I <3 NY

[SixFeetDeep]

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/open-letter-new-york-state-budget-director-robert-mujica-regarding-amazon


Ooof

[AlioTheFool]

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/open-letter-new-york-state-budget-director-robert-mujica-regarding-amazon


Ooof

But what did NY really lose?

Anyway, that's an amazingly scathing open letter to appear on a government website. I'm glad someone did it though. Everyone with a hand in the failure of the project should be held accountable.

[insanity]

I get what she's saying, but she's missing two big parts to this argument. 

1.  New Yorkers didnt want this
2.  We dont need to give tax rebates to companies to get them to come here.

[AlioTheFool]

I get what she's saying, but she's missing two big parts to this argument. 

1.  New Yorkers didnt want this
2.  We dont need to give tax rebates to companies to get them to come here.

1. Multiple polls showed a majority of NYers did want it
2. Yes, we do, and we do it all the time

[insanity]

1. Multiple polls showed a majority of NYers did want it
2. Yes, we do, and we do it all the time

1.  Clearly that is false as enough new yorkers made noise to get it cancelled
2.  Really?  Can you tell me who?  Would love to read more about it.  Google just invested $1 Billion dollars and got 0 tax incentives.

[AlioTheFool]

1.  Clearly that is false as enough new yorkers made noise to get it cancelled

This is uninformed at best.

"Enough" NYers making noise consisted of a couple of politicians, and some vocal people who showed up at hearings just to berate Amazon board members. Amazon chose to stop subjecting their employees to a ludicrous public circus and walked away from the deal.

No, it was not a majority opposition. The polls that were taken, by multiple sources, showed a majority of New Yorkers favored the deal.

2.  Really?  Can you tell me who?  Would love to read more about it.  Google just invested $1 Billion dollars and got 0 tax incentives.

How much NY state tax did Google pay last year? I tried to find it, but can't. I did find this though: Google hiding behind shell companies for tax breaks.

I'd also like to note that Google's new investment came as a response to the Amazon deal, it wasn't something they were previously considering and were just looking to prevent Amazon monopolizing all the local tech talent. It wasn't some noble move to bring jobs to NY.

And if you truly "would love to read more about it" you could've googled something mentioned in the letter: NY Excelsior Tax credit.

There are other programs as well. I can speak from experience. Back at the turn of the millenium I was co-founder of a startup software developer. If we could've kept the company alive a few months more, we'd have been entitled to a huge tax break. Unfortunately, we were the victim of a huge IP theft of our primary product and couldn't stay afloat. But that is neither here nor there. It was an incentive program to operate a business in NY with NY-based employees for at least 3 years. As I said, NY does this all the time.

And this ignores that NY state wasn't giving Amazon anything. It keeps being treated as though NYS was handing Amazon $3B just for the privilege of having them come here. Amazon was simply getting tax credits to apply against taxes they'd eventually have to pay, all the while generating billions in salaries/revenue for NY.

[Pope]

I know the company that protests on behalf of people like AOC. I can say with high confidence a majority speak little to no English and have no idea what they’re protesting

[insanity]

This is uninformed at best.

"Enough" NYers making noise consisted of a couple of politicians, and some vocal people who showed up at hearings just to berate Amazon board members. Amazon chose to stop subjecting their employees to a ludicrous public circus and walked away from the deal.

No, it was not a majority opposition. The polls that were taken, by multiple sources, showed a majority of New Yorkers favored the deal.

Amazon said they backed out because a number of state and local level officials made it known they weren't wanted there. 

The deal was made in secrecy, people backlashed, and enough people complained that elected officials represented their constituents and started to fight with Amazon.  If the majority wanted the deal why weren't politicians fighting for it and against the politicians who were fighting against it?  You may be correct, the majority could lie with being for Amazon; I just assumed both parties would be fighting for their constituents.

Also, why wasn't the deal put out in the open for the public to weigh in on?
Yes this is a private business deal but the economic ramifications, positive or negative should be public facing because they are so huge.  It's the reason Apples campus in California was done in a public setting and ruled on by the government.

How much NY state tax did Google pay last year? I tried to find it, but can't. I did find this though: Google hiding behind shell companies for tax breaks.

I'd also like to note that Google's new investment came as a response to the Amazon deal, it wasn't something they were previously considering and were just looking to prevent Amazon monopolizing all the local tech talent. It wasn't some noble move to bring jobs to NY.

And if you truly "would love to read more about it" you could've googled something mentioned in the letter: NY Excelsior Tax credit.

There are other programs as well. I can speak from experience. Back at the turn of the millenium I was co-founder of a startup software developer. If we could've kept the company alive a few months more, we'd have been entitled to a huge tax break. Unfortunately, we were the victim of a huge IP theft of our primary product and couldn't stay afloat. But that is neither here nor there. It was an incentive program to operate a business in NY with NY-based employees for at least 3 years. As I said, NY does this all the time.

And this ignores that NY state wasn't giving Amazon anything. It keeps being treated as though NYS was handing Amazon $3B just for the privilege of having them come here. Amazon was simply getting tax credits to apply against taxes they'd eventually have to pay, all the while generating billions in salaries/revenue for NY.

Google's unethical methods of hiding revenue, or any other company for that matter, has nothing to do with NY's tax policy for businesses. They are mutually exclusive.  Additionally NY didn't give Google any tax credits for the billion dollar campus investment which means they aren't supporting those practices.  Further invalidating your point for this argument


I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  I'm not claiming Google is a more noble company than Amazon or they are investing in a campus because they are noble. 
My point is that you don't need to offer lucrative tax incentives to bring a company like Amazon to NY. 
     Companies will come without incentive.  Amazon needs to be in NY to be competitive and continue to grow their business.  Google investing $1B with no additional tax credits proves my point.

My point is that if you give Amazon a $3 billion dollar tax credit, then Google is going to be asking for a similar credit, as well as Facebook, and Twitter.
     You know who should be getting those tax credits?  Companies like yours who actually needed it.

The excelsior jobs program is a great opportunity to bring companies to NY who otherwise wouldn't come because of this market's expenses and taxes.  It's also a fund with limits.  It only looks to give out between $50-$250mil in tax credits a year.  The fund is also only worth $2.1 billion in totality.  Top Market cap value companies like Amazon don't qualify for this program.

NYC is the advertising capital of the country and arguably the world (behind or inline with London), and it's probably a top reason they chose NYC as their next headquarters.  Working in the industry, I would personally benefit immensely from Amazon moving to NY, as jobs are limited and qualified employees are not.   
I get that Amazon was going to bring in 27 billion in taxes, and we don't just have $3 billion lying around waiting to be spent, but we desperately need that $3 billion. 

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of paying $40 for round trip travel from Long Island/Brooklyn to Jersey to help pay for bridge repairs and construction that should be publicly funded.  I'm tired of the subway prices continuing to go up when they continue to be delayed. The city continues to become more and more crowded, prices continue to rise, and our public transportation infrastructure is already crumbling.  If a company is going to bring in 45,000 jobs and further deteriorate that infrastructure they need to be part of the solution to helping the city fix their problems. 

Bezos should pay for the next $0.25 increase on subways not the lower and middle class.

[Johnny English]

On a tangential note to insanity's last point, this is a really good idea.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-27/new-york-city-girds-for-changes-congestion-pricing-would-bring

I was massively opposed to it when they introduced it in London, and I was dead wrong. It has been phenomenally successful.

[AlioTheFool]

Amazon said they backed out because a number of state and local level officials made it known they weren't wanted there. 

The deal was made in secrecy, people backlashed, and enough people complained that elected officials represented their constituents and started to fight with Amazon.  If the majority wanted the deal why weren't politicians fighting for it and against the politicians who were fighting against it?  You may be correct, the majority could lie with being for Amazon; I just assumed both parties would be fighting for their constituents.

There were defenders, including the governor and mayor. AOC, who from my understanding only has a small fraction of her constituents who kind of fall into the area Amazon was going to be in, had a really loud voice. We all know the vocal minority can be very effectual today because most of the silent majority sees no reason to get loud.

Did you happen to see the first public hearing? The Amazon board members who were there looked shellshocked and visibly uncomfortable. It was an awful showing for NY in terms of civility.

Also, why wasn't the deal put out in the open for the public to weigh in on?
Yes this is a private business deal but the economic ramifications, positive or negative should be public facing because they are so huge.  It's the reason Apples campus in California was done in a public setting and ruled on by the government.

This is a reasonable question, and in most circumstances, I'd agree. However, the reason it was held secretly was specifically by design so that competing cities put their best offer on the table and couldn't modify their terms later after seeing the competition.

But otherwise, I agree. The public should have a chance to make their feelings known. I know NY1 News did a poll and found something like 72% in favor. I know a couple of papers did their own polls and were in the >70% range as well. The public did speak, but some voices were louder than others. Let's remember the President didn't get the most votes either.

Google's unethical methods of hiding revenue, or any other company for that matter, has nothing to do with NY's tax policy for businesses. They are mutually exclusive.  Additionally NY didn't give Google any tax credits for the billion dollar campus investment which means they aren't supporting those practices.  Further invalidating your point for this argument

That part of my argument wasn't to support tax credits, but to illustrate that companies are going to skirt tax law anyway, and pay as little as possible. Giving Amazon the break is inconsequential to me since they're going to find ways to get out of those taxes anyway. But payroll taxes on 25k jobs every year becomes state/local revenue.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  I'm not claiming Google is a more noble company than Amazon or they are investing in a campus because they are noble. 
My point is that you don't need to offer lucrative tax incentives to bring a company like Amazon to NY. 
     Companies will come without incentive.  Amazon needs to be in NY to be competitive and continue to grow their business.  Google investing $1B with no additional tax credits proves my point.

Again, Google only decided to invest that billion after the Amazon deal was announced. Yes, it's nice that it's happening (if they don't later decide to bail) but it was reactionary and never would've happened without HQ2.

My point is that if you give Amazon a $3 billion dollar tax credit, then Google is going to be asking for a similar credit, as well as Facebook, and Twitter.
     You know who should be getting those tax credits?  Companies like yours who actually needed it.

The excelsior jobs program is a great opportunity to bring companies to NY who otherwise wouldn't come because of this market's expenses and taxes.  It's also a fund with limits.  It only looks to give out between $50-$250mil in tax credits a year.  The fund is also only worth $2.1 billion in totality.  Top Market cap value companies like Amazon don't qualify for this program.

I'm not arguing to the contrary. Again, I was just saying NY incentivizes business regularly. Yes, SMBs need that tax credit far more than Amazon, but those are mutually exclusive. There's no reason both can't be enticed with tax benefits.

NYC is the advertising capital of the country and arguably the world (behind or inline with London), and it's probably a top reason they chose NYC as their next headquarters.  Working in the industry, I would personally benefit immensely from Amazon moving to NY, as jobs are limited and qualified employees are not.   
I get that Amazon was going to bring in 27 billion in taxes, and we don't just have $3 billion lying around waiting to be spent, but we desperately need that $3 billion. 

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of paying $40 for round trip travel from Long Island/Brooklyn to Jersey to help pay for bridge repairs and construction that should be publicly funded.  I'm tired of the subway prices continuing to go up when they continue to be delayed. The city continues to become more and more crowded, prices continue to rise, and our public transportation infrastructure is already crumbling.  If a company is going to bring in 45,000 jobs and further deteriorate that infrastructure they need to be part of the solution to helping the city fix their problems. 

Bezos should pay for the next $0.25 increase on subways not the lower and middle class.

For the most part, you're going to get zero arguments from me on all of this. My stance is that the payroll taxes make up for the $3B Amazon was going to avoid paying even without credits. Should we have to keep funding everything out of our pockets while the rich get richer? That's certainly a philosophical discussion we could have, and you and I would probably find a lot of common ground there. But that's not really the argument here.

Transit fares just went up today, regardless of Amazon, and we all know nothing is going to improve as a result. So to me, the net result is just 25,000 lost jobs.

[AlioTheFool]

On a tangential note to insanity's last point, this is a really good idea.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-27/new-york-city-girds-for-changes-congestion-pricing-would-bring

I was massively opposed to it when they introduced it in London, and I was dead wrong. It has been phenomenally successful.

I'm definitely intrigued by it, though it sucks I'll get nailed a couple of times the week of Comic Con, but I don't understand why Uber is in favor of it. Their drivers are going to have to pay that fee, so what's the benefit to them?

[Johnny English]

I'm definitely intrigued by it, though it sucks I'll get nailed a couple of times the week of Comic Con, but I don't understand why Uber is in favor of it. Their drivers are going to have to pay that fee, so what's the benefit to them?

Fewer people driving personal vehicles will mean more people wanting Ubers, and less traffic means journeys will be faster allowing drivers to carry more fares.

[AlioTheFool]

Fewer people driving personal vehicles will mean more people wanting Ubers, and less traffic means journeys will be faster allowing drivers to carry more fares.

I can see the point theoretically, but in practice, all the traffic is coming from TLC vehicles. Sure, there are trucks, and some local traffic, but all around this city--not just Manhattan, the traffic has become ridiculous and when you look around, you're surrounded by cars with license plates starting with "T".

I don't know a single person who works here in NYC that drives into work. Parking alone is prohibitively expensive. Anyone who doesn't take mass transit already takes car service, so I don't see how this is anything but a penalty against TLC drivers.

[Johnny English]

I can see the point theoretically, but in practice, all the traffic is coming from TLC vehicles. Sure, there are trucks, and some local traffic, but all around this city--not just Manhattan, the traffic has become ridiculous and when you look around, you're surrounded by cars with license plates starting with "T".

I don't know a single person who works here in NYC that drives into work. Parking alone is prohibitively expensive. Anyone who doesn't take mass transit already takes car service, so I don't see how this is anything but a penalty against TLC drivers.

I can't speak for NYC's implementation plan, but in London commercial hire passenger vehicles never used to have to pay the congestion charge. I believe that's changing at some point this year so that only zero emission vehicles and vehicles specifically designed to transport the disabled will be exempt. People who live inside the congestion zone still have to pay the charge if they move their vehicle on any given day, but they only pay 10% of the charge (and frankly anyone who can afford to live inside the zone in London and own a car can afford the charge without giving it a second thought).

I am presuming that someone has done some basic research in NYC and identified a not insignificant proportion of private vehicles using the crossings to enter Manhattan, and determined that there is a case for discouraging and/or generating additional revenue from them.

[AlioTheFool]

I can't speak for NYC's implementation plan, but in London commercial hire passenger vehicles never used to have to pay the congestion charge. I believe that's changing at some point this year so that only zero emission vehicles and vehicles specifically designed to transport the disabled will be exempt. People who live inside the congestion zone still have to pay the charge if they move their vehicle on any given day, but they only pay 10% of the charge (and frankly anyone who can afford to live inside the zone in London and own a car can afford the charge without giving it a second thought).

I am presuming that someone has done some basic research in NYC and identified a not insignificant proportion of private vehicles using the crossings to enter Manhattan, and determined that there is a case for discouraging and/or generating additional revenue from them.

According to that article (and what I've heard elsewhere) pay-per-ride vehicles will have to pay the full fee (though only once per day).

I certainly believe someone on the NY government side did their homework, because they'll make a lot of money on this, but again, I just don't understand what Uber thinks it will gain. Their drivers are the traffic.