I'd like to see the median salary rather than then average salary for those employees.
I bet you would.
I'd like to see the median salary rather than then average salary for those employees.
if Amazon was really all about the jobs then why the need for subsidy?
still waiting for something more than pull quotes from non-economists to support the idea that billions of dollars in corporate welfare is a good financial move for the city
Most people criticized the deal in Wisconsin between Walker and Foxconn as a boondoggle for taxpayers and the state of Wisconsin. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert in economics, but how is the Amazon deal significantly different? Both deals were supposed to provide thousands of jobs in exchange for massive tax breaks and other sweet deals from local and state government. Also, this must be confusing for conservatives, as Bezos is one of their least-favorite business tycoons, yet by moving the HQ from the NYC area he's provided them with a great opportunity to slam AOC and Dem progressives as "job killers."
Seems to be a strange thing to celebrate killing.
Corporate welfare deals (tax subsidies) depend on alot of the facts and circumstances of each deal. What are you giving up in tax revenue? What are you going to get in the company locating there and any associated benefits. Do you have alternate use for that area that will generate economic activity and tax revenue to offset the net revenues you will receive after the deal?
Economic activities create multiple tax streams. For every stock compensation deal that Amazon enters into to reduce their taxable income, an employee is paying income taxes on those associated wages. An east coast HQ is going to bring in tons of associated businesses. It seems to me that they would be a magnet of economic activity.
Seems to be a strange thing to celebrate killing.
I don't really consider paying my employees compensation shifting the tax burden to them. The tax deduction that is provided for stock compensation makes much more economic sense than the book accounting. If you provide an employee stock with a fair market value of $150 with no exercise price, the company deducts $150 and the employee pays $150 in taxes on compensation wages. Seems pretty straightforward right? The company could go out in the open market and sell that share of stock for $150 and then pay the employee $150 in wages and they'd be in the exact same economic position and nobody would question that deduction. Well, if the stock was worth $50 at the beginning of the vesting period, the company would have only expensed $50 related to this transaction for financial reporting. So that creates a big disconnect between book profits and taxable income.As the links and research have shown, corporate welfare rarely pays off to anyone but the entity receiving the benefit.
Anyways, we're obviously not going to agree.
But I do have a genuine question for you. Can you explain the mechanics of how Amazon has a -1% effective corporate tax rate though may still be paying their fair share? The way it's phrased in your second paragraph, it sounds a bit like shifting the tax burden from the stockholders to the employees.
I mean a lot of that research is going to be looking at a universe where companies will end up bailing on their expansion plans and other external realities. That's why I say you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I think that risk with Amazon is very low.
Some of these incentives deals are terrible deals for the government and I absolutely agree with that. But Amazon is one of the largest and fastest-growing companies in the US. They're going to attract tons of other businesses.
I mean a lot of that research is going to be looking at a universe where companies will end up bailing on their expansion plans and other external realities. That's why I say you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I think that risk with Amazon is very low.
Some of these incentives deals are terrible deals for the government and I absolutely agree with that. But Amazon is one of the largest and fastest-growing companies in the US. They're going to attract tons of other businesses.
exactly, what's to stop Amazon from doing this again in 10 years
there is some truth to the fact that deals should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but there is also the case to be made for banning corporate welfare altogether
Amazon would still be profitable if they put HQ2 in the exact same spot without the tax breaks
the gentrification issues, however, would not have been addressed