Even in NYC, $150K is impressive, their PP is just less comparatively and most of these folks will live outside the city anyway.
At any rate, you didn’t say they weren’t impressive you said they’d be mostly low paying.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, they are pushing for a lot of IT professionals for their HQ2 locations. This isn’t a distribution center (I don’t believe) and I’m guessing will house an enormous data center. I’d guess the lowest salary (excluding interns and maybe some office functions like mail) will be $70ish.
essentially operational cash flow - higher taxes impact cash flow and whether a company has to leverage their operations or fund them with revenue after taxes, I’m pretty sure I’m getting that right but USMC could correct me if I’m wrong
Practically, the tax rate they impose on their constituents…i.e. however they go about collecting the taxes for a subsidy distorts w/e market(s) it’s imposed on which basically diverts resources from said tax stream to w/e is being subsidized … this is more direct way of “picking winners and losers” than a tax break can be perceived to be…especially when you consider the marginal business or entity in the market … that extra tax could be the difference between some entrepreneur opening up operations in the area or not - essentially affecting local competition and choices for consumers…
You’ve also got to remember, most small/medium business, hell even large business, rent in NYC. They don’t pay property taxes. We’re a $4B business HQ’d in NYC and we rent.
Can’t seem to quote the link on my phone. Definitely going to give that a read after work (that’s some damn small print on a phone)
150k* by 10 years from now
Correct. Most of the jobs created will be lower paying
From my understanding the IT jobs will be nowhere near the majority of the 25000 jobs. But I mostly only see their numbers by labor category, so a good bit from the other labor categories will also be decent paying
Which makes sense, having even half of those being IT roles would be an unpresidented useless move. There’s no need for that many local IT roles
If I showed you 2 companies and didn’t tell you which got tax breaks and which was subsidized, could you tell me the difference from their net income?
I see what you’re saying - the difference, then, would come down to their planning and investments … internally there may not be much of a difference but the environment in which they operate there would be … plus I’d think there’d be a difference in demand between the two scenarios - i.e. to your point a tax break can be considered a subsidy in the sense that tax “revenue” is foregone … it’ll have to boil down to how badly the municipality wants the business, i.e. just how much they are willing to divert tax payer resources (either in deferred tax revenue in the tax break scenario or immediate higher taxes on other aspects of the economy in the subsidy scenario or foregone tax investments) and when/if they can recoup the lost taxes…may not be able to see it on the balance sheet, but you’d have to look at other externalities and you’d see differences, I’d imagine.
Are you on board with states and countries cutting taxes for all businesses? Like Texas, or Colorado with no property tax…
The incentives for corruption with the one-off breaks/subsidies increases 10000x.
Point of order: unless the landlord is benevolent and losing money, the tenant does indeed pay property taxes through higher rents. Unless you’re leasing from a government cooperative or something. You just aren’t cutting the checks the NYC and the school districts.
Well… the federal government changed the tax code to closely mirror the 19 other most industrialized prosperous nations and we have 3.5% unemployment and 4% growth and increased workforce participation. No guarantee that’s 100% causative, but you can’t argue the inverse. I’d say less regulation helped more.
I don’t think that move was ever going to stop state and local governments from fellating businesses to move to their jurisdictions. More jobs means more taxpayers to fleece and by extension, more power.
But if a tax break is passed that simply doesn’t apply to many folks due to their incomes or situation (too low, etc.) never having been subjected to that rate or whatever…Are those folks really subsidizing the wealthier who are still paying the vast majority of the taxes? Wouldn’t ithe wealthier still subsidize the lower incomes (infrastructure, entitlements, etc), only at a lesser level than previously?
If Bob was giving 2 pennies, and I 20, towards some public good, and now I’m only required to provide 18, is it really more accurate to save that Bob is now subsidizing my access to this public good? Seems to me if we’re going to use the word subsidize, then Bob’s access to this public good has been subsidized, both before and after, by me.
That argument doesn’t seem accurate odd to me. If the subways and etc. need fixing, it seems more likely to happen with the increased revenue. Lower taxes on a tax source that wouldn’t have otherwise settled is an increase in tax revenue. You can’t tax 0 at any rate. What am I overlooking, though?
My reluctance is I that I don’t like how it rewards 'the big" even if mathematically it brings more revenue. That part bothers me.
I agree with this … her (AOC) argument is myopic and immediate … she’s looking to “protect” her voter base from a “predatory” big corp is what it seems to me
“She was like Fagin in Oliver Twist, but she was using cats as thieves instead of children. In less than three hours of surveillance, the detectives saw the cats bring home more than a hundred objects.”
As someone living in Seattle and constantly surrounded by the “is Amazon good or bad” debate, I am of the opinion it is a net positive. However LOTS of people feel very different for very valid reasons… Mostly having to do with gentrification and tge political power of Amazon.
As for infrastructure… It’s amazing what can be accomplished when a private company on the scale of Google/Facebook/Amazon works with a motivated local government. My previous engineering firm helped build the google and Facebook campuses down in the Bay area, and it’s been crazy to see how quick “The Amazon” has been built in Seattle. I think 10 years is doable… But time will surely tell. But until it all gets built it’s gonna be a huge CF haha
Amazon pays it’s employees very well. The distribution centers and wharehouses aren’t counting towards that 25k employees for each city. It’s 25k office workers. From what I’ve seen, salries are actually pretty standard, but stock and bonuses are additional compensation all the way down the food chain
If Bob gives 18 pennies but has 20 members of his family using the subway, while Jill gives 2 pennies and has 2 people using the subway, it’s unequal. That’s the argument. Maybe you already get that though.