It was seen as a bad deal, and new yorkers just don't have a positive view of amazon. When your restaurant is already almost at full capacity, there is no need to lose money on a groupon campaign.
I don't think anybody would have complained if these subsidies were done somewhere upstate, where the jobs are truly needed.
Other key findings from the poll include:
85% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will create good jobs for New Yorkers and Queens residents
77% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will improve the economy of New York City
70% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will raise New York City property values
68% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will help make New York City an East Coast tech hub
58% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will raise the tax revenues New York needs for education, transportation, and other vital services
55% of New York voters believe that its very or somewhat likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will create new opportunities for local and small businesses
the "Do you believe NYC should give 3B+ subsidies to Amazon"
Or, "Do you believe NYC giving 4 times the subsidies to Amazon, compared to D.C., is a good deal?.?
are missing. Put them into the questionnaire, and see how the response rates change.
(That's without being prompted with the specific $ amount of the subsidies, as far as I can see. If they had mentioned the $4 billion figure, the response might have been even more overwhelming.)
Also from the poll:
a majority of New York registered voters also see it as likely that Amazon’s HQ2 will increase the cost of housing in New York City and complicate public transit and transportation, among other issues.
This seems to support the parent’s general claim about the subway etc.
Did the poll ask if New Yorkers were happy with the subsidies?
The poll question: Do you approve or disapprove of Amazon locating one of its new headquarters in Long Island City in Queens? is at least vastly incomplete.
I don’t know the specifics, but it seems fair to me the question should be something more like: do you approve or disapprove of the city spending $x of taxpayers money on a deal to bring Amazon to NYC?
The questions on that survey don't mention any thing about subsidies... period.
Change it to: "Do you believe Amazon should be given 3B subsidies to come to NYC?" and the replies will look very different...
I think you meant that “nobody is asserting that a large company creating jobs, is a bad thing”
What's the point of being so condescending to people? This is not a constructive way to correct someone.
I'm just confused about what people want. The program was long derided for creating too few jobs:
Now that it's Amazon, it's creating too many jobs and (therefore) costing too much money? I don't support tax subsidies in general, but the program was already signed into law, you can't just change the rules that you set yourself just because you realize in hindsight it's a bad deal. Honestly, the people of NYS elected Cuomo twice, they should have to live with the consequences.
Also it's not like they're not building new stuff in 2017 the second avenue subway opened with 3 new stations.
Everytime I hear someone complain about this I wonder if they consider how many cars will not be needed during rush hour because Amazon chose NYC.
Hey, what do you think about the massive spending plan the Democrats are working on to solve climate change?
Do people even try to connect the dots?
Newark to Long Island City is about 15 miles. Plenty of affordable real estate there. With a little urban planning and better mass transit, NYC could handle 10 Amazons.
Ask yourself if amazon needed this huge competition to build in the two default-choice locales. It is absolutely a total sham.
Good on NYC for opposing this, its likely that this is just Amazon trying to get even more out of the deal.
But that's not what a tax incentive is. The incentive is: bring your business here, create jobs, add economic fluidity with your workforce and you don't have to pay 3 billion dollars in taxes.
See how different is that? If Amazon decides to pull out, they just don't bring those jobs and don't get those tax incentives...but there's no extra 3 billion to spend in your community. There's literally 0 dollars more. You're not saving 3 billion in state and municipal funds. Those 3 billion in taxes (whether you exempt someone from paying them or not) only happen if Amazon (or any company) exists in that region.
The worst part is that some elected state officials are getting behind this rhetoric and that's kind of hard to understand. Either they are doing it for populism which is terrible, or they are doing it because they are ignorant which is even worse.
Montgomery County, Maryland offered an $8.5B incentive, which included $2B in infrastructure & transportation improvements around the HQ site. If Amazon had pulled out, $2B went towards optimizing an area that's no longer a job center. Philadelphia's incentive included $1.1B for essentially the same function. Atlanta offered $2.2B in infrastructure investment.
Moreover, in the global sense we have been deprived of revenue. Amazon was going to open somewhere. This competition means that they overall pay less tax than without it, because they extracted concessions. If we care about protecting the public purse in the general sense, it's reasonable to object to these tactics.
It's true, but it's not like your employees also get a tax break. It seems again like the workers are shouldering the burden.
The only reason why this works is because it's a race to the bottom where big companies get huge benefits to their taxes because they can shop around (just like Amazon did with the whole HQ2 thing), and then pick who treats them best. Most businesses don't have that kind of leverage.
If no state offered any tax incentives like this, then companies would just end up paying more taxes, right? We could get into moving your company to another country, but for Amazon this would mean a lot of things, like increased shipping times, customs, etc.
"Economists say that most of the time, the incentives are counterproductive — a zero-sum game in which jobs created in one community come at the expense of jobs lost somewhere else. The real winners are companies, which are able to play municipalities against one another so as to be freed of paying taxes other businesses (and homeowners) do. The result is a "race to the bottom," leaving cities with less to spend on infrastructure improvements and public education. At the same time, companies increase expenses for communities by drawing on public resources, including sewer systems, roads, power lines, and schooling for workers' children. Last year, Wisconsin pledged $3 billion in incentives to electronics manufacturer Foxconn to build a plant in Racine County that the company says will eventually employ 13,000 workers. But according to Wisconsin's own estimates, the cost to taxpayers per job created is $230,700, and the state won't recoup its investment until 2043."
And now more recently, Foxconn has been saying they won't even have as many jobs as they thought!
Furthermore, representing your constituents is not "populism". Local residents are intimately familiar with how gentrification displaces entire communities considering it happens all the time there. Big business Democrats like Cuomo and DiBlasio are just having a tantrum because they're so seduced by revenue charts that they've completely dissociated from the impact of these decisions on real people.
It’s unclear what the difference is without seeing the projections for how long it will take the city to recuperate the $3B.
If the city believes having Amazon HQ2 will generate an additional $3B in revenue over the next 5 years then perhaps it’s a reasonable deal.
If it’s going to take 50 years, then possibly less so.
All but $505m of the ~$3b in subsidies here comes from programs that already existed in NY State and NYC (Excelsior, ICAP, and REAP). Would you give up $3b over 10 years (and just $505m above programs that are broadly available) to attract business that will provide an incremental $13.5B in new tax revenue and $186B in GSP over 25 years? That is a _tremendous_ ROI, the kind that typically does not exist in the market, and a $505m capital grant (the primary Amazon-specific concession) is a small price to secure it. The 9:1 return they projected on this deal is the best such program NY State and NYC will have ever run. To put it into context, the Film Tax Credit program had a 1.15:1 ROI.
We can argue all day about whether the HQ2 search was a bluff or sham or whatever, but there is no reasonable claim to certainty here - and hence negotiation enters the picture to turn something uncertain (Amazon MAY come to NYC) into certain (Amazon WILL come to NYC).
> The construction is expected to create an average of 1300 direct construction jobs annually through 2033. Overall, the project is estimated to create more than 107,000 total direct and indirect jobs, over $14 billion in new tax revenue for the State and a net of $13.5 billion in City tax revenue over the next 25 years. The project provides a 9:1 return on investment.
> According to an economic impact study by REMI, Inc., a world leader in dynamic forecasting and policy analysis, the Amazon project will generate over $186 billion in Gross State Product for the New York State economy over the initial 25 years. REMI also projects over $14 billion in total new tax revenue for the State (in 2019 dollars), with annual revenues growing from $10.8 million in 2019 to nearly $1 billion in 2043. The City forecasts $13.5 billion in total new tax revenue.
Frankly, I don't believe those ROI projections: we've seen these kinds of wildly optimistic plans time and time again with companies promising tax revenues based on straightforward filing, and then using the wide variety of loopholes to (legally) avoid the projected taxes. But even assuming the projections come to fruition: who receives those returns? Is it going to help New Yorkers who need help, or to the already rich? Right now all signs point to the latter. If we're just re-gifting all the money back into already highly profitable companies, I don't really care to hear about ROIs.
The net new revenue can be used by the city and state to pay for whatever services they deem fit (e.g. infrastructure, health, etc.).
> we've seen these kinds of wildly optimistic plans time and time again with companies promising tax revenues based on straightforward filing, and then using the wide variety of loopholes to (legally) avoid the projected taxes
The company is not promising tax revenues here. The city/state are. They are the ones who commissioned the economic analysis, and I am sure the findings informed their negotiations. The tax sources are not just Amazon either - it includes things like taxes from the additional jobs and businesses that will be created outside of Amazon.
> I don't really care to hear about ROIs.
The ROI is what matters, though. If you were a city that is looking to increase your budget to provide more services to your constituents, you might consider what sort of investment choices you could make to get there. The ROI here is well beyond any other conceivable option. It is so large that even if projections of a 9:1 ROI are way off, it would be a big win. To put it into context, the NY Film Tax Credit program had a 1.15:1 ROI but was still implemented. Also, most of the subsidy to Amazon is not an up-front lump sum. Rather, most of it takes the form of credits for prior actions.
Taking all this into account, this seems like a super safe path to greater tax revenues, which will improve the city and state as a whole.
Like giving more money already-highly-profitable companies?
> Taking all this into account, this seems like a super safe path to greater tax revenues, which will improve the city and state as a whole.
Well, like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. Your argument makes logical sense, it's just that your argument has been used to justify all kinds of spending in the past, and lo and behold, homelessness is increasing, schools are still underfunded, rents are more and more unaffordable, etc. If giving money to already-profitable companies works so well, then why are none of the problems I care about solved already, since we've been giving money to already-profitable companies for decades?
For most of these deals, companies make promises that are used to make the deal politically palatable, but since they are not penalized for failing to meet them, and therefore frequently do so.
This deal is very safe because it is paid out incrementally, over time, and mostly in-step with incremental actions taken by Amazon, and because the ROI is so big (even if projections are significantly off target, this will still be a win).
And the third party's incentives are to please the paying customer in showing a good return on investment.
But if the subsidies won't actually get paid unless Amazon delivers on their promises, I agree this deal is way better than most of its type.
Maybe partner with UPS? Delta? Coca-cola?
They could benefit from the booming entertainment industry as well.