116th Congress

sturg33 said:
But that money isn't created out of thin air.

The $3B available to be handed out here is after the city captures $30B in tax revenue.
Click to expand...

its not our of thin air...but i'm saying think of it as a thought experiment...one day de Blasio wakes up and some wealthy benefactor has given the city 3B to play with...what is the best use of that...i don't think giving it to Amazon is...i saw an estimate that the subsidy is over 40K per job that Amazon would have created...that seems pretty steep to me...not a good return on 3B
 
nsacpi said:
its not our of thin air...but i'm saying think of it as a thought experiment...one day de Blasio wakes up and some wealthy benefactor has given the city 3B to play with...what is the best use of that...i don't think giving it to Amazon is
Click to expand...

I mean, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about but I'd suggest they lower their tax rate in this scenario
 
There is no other company that is going to come in and generate what Amazon was going to generate for the city. It is what it is. They are one of the largest companies in the world. That 3B you are saying can still be reallocated elsewhere because of ALL THE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES AMAZON WOULD GENERATE!
 
nsacpi said:
its not our of thin air...but i'm saying think of it as a thought experiment...one day de Blasio wakes up and some wealthy benefactor has given the city 3B to play with...what is the best use of that...i don't think giving it to Amazon is...i saw an estimate that the subsidy is over 40K per job that Amazon would have created...that seems pretty steep to me...not a good return on 3B
Click to expand...

What does it matter how you splice the subsidy? What is the net gain to the city based on X amount of square footage? That is the most important factor in addition to the additional benefit to the local businesses that now have deeper pockets around to spend.
 
Speaking of taxes... I found this interesting:

[TW]1096809656217976834[/TW]

From the migration losers:

New York = 1st in total tax burden on citizens
California = 10
Illinois = 8
Michigan = 26
New Jersey = 9


From the migration winners:

Texas = 33
Florida = 47
North Carolina = 30
Arizona = 31
Colorado = 35

--------------------------------

Crazy how that works, isn't it?

What's crazier is the people who flee the high tax states then vote for the same policies that got them there
 
sturg33 said:
Speaking of taxes... I found this interesting:

[TW]1096809656217976834[/TW]

From the migration losers:

New York = 1st in total tax burden on citizens
California = 10
Illinois = 8
Michigan = 26
New Jersey = 9


From the migration winners:

Texas = 33
Florida = 47
North Carolina = 30
Arizona = 31
Colorado = 35

--------------------------------

Crazy how that works, isn't it?

What's crazier is the people who flee the high tax states then vote for the same policies that got them there
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that 5 of the 10 highest populated states have some of the most people moving in and out of their state.

The reality is, because of how much more interconnected we are as a society and country, there's plenty of reasons to move and not have to stay in the state you were born in.

Denver is a hot spot to move to, even before marijuana was legalized. Austin is definitely a hot spot for millenials to wanna move to. Florida is always going to be a place people migrate to, that's been going on for decades. All the snowbirds from up north are coming south. Isn't Arizona just Chicago-lite while Florida has all the New York/New England retirees? Hilton Head is basically Little Cincinnati. The newspapers in Bluffton and Hilton Head regularly post Ohio news.

You're oversimplifying something, yet again. As this isn't to say taxes aren't a part of the discussion. They're part of the equation.

In 15 years, there will be more hot spots for millenials and post-generations after Millenials to wanna migrate to. Salt Lake City is already headed that way. So I guess that means Utah will be on that list too.
 
Individual-1 said:
I'm shocked that 5 of the 10 highest populated states have some of the most people moving in and out of their state.

The reality is, because of how much more interconnected we are as a society and country, there's plenty of reasons to move and not have to stay in the state you were born in.

Denver is a hot spot to move to, even before marijuana was legalized. Austin is definitely a hot spot for millenials to wanna move to. Florida is always going to be a place people migrate to, that's been going on for decades. All the snowbirds from up north are coming south. Isn't Arizona just Chicago-lite while Florida has all the New York/New England retirees? Hilton Head is basically Little Cincinnati. The newspapers in Bluffton and Hilton Head regularly post Ohio news.

You're oversimplifying something, yet again. As this isn't to say taxes aren't a part of the discussion. They're part of the equation.

In 15 years, there will be more hot spots for millenials and post-generations after Millenials to wanna migrate to. Salt Lake City is already headed that way. So I guess that means Utah will be on that list too.
Click to expand...

I don't believe taxes are 100% of the equation... but I do believe they are big one.

My fiancee' and I are talking about places to move to now. We both make pretty good income (she whooping me due to her being a doctor). You better believe for every state we look at, taxes are a huge part of the calculus of the decision.

I find it interesting that of the top 5 losers, 4 of them are in the top 10 in tax burden. Of the top 5 winners, none are in the top 30. Taxes ain't everything, but I'd bet it's the biggest thing. If we aren't willing to look at this and make us ask ourselves what the numbers are saying, it's not going to change.
 
I am curious which jobs qualify as dignified since obviously working for one of the greatest companies in the world wouldn't qualify

[TW]1096853070099689472[/TW]
 
TMW2019-02-20color.png
 
Wanted to post this Tyler Cowen take on Amazon and taxes. Was going to put it in the economics thread, but the discussion seems to be happening here:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/amazon-and-taxes.html

”The main reason Amazon as a corporate entity does not pay much in taxes is because the company so vigorously reinvests its profit. The resulting expensing provisions lower their tax liabilities, in some cases down to zero or near-zero. That is in fact the kind of incentive our tax system is supposed to create, and does so only imperfectly, noting that many economists have suggested moving to full expensing.

(NB: You can’t hate both share buybacks and profit reinvestment!)

Amazon pays plenty in terms of payroll taxes and also state and local taxes. Nor should you forget the taxes paid by Amazon’s employees on their wages. Not only is that direct revenue to various levels of government, but the incidence of those taxes falls somewhat on Amazon, which now must pay higher wages to offset the tax burden faced by their employees. Not everyone wants to live in NYC or Queens! (Do you agree with Paul Krugman’s charge that the Trump tax cuts are mainly a giveaway to capital? If so, you probably also should believe that the wage taxes paid by Amazon employees fall largely on capital.)

There is no $3 billion that NYC gets to keep if Amazon does not show up. That “money” was a pledged reduction in Amazon’s future tax burden at the state and local level.

When it comes to the discussion surrounding Amazon and taxes, I can only sigh…”
 
Last edited:
acesfull86 said:
Wanted to post this Tyler Cowen take on Amazon and taxes. Was going to put it in the economics thread, but the discussion seems to be happening here:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/amazon-and-taxes.html

The main reason Amazon as a corporate entity does not pay much in taxes is because the company so vigorously reinvests its profit. The resulting expensing provisions lower their tax liabilities, in some cases down to zero or near-zero. That is in fact the kind of incentive our tax system is supposed to create, and does so only imperfectly, noting that many economists have suggested moving to full expensing.

(NB: You can’t hate both share buybacks and profit reinvestment!)

Amazon pays plenty in terms of payroll taxes and also state and local taxes. Nor should you forget the taxes paid by Amazon’s employees on their wages. Not only is that direct revenue to various levels of government, but the incidence of those taxes falls somewhat on Amazon, which now must pay higher wages to offset the tax burden faced by their employees. Not everyone wants to live in NYC or Queens! (Do you agree with Paul Krugman’s charge that the Trump tax cuts are mainly a giveaway to capital? If so, you probably also should believe that the wage taxes paid by Amazon employees fall largely on capital.)

There is no $3 billion that NYC gets to keep if Amazon does not show up. That “money” was a pledged reduction in Amazon’s future tax burden at the state and local level.

When it comes to the discussion surrounding Amazon and taxes, I can only sigh…
Click to expand...

But the problem is there are likely no net jobs created. Jobs move from one employer to another. Maybe they are better jobs and maybe they aren't. You're correct that there is no pot of $3 billion just sitting there to be expended immediately, but there is a lifetime cost to the project where the $3 billion would be expended over time.

My problem with projects like Amazon's is that they simply pit one municipality/region against another where the governmental unit or units with the greatest resources put more distance between themselves and lesser competitors. It's a contributor to why we've seen so much of the rural Midwest empty out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top