declare a national emergency in order to access $3.6 billion in military construction funds to pay for more sections of the wall he promised to build along the US–Mexico border.
........
The three landowners who are plaintiffs in the case said they were told by the federal government that sections of the wall would be built through their properties if funding became available in 2019 — they each said they'd received letters from Customs and Border Protection asking to come on their land to do an assessment. The other plaintiff, the Frontera Audubon Society, is located on a nature preserve in Texas and focuses its preservation efforts on the Rio Grande valley, and they claim that habitat would be harmed by border wall construction.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
And those 25,000 people can enjoy the sweat shop conditions in Amazon warehouses:
It never fails to amaze me just how many companies literally don't even allow you to take 3-5 minutes to TAKE A PISS without it destroying your metrics. I know because I had the same problem at the job I quickly abandoned prior to my current one. Nevermind that it was backbreaking. The worst part was that even something as simple as filling up my water bottle or taking a 60 second trip to the urinal could ruin your stats for the day. Not surprisingly, I learned before I left they have a nearly 80% turnover rate.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not, would have paid tons more tax money over the years than Amazon was getting in incentives. Well, the 'geniuses' in NYC can enjoy their nothing now. Too bad Detroit can't get back in the running...
I'm not sure it's been posted, didn't see it, but Trump said it wasn't an emergency during his emergency declaration. He said he didn't have to declare an emergency and the only reason he did was to build his stupid wall quicker.
No serious judge or person in general should take this clown as telling the truth about anything.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
And those 25,000 people can enjoy the sweat shop conditions in Amazon warehouses:
It never fails to amaze me just how many companies literally don't even allow you to take 3-5 minutes to TAKE A PISS without it destroying your metrics. I know because I had the same problem at the job I quickly abandoned prior to my current one. Nevermind that it was backbreaking. The worst part was that even something as simple as filling up my water bottle or taking a 60 second trip to the urinal could ruin your stats for the day. Not surprisingly, I learned before I left they have a nearly 80% turnover rate.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you end up in a shit job like that? You sound like a pretty intelligent guy to me.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not
This is exactly why the tax incentives were indefensible, and exactly why AOC was right to oppose them. All you're doing is paying a company to set up shop in one state instead of another state. That's not spending taxpayer dollars to promote business; that's spending taxpayer dollars to steal jobs from other states.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not
This is exactly why the tax incentives were indefensible, and exactly why AOC was right to oppose them. All you're doing is paying a company to set up shop in one state instead of another state. That's not spending taxpayer dollars to promote business; that's spending taxpayer dollars to steal jobs from other states.
Virginia's not complaining. Neither is Tennessee last I heard. Like I said, they can enjoy their glorious 'victory', just not with new tax revenues...
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
And those 25,000 people can enjoy the sweat shop conditions in Amazon warehouses:
It never fails to amaze me just how many companies literally don't even allow you to take 3-5 minutes to TAKE A PISS without it destroying your metrics. I know because I had the same problem at the job I quickly abandoned prior to my current one. Nevermind that it was backbreaking. The worst part was that even something as simple as filling up my water bottle or taking a 60 second trip to the urinal could ruin your stats for the day. Not surprisingly, I learned before I left they have a nearly 80% turnover rate.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you end up in a shit job like that? You sound like a pretty intelligent guy to me.
I got let go from a job I had held for two-years out of nowhere. I wasn't fired for cause (or, at least, my immediate boss wouldn't allow me to be fired for cause, since I think his one stipulation of carrying it out for upper management was that I was going to be able to get unemployment). I knew they were talking to consultants in back rooms, but had no idea I would ever be on the chopping block. Frankly, this is why I was so pissed the other day about the Activision/Blizzard thing. I'm sick of people in upper management and positions of power accepting responsibility for NOTHING. There is almost no case where shit doesn't run downhill.
So, long story short, since I was coming from a warehouse situation, I immediately latched onto the first place I could find. I knew within 3 days I had to get out of there, and set about the (rather long) process of finding the job I am at now. I don't think I could have managed one more day at the place I was at temporarily. I suppose the good news is is that I have already been given somewhat of a promotion at my new position (which has nothing to do with manual labor anymore). But I am now always wary about my situation and waiting for the other shoe to drop. I was positive I was untouchable at my shipping office job, not only because I didn't think they could manage to run the place without me, but because I hadn't missed a single day of work in 2 years despite having VERY good reasons to do so. Every ounce of time I took off was approved vacation I had coming to me. And I still had the floor dropped out from under me. So I don't trust anyone anymore. I don't blame my immediate boss, but HIS boss. He sold the company to all of us when it was very young as a place where loyalty would be a two-way street. And I think he WANTED to be in charge of that company. But in my meeting with him when we let go, I said "you're probably going to have to stop saying that to people coming in going forward, because we both know it's not true anymore". And he agreed.
But I suppose even that isn't as bad as ANOTHER previous job where I literally had a boss (the son of the company owner) blame me for something he personally did. The most infuriating situation in the world is when two people are in a room together, and the one of them in a position of power is lying right to your face because he knows he can. And the unspoken dialogue is that you both know what the truth is, but the person without the power can't do anything about it because their paycheck depends on not saying anything.
I keep forgetting this, but it's well-worth pointing out. Trump has only had a single portion of the government not be in his party's control for roughly 6 weeks. The VERY FIRST time he didn't get what he wanted, he shut down the government for over a month. Now, he has just decided to cut them out of the process altogether. This is not the result of, say, 6 years of constant bad faith (see almost the entire Obama Administration). It's a SINGLE issue, with a disagreement with a Congress that hasn't even been in power for 2 full months. If these are his reactions to the very first hint of pushback on his policies, what is he going to do the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th times he doesn't get his way?? This would be like if your child tried to set the house on fire the first time you gave them a strict bedtime. The REAL national emergency Trump and the Republicans think is occuring is that Democrats won the House. They don't view liberal governance as legitimate in any form. Trump went back to the same line I've been hearing for over 15 years today, which is that "real Americans" agree with him. What is the recourse for the left in this country when even winning elections isn't enough and the President thinks anyone who opposes him is not a citizen worthy of respect, but an enemy?? My main problem with the Republican Party is no longer even their policies, even though I hate almost all of them. My main issue is that I truly don't think they believe in democracy anymore. You can only throw even the most BASIC ideas set forth in the Constitution (like Presidents being able to name Supreme Court picks and Congress controlling how money is spent) in the shredder before I have no choice but to conclude that is the case.
Obama was very, very close to losing everything on the ACA in his first-term when Ted Kennedy died and Republican Scott Brown won the special election for his seat. If that had come to pass, if one Senate vote had went against him, do you have ANY idea what would have happened if he had decided to declare a national emergency to implement it?? The response from not only Republicans, but the national press in general would have been nothing short of nuclear. It would have been a Category 5 political hurricane that would have almost certainly gotten him impeached. But today?? It's just your average Friday in Trump world. The press is basically acting like this is somehow normal behavior we should be "discussing" instead of treating it like the obvious destruction of norms it is. I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone.
But I suppose the most obvious hypothetical parallel would have been if, after the Newtown massacre, Obama had declared a national emergency in regards to guns and ordered the military to start confiscating semi-automatic firearms. Such a move would have been viewed by many as nothing less than a declaration of Civil War. Those same people, today, are welcoming a precedent that opens the door for the this very type of thing the next time a Democrat takes the office.
At this point, we have had Nuremberg-like political rallies. We have declared an entire religion persona non-grata (and working to making ALL religions but one inferior according to law). We have made concentration camps for the children of one class of people. Now we've just had our Reichstag fire, with Trump saying Congress doesn't matter and we're in a state of emergency and he's going to bypass them.
Exactly how many parallels have to be drawn between Trump and Hitler before we decide enough is enough? When we're invading and annexing Mexico to put down "the drug problem"?
At this point, we have had Nuremberg-like political rallies. We have declared an entire religion persona non-grata (and working to making ALL religions but one inferior according to law). We have made concentration camps for the children of one class of people. Now we've just had our Reichstag fire, with Trump saying Congress doesn't matter and we're in a state of emergency and he's going to bypass them.
Exactly how many parallels have to be drawn between Trump and Hitler before we decide enough is enough? When we're invading and annexing Mexico to put down "the drug problem"?
Trump did, in his mostly incoherent rambling this morning, seem to advocate for the summary execution of drug dealers. He has previously praised Duterte on the subject, now he is praising the Chinese for the same.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not, would have paid tons more tax money over the years than Amazon was getting in incentives. Well, the 'geniuses' in NYC can enjoy their nothing now. Too bad Detroit can't get back in the running...
To recover $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives, the 25,000 jobs would need to generate $120,000 in new taxes, each. Let's assume those 25,000 jobs pay $50,000 each. For a NYC resident, the personal income tax would be $1,800. NYC has a total sales tax rate of 8.875%, assuming $25k of spending per year subject to sales taxes, that's another $2,200 in tax revenue, for a total of $4k per year per job. At that rate, it will take 30 years to recoup the $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives.
So, unless you're talking about 50-year returns (by which time, Amazon could move again or be bankrupt), I don't see NYC getting "tons more tax money over the years".
At this point, we have had Nuremberg-like political rallies. We have declared an entire religion persona non-grata (and working to making ALL religions but one inferior according to law). We have made concentration camps for the children of one class of people. Now we've just had our Reichstag fire, with Trump saying Congress doesn't matter and we're in a state of emergency and he's going to bypass them.
Exactly how many parallels have to be drawn between Trump and Hitler before we decide enough is enough? When we're invading and annexing Mexico to put down "the drug problem"?
Many parallels exist.
Yes this Reichstag fire power grab is just the latest one.
Hitler had the lying press, trump has "fake news"
Hitler was elected democratically with a minority of the vote, just like Trump.
Obviously hitler kept an enemies list and installed people in government that were loyal to himself over the country, just like Trump does.
Both are fake patriots, pretending that they and their ideals alone represent patriotism and everyone else that doesn't share their values is not a patriot. For trump it's "Conservative values" (which to him means loyalty to trump), for Hitler it was Nazi values.
Hitler didn't start out gassing jews and invading other countries - he worked his way up to it. Trump is working his way up to further bad behavior and government breaking actions.
Who'd have foreseen two years ago keeping kids in cages and losing them and not giving a shit about it. Who'd have foreseen phony emergencies and attempted coup by tweet of foreign countries - Iran and Venezuela which is seemingly being backed up by actual mustering of forces and logistics in both cases. Who would have thought America's highest official would prefer the company of Putin, Duetere, MBS, Un, Ergodan and other dictators over our allies? Who would have thought our President would prefer Putin's analysis over his own intelligence services?
Yes it's a slippery slope we've been on. Mitch McConnell and Republicans have been greasing the hill as we've been sliding down it. There is a point of no return. We're zooming along right towards it right now.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not, would have paid tons more tax money over the years than Amazon was getting in incentives. Well, the 'geniuses' in NYC can enjoy their nothing now. Too bad Detroit can't get back in the running...
To recover $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives, the 25,000 jobs would need to generate $120,000 in new taxes, each. Let's assume those 25,000 jobs pay $50,000 each. For a NYC resident, the personal income tax would be $1,800. NYC has a total sales tax rate of 8.875%, assuming $25k of spending per year subject to sales taxes, that's another $2,200 in tax revenue, for a total of $4k per year per job. At that rate, it will take 30 years to recoup the $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives.
So, unless you're talking about 50-year returns (by which time, Amazon could move again or be bankrupt), I don't see NYC getting "tons more tax money over the years".
It also starts a me too movement, where other companies will either threaten to leave or refuse to open shop unless they get the same deal Amazon did.
There is also this nice tidbit:
Cherise Burda, executive director of the Ryerson City Building Institute, said Amazon’s competition backfired, in part, because New York City is already, as Toronto is, booming economically.
“The challenges we face from all that growth are things like affordable housing and transit,” Burda said. “We need the types of corporate head offices that will help us solve these challenges and contribute to the common good, rather than take precious tax dollars that we need to invest in all of our infrastructure and social services.” From here.
Paul Manafort, a judge has now decided, willfully broke his plea deal with the Special Counsel, which could of at least given him a shot of getting out of jail while he is still alive. Now, since they have decided to recommend he serve anywhere from 20-25 years, that is simply not going to happen. Unless he is pardoned, Manafort is going to die in jail. But an expectation of a pardon cannot be the reason he so brazenly lied even AFTER striking the deal (and what he lied about was giving polling data to Kremlin agents). Who is really going to trust Donald Trump to the extent that they would put their freedom in his hands?? No, something else is at play here, and it's not just fear of what would happen in regards to reprisal from the White House. Whatever Manafort did during the campaign he won't come clean about is obviously so bad that if he actually decided to cooperate, someone was going to have him killed. It's the only explanation for why he would break this deal. He couldn't have possibly thought he wouldn't get caught.
CNN dug up a Interview with Trump on "FOX and Friends" in 2014, where Trump called "Declaring a National Emergency" on immigration "dangerous, unconstitutional and impeachable". I Found it pretty amusing, in a sad way. Just showing one of his many faces, I suppose.
There's always a tweet or video of him saying the opposite of whatever he's doing it saying on any given day. Complete hypocrite and a lying flip flopper.
It's a good time to be a lawyer since Nevada, California, the ACLU, El Paso, Congress and others are going to sue over Trump's fake emergency. And there's all the legal trouble he and his administration are in and all the other Constitutional infringements he has caused.
Yep good time to be a lawyer Trump's giving you plenty of work. Terrible waste of taxpayers money defending stupid decisions but personally a lot of lawyers are doing well especially with the tax cuts targeted at people like them who get paid several hundred dollars an hour.
Meanwhile, Occasio-Cortez is celebrating a great victory over evil Amazon. I think she's making plans on what to do with the $3 billion she just saved her state, except wait, that money doesn't exist. Guess nobody explained to her what a 'tax credit' is. She may have saved some money in incentives but cost NYC at least 25,000 jobs. Funny Virginia and Tennessee don't mind letting Amazon 'rob' them. Amateur hour...
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not, would have paid tons more tax money over the years than Amazon was getting in incentives. Well, the 'geniuses' in NYC can enjoy their nothing now. Too bad Detroit can't get back in the running...
To recover $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives, the 25,000 jobs would need to generate $120,000 in new taxes, each. Let's assume those 25,000 jobs pay $50,000 each. For a NYC resident, the personal income tax would be $1,800. NYC has a total sales tax rate of 8.875%, assuming $25k of spending per year subject to sales taxes, that's another $2,200 in tax revenue, for a total of $4k per year per job. At that rate, it will take 30 years to recoup the $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives.
So, unless you're talking about 50-year returns (by which time, Amazon could move again or be bankrupt), I don't see NYC getting "tons more tax money over the years".
It also starts a me too movement, where other companies will either threaten to leave or refuse to open shop unless they get the same deal Amazon did.
There is also this nice tidbit:
Cherise Burda, executive director of the Ryerson City Building Institute, said Amazon’s competition backfired, in part, because New York City is already, as Toronto is, booming economically.
“The challenges we face from all that growth are things like affordable housing and transit,” Burda said. “We need the types of corporate head offices that will help us solve these challenges and contribute to the common good, rather than take precious tax dollars that we need to invest in all of our infrastructure and social services.” From here.
I agree the decision not to offer tax incentives to Amazon seems extremely sensible. While there is a theoretical argument for tax competition within a country - that this helps shift resources to the most entrepreneurial areas and thus increases overall growth - it's extremely weak. In practice it's almost certain that there will be minimal extra tax revenue generated for the country as a whole through growth and that will fail to balance the lost incentives. As @AstroBryGuy sets out, even the location that's offering the incentives will usually be worse off economically - essentially this type of scheme is a 'look at me and how well I'm doing' promotion by public authorities rather than a genuine attempt to improve the economy. That's particularly the case in a situation like New York where there's no shortage of development already.
A tax break over time isn't spendable money that they are paying to Amazon. You aren't "giving away 3 billion dollars" and you can't just redistribute a tax break because you're not paying them money. AOC is brainless. Anyone else would have gotten pushback for these absurd statements but, whaddaya know, she gets another pass.
To recover $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives, the 25,000 jobs would need to generate $120,000 in new taxes, each. Let's assume those 25,000 jobs pay $50,000 each.
The average salary would have been 150K for the Amazon Headquarters, so triple the speed of that recovery is more accurate. But higher tax brackets means higher tax rate right? I'd do the math but i'm too lazy.
Also New York is one of those states which levies its own personal corporate tax rate, so personal incomes of the employees isn't the whole picture.
Also Cuomo said the tax benefits would have been in the field of 27 Billion, I don't have his numbers on hand to justify his statement, but I wish he would show them.
Not wanting to offer a tax deal for a business is perfectly fine, of course. The state is certainly not obligated to provide it. The stated reasons are silly at best, however.
The "average" salary?? Because the average salary would include a handful of people making millions a year. I'm interested in what the median salary is, but CNBC (which is basically a 24/7 infomercial for Wall Street) goes out of their way not to mention that.
As for AOC getting a pass, from whom?? She is excoriated constantly in both the right-wing and mainstream media as being radical. It happens on a daily basis. Ben Shapiro, from what I can tell, seems to tweet about her about every half-hour. The only reason she gets a "pass" is that she knows how to stand up for herself and doesn't run and hide in the corner every time she gets criticized like nearly every Democrat has done up to this point for 30 years. There are viral narratives floating around about her that she has been evicted multiple times and has a credit score in the 400s that are completely false. I believe there was also a fake nude photo. The idea that she is getting a pass is absurd. In relative terms to her actual position, which is a single freshman Congresswoman, she is probably receiving more scrutiny than any other member of the House, including Pelosi herself.
I'll also point out, that despite being worth almost a TRILLION dollars ($800 billion), Amazon, as a company, paid NO federal taxes for the second year in a row. None. In fact, they got a refund of $129 million. So, as Bernie astutely pointed out, a single person's monthly Prime membership is more than Amazon contributed in federal taxes in the last two years.
@WarChiefZeke I don't see the stated reasons as silly at all. Here's a short article that explains the reasoning behind some of the arguments about the use of incentives to attract companies.
You're assuming in the above posts that the Amazon HQ would have been additional to whatever the economic activity would have been otherwise - that would not be the case. That area of New York is highly attractive for development, so it's almost certain that a different form of development would take place. It may well be that the salaries paid would be lower, but on the other hand it's also possible that the development would be more specific to New York and not drag in additional employees (potentially reducing pressure on infrastructure, easing the pressure on homes etc).
I think it is implausible that the extra tax revenue gained from parachuting in Amazon would have justified the tax breaks being offered even when just considering New York in isolation. For the country as a whole there's absolutely no possibility it would make sense - it's just a demonstration of a large, profitable, business trying to play politicians off against each other in order to reduce its true costs.
@WarChiefZeke I don't see the stated reasons as silly at all. Here's a short article that explains the reasoning behind some of the arguments about the use of incentives to attract companies.
It doesn't explain the reasoning because that's not the reasoning. Jeffrey Dorfman's article from 2017 isn't relevant to AOC's entirely different- and silly- argument in 2019.
To put it another way, i'm not saying there are no good arguments for not giving out tax breaks. AOC didn't use any, least as far as I know.
You're assuming in the above posts that the Amazon HQ would have been additional to whatever the economic activity would have been otherwise - that would not be the case. That area of New York is highly attractive for development, so it's almost certain that a different form of development would take place. It may well be that the salaries paid would be lower, but on the other hand it's also possible that the development would be more specific to New York and not drag in additional employees (potentially reducing pressure on infrastructure, easing the pressure on homes etc).
Not sure how and where you think I made that assumption. Was in it my criticism of AOC's statements?
I think it is highly implausible that the extra tax revenue gained from parachuting in Amazon would have come even close to justifying the tax breaks being offered just considering New York in isolation. For the country as a whole there's absolutely no possibility it would make sense - it's just a demonstration of a large, profitable, business trying to play politicians off against each other in order to reduce its true costs.
That's clearly what's happening, Amazon has been shopping for the best deal and states make offers. It is their right to try to get the best deal for themselves and it's the states right to not make any deals.
But whether or not the tax breaks justify the revenue, I don't know. I do know Cuomo seems convinced that it will, AOC is convinced that it won't, her arguments are bad and the numbers seem to show that there would be a return after several years.
But i'd like to know the basis for why you think it would be highly implausible to make that money back. Cuomo's statement of a 27 billion surplus was based on a study done by his admin and it looks sound to me. What research has AOC done?
Only 64% of the revenue would come from the personal income taxes.
@WarChiefZeke I don't see the stated reasons as silly at all. Here's a short article that explains the reasoning behind some of the arguments about the use of incentives to attract companies.
You're assuming in the above posts that the Amazon HQ would have been additional to whatever the economic activity would have been otherwise - that would not be the case. That area of New York is highly attractive for development, so it's almost certain that a different form of development would take place. It may well be that the salaries paid would be lower, but on the other hand it's also possible that the development would be more specific to New York and not drag in additional employees (potentially reducing pressure on infrastructure, easing the pressure on homes etc).
I think it is implausible that the extra tax revenue gained from parachuting in Amazon would have justified the tax breaks being offered even when just considering New York in isolation. For the country as a whole there's absolutely no possibility it would make sense - it's just a demonstration of a large, profitable, business trying to play politicians off against each other in order to reduce its true costs.
Your article deal mostly with Foxconn, which Trump and Scott Walker were personally involved in securing and used a surefire proof that right-wing economic policies and tax incentives were working. It has turned into an abject disaster. This is likely the bullet NYC is dodging. It was a complete scam, pushed endlessly by the President himself. An absolute boondoggle:
If we want to talk about passes, let's examine how much media coverage this and that Carrier plant in Indiana that Trump personally assured everyone would be saving jobs and then shipped them all to Mexico anyway a few months after he got into office. THIS is how American capitalism works in 2019:
@WarChiefZeke I don't see the stated reasons as silly at all. Here's a short article that explains the reasoning behind some of the arguments about the use of incentives to attract companies.
It doesn't explain the reasoning because that's not the reasoning. Jeffrey Dorfman's article from 2017 isn't relevant to AOC's entirely different- and silly- argument in 2019.
To put it another way, i'm not saying there are no good arguments for not giving out tax breaks. AOC didn't use any, least as far as I know.
You're assuming in the above posts that the Amazon HQ would have been additional to whatever the economic activity would have been otherwise - that would not be the case. That area of New York is highly attractive for development, so it's almost certain that a different form of development would take place. It may well be that the salaries paid would be lower, but on the other hand it's also possible that the development would be more specific to New York and not drag in additional employees (potentially reducing pressure on infrastructure, easing the pressure on homes etc).
Not sure how and where you think I made that assumption. Was in it my criticism of AOC's statements?
@WarChiefZeke thanks for posting the economic impact summary statement. I will look at that and respond, but it might take me a bit of time to consider it properly .
In relation to AOC, I suspect you were concentrating on a different aspect of her reasoning. The link you posted included 3 arguments:
1) Ordinary people have shown they have more power than the richest man in the world.
2) The subsidy to Amazon could have been used for more productive purposes.
3) Amazon gave no guarantee about jobs for New Yorkers and it would be preferable to work with a company that wanted to invest in the local community.
I agree that if you're looking at things in economic terms, then statement 1) could be described as silly (though she's obviously also considering how statements will come across politically). Statements 2) and 3) could only reasonably be described as silly if you believe the Amazon investment would clearly have been beneficial to New York (and I don't at the moment).
In relation to my statement you were assuming the Amazon development would be an addition to existing economic activity, that was because you were quoting higher salary figures and suggesting they would provide proportionally greater benefits than lower salary figures (as opposed to looking at the difference between the Amazon salaries and whatever other development would have been done instead to get at the net benefit).
@WarChiefZeke the basis for the economic appraisal used to justify the proposed incentives for Amazon was much simpler than I thought at first glance, so it took rather less time than I expected to review it.
Essentially the appraisal does the following:
- looks at anticipated jobs created by the development (both in construction and operation) and pay of those jobs.
- builds in multiplier effects through the supply chain to add indirect to the direct benefits.
- calculates the total growth in the economy as a result.
- calculates the expected increase in taxes from that.
- compares the tax increase with the cost of benefits.
In the study it uses a discount rate of 3% to get the net present value of costs and benefits (that's a reasonable rate to represent the time value of money when values are not inflated in the first place). That shows that the total tax benefit has an NPV of just under $9 billion and the cost of incentives an NPV of $1.4 billion - thus showing a benefit:cost ratio of over 6:1.
So far, so good. In that sort of study there are always lots of detailed assumptions made and some of those will no doubt be questionable. For instance given Amazon's record on paying taxes, it might be rash to assume they will pay too much corporate tax to New York and projections of this kind for future employment levels tend to be optimistic. Therefore I suspect the 6:1 ratio is rather high, but I'm quite prepared to believe that there genuinely is a significant benefit:cost ratio using this basic methodology.
The appraisal is not giving the whole story though. Particular omissions are:
- it assumes that the correct comparison is between New York with an Amazon HQ and the existing New York. I think the correct comparison is between an Amazon HQ and whatever would be built in its place if Amazon were not there (which it now seems they won't be).
- it implicitly assumes that all the direct jobs created will go to existing New Yorkers and it doesn't address at all the increased costs to the State of the development. Those increased costs can arise through at least 3 routes:
1) Pressure from the prestige development to improve facilities (for instance better transportation links).
2) Pressure from knock-on cost impacts. I don't know what functions the State of New York has, so can't be sure what these would be. However, in the UK I'd be looking for instance at the cost of housing (if rents are pushed up that's likely to increase the cost of housing support both directly and due to some people being unable to afford to rent their existing housing any more and seeking support elsewhere).
3) Pressure from the increased population. The study suggests that population will increase by an average of 69,000 due to the attraction of the larger economy. In addition a significant percentage of the average 28,000 extra direct jobs are likely to go to out of state applicants - so the total increase in state population (including families of direct employees) is likely to be over 100,000. The costs of that in terms of infrastructure requirements, waste collection, policing, education etc will be considerable:
- existing New York state budget = $176 billion
- existing population = 20 million
Pro-rata, that cost for an extra 100,000 would be $880 million per year, which would be far more than the projected net benefits. In fact the additional costs would certainly be far less than that due to marginal vs average effects and the lower costs associated with high income earners, but I think they would still be considerable.
Taking account of some lower level potential replacement for Amazon and the additional costs associated with the development, I continue to believe the view I expressed before was correct, i.e. that providing these incentives would not make economic sense even if you're just looking at the impact on the state budget of New York alone.
It would be expected that New York politicians would also want to do an impact analysis in relation to the population of the state, as well as their own budget. If they did that I suspect that would also show the Amazon HQ would not have been a benefit to the existing population (though it would to the new population attracted by the development). There would be an increase in resources, but that would probably be more than offset by increased costs (from housing, pollution etc). That's been the pattern I've seen elsewhere around other major corporate developments in areas already well developed.
Comments
A consumer advocacy group filed the first lawsuit late Friday challenging President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration, suing on behalf of Texas landowners and an environmental group who say they'll be affected by border wall construction.
The case, filed by Public Citizen in federal district court in Washington, DC, is the first of what are expected to be multiple lawsuits challenging Trump's unprecedented decision to declare a national emergency in order to access $3.6 billion in military construction funds to pay for more sections of the wall he promised to build along the US–Mexico border.
........
The three landowners who are plaintiffs in the case said they were told by the federal government that sections of the wall would be built through their properties if funding became available in 2019 — they each said they'd received letters from Customs and Border Protection asking to come on their land to do an assessment. The other plaintiff, the Frontera Audubon Society, is located on a nature preserve in Texas and focuses its preservation efforts on the Rio Grande valley, and they claim that habitat would be harmed by border wall construction.
The main point was that Amazon was going to get tax incentives (and no matter what you say, that is just HANDING them money) to build in New York City. Thus, NYC residents were going to be the ones footing the bill in taxes Amazon wouldn't have to pay, with absolutely no guarantee people from NYC would even be getting the jobs. And I have to ask, how in the hell is a "tax incentive" that is being carved out for a specific company anything less than corporate welfare??
And those 25,000 people can enjoy the sweat shop conditions in Amazon warehouses:
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-workers-share-their-horror-stories-2018-4
It never fails to amaze me just how many companies literally don't even allow you to take 3-5 minutes to TAKE A PISS without it destroying your metrics. I know because I had the same problem at the job I quickly abandoned prior to my current one. Nevermind that it was backbreaking. The worst part was that even something as simple as filling up my water bottle or taking a 60 second trip to the urinal could ruin your stats for the day. Not surprisingly, I learned before I left they have a nearly 80% turnover rate.
Whoever got those jobs, New Yorkers or not, would have paid tons more tax money over the years than Amazon was getting in incentives. Well, the 'geniuses' in NYC can enjoy their nothing now. Too bad Detroit can't get back in the running...
Double-secret probation?
No serious judge or person in general should take this clown as telling the truth about anything.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you end up in a shit job like that? You sound like a pretty intelligent guy to me.
Virginia's not complaining. Neither is Tennessee last I heard. Like I said, they can enjoy their glorious 'victory', just not with new tax revenues...
I got let go from a job I had held for two-years out of nowhere. I wasn't fired for cause (or, at least, my immediate boss wouldn't allow me to be fired for cause, since I think his one stipulation of carrying it out for upper management was that I was going to be able to get unemployment). I knew they were talking to consultants in back rooms, but had no idea I would ever be on the chopping block. Frankly, this is why I was so pissed the other day about the Activision/Blizzard thing. I'm sick of people in upper management and positions of power accepting responsibility for NOTHING. There is almost no case where shit doesn't run downhill.
So, long story short, since I was coming from a warehouse situation, I immediately latched onto the first place I could find. I knew within 3 days I had to get out of there, and set about the (rather long) process of finding the job I am at now. I don't think I could have managed one more day at the place I was at temporarily. I suppose the good news is is that I have already been given somewhat of a promotion at my new position (which has nothing to do with manual labor anymore). But I am now always wary about my situation and waiting for the other shoe to drop. I was positive I was untouchable at my shipping office job, not only because I didn't think they could manage to run the place without me, but because I hadn't missed a single day of work in 2 years despite having VERY good reasons to do so. Every ounce of time I took off was approved vacation I had coming to me. And I still had the floor dropped out from under me. So I don't trust anyone anymore. I don't blame my immediate boss, but HIS boss. He sold the company to all of us when it was very young as a place where loyalty would be a two-way street. And I think he WANTED to be in charge of that company. But in my meeting with him when we let go, I said "you're probably going to have to stop saying that to people coming in going forward, because we both know it's not true anymore". And he agreed.
But I suppose even that isn't as bad as ANOTHER previous job where I literally had a boss (the son of the company owner) blame me for something he personally did. The most infuriating situation in the world is when two people are in a room together, and the one of them in a position of power is lying right to your face because he knows he can. And the unspoken dialogue is that you both know what the truth is, but the person without the power can't do anything about it because their paycheck depends on not saying anything.
Obama was very, very close to losing everything on the ACA in his first-term when Ted Kennedy died and Republican Scott Brown won the special election for his seat. If that had come to pass, if one Senate vote had went against him, do you have ANY idea what would have happened if he had decided to declare a national emergency to implement it?? The response from not only Republicans, but the national press in general would have been nothing short of nuclear. It would have been a Category 5 political hurricane that would have almost certainly gotten him impeached. But today?? It's just your average Friday in Trump world. The press is basically acting like this is somehow normal behavior we should be "discussing" instead of treating it like the obvious destruction of norms it is. I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone.
But I suppose the most obvious hypothetical parallel would have been if, after the Newtown massacre, Obama had declared a national emergency in regards to guns and ordered the military to start confiscating semi-automatic firearms. Such a move would have been viewed by many as nothing less than a declaration of Civil War. Those same people, today, are welcoming a precedent that opens the door for the this very type of thing the next time a Democrat takes the office.
Trump did, in his mostly incoherent rambling this morning, seem to advocate for the summary execution of drug dealers. He has previously praised Duterte on the subject, now he is praising the Chinese for the same.
To recover $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives, the 25,000 jobs would need to generate $120,000 in new taxes, each. Let's assume those 25,000 jobs pay $50,000 each. For a NYC resident, the personal income tax would be $1,800. NYC has a total sales tax rate of 8.875%, assuming $25k of spending per year subject to sales taxes, that's another $2,200 in tax revenue, for a total of $4k per year per job. At that rate, it will take 30 years to recoup the $3,000,000,000 in tax incentives.
So, unless you're talking about 50-year returns (by which time, Amazon could move again or be bankrupt), I don't see NYC getting "tons more tax money over the years".
Many parallels exist.
Yes this Reichstag fire power grab is just the latest one.
Hitler had the lying press, trump has "fake news"
Hitler was elected democratically with a minority of the vote, just like Trump.
Obviously hitler kept an enemies list and installed people in government that were loyal to himself over the country, just like Trump does.
Both are fake patriots, pretending that they and their ideals alone represent patriotism and everyone else that doesn't share their values is not a patriot. For trump it's "Conservative values" (which to him means loyalty to trump), for Hitler it was Nazi values.
Hitler didn't start out gassing jews and invading other countries - he worked his way up to it. Trump is working his way up to further bad behavior and government breaking actions.
Who'd have foreseen two years ago keeping kids in cages and losing them and not giving a shit about it. Who'd have foreseen phony emergencies and attempted coup by tweet of foreign countries - Iran and Venezuela which is seemingly being backed up by actual mustering of forces and logistics in both cases. Who would have thought America's highest official would prefer the company of Putin, Duetere, MBS, Un, Ergodan and other dictators over our allies? Who would have thought our President would prefer Putin's analysis over his own intelligence services?
Yes it's a slippery slope we've been on. Mitch McConnell and Republicans have been greasing the hill as we've been sliding down it. There is a point of no return. We're zooming along right towards it right now.
It also starts a me too movement, where other companies will either threaten to leave or refuse to open shop unless they get the same deal Amazon did.
There is also this nice tidbit:
Cherise Burda, executive director of the Ryerson City Building Institute, said Amazon’s competition backfired, in part, because New York City is already, as Toronto is, booming economically.
“The challenges we face from all that growth are things like affordable housing and transit,” Burda said. “We need the types of corporate head offices that will help us solve these challenges and contribute to the common good, rather than take precious tax dollars that we need to invest in all of our infrastructure and social services.” From here.
It's a good time to be a lawyer since Nevada, California, the ACLU, El Paso, Congress and others are going to sue over Trump's fake emergency. And there's all the legal trouble he and his administration are in and all the other Constitutional infringements he has caused.
Yep good time to be a lawyer Trump's giving you plenty of work. Terrible waste of taxpayers money defending stupid decisions but personally a lot of lawyers are doing well especially with the tax cuts targeted at people like them who get paid several hundred dollars an hour.
I agree the decision not to offer tax incentives to Amazon seems extremely sensible. While there is a theoretical argument for tax competition within a country - that this helps shift resources to the most entrepreneurial areas and thus increases overall growth - it's extremely weak. In practice it's almost certain that there will be minimal extra tax revenue generated for the country as a whole through growth and that will fail to balance the lost incentives. As @AstroBryGuy sets out, even the location that's offering the incentives will usually be worse off economically - essentially this type of scheme is a 'look at me and how well I'm doing' promotion by public authorities rather than a genuine attempt to improve the economy. That's particularly the case in a situation like New York where there's no shortage of development already.
The average salary would have been 150K for the Amazon Headquarters, so triple the speed of that recovery is more accurate. But higher tax brackets means higher tax rate right? I'd do the math but i'm too lazy.
Also New York is one of those states which levies its own personal corporate tax rate, so personal incomes of the employees isn't the whole picture.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/13/amazon-will-pay-hq2-employees-150000-dollars-that-goes-further-in-nashville.html
Also Cuomo said the tax benefits would have been in the field of 27 Billion, I don't have his numbers on hand to justify his statement, but I wish he would show them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/amazon-says-it-will-not-build-a-headquarters-in-new-york-after-mounting-opposition-reuters-reports.html
As for AOC getting a pass, from whom?? She is excoriated constantly in both the right-wing and mainstream media as being radical. It happens on a daily basis. Ben Shapiro, from what I can tell, seems to tweet about her about every half-hour. The only reason she gets a "pass" is that she knows how to stand up for herself and doesn't run and hide in the corner every time she gets criticized like nearly every Democrat has done up to this point for 30 years. There are viral narratives floating around about her that she has been evicted multiple times and has a credit score in the 400s that are completely false. I believe there was also a fake nude photo. The idea that she is getting a pass is absurd. In relative terms to her actual position, which is a single freshman Congresswoman, she is probably receiving more scrutiny than any other member of the House, including Pelosi herself.
I'll also point out, that despite being worth almost a TRILLION dollars ($800 billion), Amazon, as a company, paid NO federal taxes for the second year in a row. None. In fact, they got a refund of $129 million. So, as Bernie astutely pointed out, a single person's monthly Prime membership is more than Amazon contributed in federal taxes in the last two years.
You're assuming in the above posts that the Amazon HQ would have been additional to whatever the economic activity would have been otherwise - that would not be the case. That area of New York is highly attractive for development, so it's almost certain that a different form of development would take place. It may well be that the salaries paid would be lower, but on the other hand it's also possible that the development would be more specific to New York and not drag in additional employees (potentially reducing pressure on infrastructure, easing the pressure on homes etc).
I think it is implausible that the extra tax revenue gained from parachuting in Amazon would have justified the tax breaks being offered even when just considering New York in isolation. For the country as a whole there's absolutely no possibility it would make sense - it's just a demonstration of a large, profitable, business trying to play politicians off against each other in order to reduce its true costs.
It doesn't explain the reasoning because that's not the reasoning. Jeffrey Dorfman's article from 2017 isn't relevant to AOC's entirely different- and silly- argument in 2019.
To put it another way, i'm not saying there are no good arguments for not giving out tax breaks. AOC didn't use any, least as far as I know.
Not sure how and where you think I made that assumption. Was in it my criticism of AOC's statements?
That's clearly what's happening, Amazon has been shopping for the best deal and states make offers. It is their right to try to get the best deal for themselves and it's the states right to not make any deals.
But whether or not the tax breaks justify the revenue, I don't know. I do know Cuomo seems convinced that it will, AOC is convinced that it won't, her arguments are bad and the numbers seem to show that there would be a return after several years.
But i'd like to know the basis for why you think it would be highly implausible to make that money back. Cuomo's statement of a 27 billion surplus was based on a study done by his admin and it looks sound to me. What research has AOC done?
Only 64% of the revenue would come from the personal income taxes.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5115615-REMIAmazonReport.html
Your article deal mostly with Foxconn, which Trump and Scott Walker were personally involved in securing and used a surefire proof that right-wing economic policies and tax incentives were working. It has turned into an abject disaster. This is likely the bullet NYC is dodging. It was a complete scam, pushed endlessly by the President himself. An absolute boondoggle:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-06/inside-wisconsin-s-disastrous-4-5-billion-deal-with-foxconn
If we want to talk about passes, let's examine how much media coverage this and that Carrier plant in Indiana that Trump personally assured everyone would be saving jobs and then shipped them all to Mexico anyway a few months after he got into office. THIS is how American capitalism works in 2019:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a20066498/carrier-factory-donald-trump-jobs/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/carrier-employees-soon-to-be-laid-off-feel-betrayed-by-donald-trump
@WarChiefZeke thanks for posting the economic impact summary statement. I will look at that and respond, but it might take me a bit of time to consider it properly
In relation to AOC, I suspect you were concentrating on a different aspect of her reasoning. The link you posted included 3 arguments:
1) Ordinary people have shown they have more power than the richest man in the world.
2) The subsidy to Amazon could have been used for more productive purposes.
3) Amazon gave no guarantee about jobs for New Yorkers and it would be preferable to work with a company that wanted to invest in the local community.
I agree that if you're looking at things in economic terms, then statement 1) could be described as silly (though she's obviously also considering how statements will come across politically). Statements 2) and 3) could only reasonably be described as silly if you believe the Amazon investment would clearly have been beneficial to New York (and I don't at the moment).
In relation to my statement you were assuming the Amazon development would be an addition to existing economic activity, that was because you were quoting higher salary figures and suggesting they would provide proportionally greater benefits than lower salary figures (as opposed to looking at the difference between the Amazon salaries and whatever other development would have been done instead to get at the net benefit).
Essentially the appraisal does the following:
- looks at anticipated jobs created by the development (both in construction and operation) and pay of those jobs.
- builds in multiplier effects through the supply chain to add indirect to the direct benefits.
- calculates the total growth in the economy as a result.
- calculates the expected increase in taxes from that.
- compares the tax increase with the cost of benefits.
In the study it uses a discount rate of 3% to get the net present value of costs and benefits (that's a reasonable rate to represent the time value of money when values are not inflated in the first place). That shows that the total tax benefit has an NPV of just under $9 billion and the cost of incentives an NPV of $1.4 billion - thus showing a benefit:cost ratio of over 6:1.
So far, so good. In that sort of study there are always lots of detailed assumptions made and some of those will no doubt be questionable. For instance given Amazon's record on paying taxes, it might be rash to assume they will pay too much corporate tax to New York and projections of this kind for future employment levels tend to be optimistic. Therefore I suspect the 6:1 ratio is rather high, but I'm quite prepared to believe that there genuinely is a significant benefit:cost ratio using this basic methodology.
The appraisal is not giving the whole story though. Particular omissions are:
- it assumes that the correct comparison is between New York with an Amazon HQ and the existing New York. I think the correct comparison is between an Amazon HQ and whatever would be built in its place if Amazon were not there (which it now seems they won't be).
- it implicitly assumes that all the direct jobs created will go to existing New Yorkers and it doesn't address at all the increased costs to the State of the development. Those increased costs can arise through at least 3 routes:
1) Pressure from the prestige development to improve facilities (for instance better transportation links).
2) Pressure from knock-on cost impacts. I don't know what functions the State of New York has, so can't be sure what these would be. However, in the UK I'd be looking for instance at the cost of housing (if rents are pushed up that's likely to increase the cost of housing support both directly and due to some people being unable to afford to rent their existing housing any more and seeking support elsewhere).
3) Pressure from the increased population. The study suggests that population will increase by an average of 69,000 due to the attraction of the larger economy. In addition a significant percentage of the average 28,000 extra direct jobs are likely to go to out of state applicants - so the total increase in state population (including families of direct employees) is likely to be over 100,000. The costs of that in terms of infrastructure requirements, waste collection, policing, education etc will be considerable:
- existing New York state budget = $176 billion
- existing population = 20 million
Pro-rata, that cost for an extra 100,000 would be $880 million per year, which would be far more than the projected net benefits. In fact the additional costs would certainly be far less than that due to marginal vs average effects and the lower costs associated with high income earners, but I think they would still be considerable.
Taking account of some lower level potential replacement for Amazon and the additional costs associated with the development, I continue to believe the view I expressed before was correct, i.e. that providing these incentives would not make economic sense even if you're just looking at the impact on the state budget of New York alone.
It would be expected that New York politicians would also want to do an impact analysis in relation to the population of the state, as well as their own budget. If they did that I suspect that would also show the Amazon HQ would not have been a benefit to the existing population (though it would to the new population attracted by the development). There would be an increase in resources, but that would probably be more than offset by increased costs (from housing, pollution etc). That's been the pattern I've seen elsewhere around other major corporate developments in areas already well developed.