But based on the study, the advantages may not have been as great at Cuomo made it seem. Inflation would have taken a bite out of the value of the future tax dollars generated by HQ2 — put another way, $1 in tax revenue in 25 years would not be worth as much as $1 of revenue in 2019.
Since much of the tax revenue would be realized later in the 25-year timeframe, the study estimated that HQ2 would bring in just under $9 billion in state tax revenue in 2019 dollars, versus the promised $1.4 billion in state tax incentives. The report concluded that "the benefit-cost ratio is 6.3," well below Cuomo's promised 9:1 ratio.
Critics of the study also pointed out that the estimates were based on the idea that Amazon would bring in 40,000 jobs for its New York HQ2 over 15 years. Amazon had said when it announced it would split its second headquarters between Northern Virginia and New York that 25,000 jobs would come to each over the first 10 years; it said an additional 15,000 jobs could come to Queens in the five years after the initial wave but made no firm commitment.
Some experts said that the study also did not consider the alternatives for the area where Amazon would put HQ2 and that recent studies had found that investing in existing local businesses could be more economically stimulative than wooing new corporations.
On top of that, the study did not account for the worker influx creating liabilities for the city, such as increased trash collection and education costs. Critics also pointed to other externalities they said would make HQ2 less attractive for New York City residents.
