Massive tax breaks and giveaways. That's all this is about. It's a dog and pony show to see who will fork up the most to buy in to the delusion that it will pay off somehow.
Because it doesn't work for sports stadiums. It works in the sense of corporate welfare, but it is not a net gain for the community.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2016/09/09/top-...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/public-money-used-build-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/01/31/publi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs
It's sad watching cities fall over themselves to give Amazon (a half a trillion dollar company) a handout. Handouts no one can afford.
> (but where cities take the hit if the company town fails)
As a country [1], states [2], and many municipalities [3], we're very much insolvent as it relates to future obligations. Could we please stop supporting reckless behavior making it worse?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-state-pension-fundin...
If Musk can die on Mars, Bezos can damn well own a county.
> “Not everybody wants to live in the Northwest,” Wilke said. “It’s been terrific for me and my family, but I think we may find another location allows us to recruit a different collection of employees.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/amazons-second-headquarters-wo...
I don't think most tech talent, MBAs, or finance workers want to live in Newville.
And what is particularly galling about Amazon is they essentially pay no taxes. Since 2008, Amazon has paid $1.8B in income tax while Walmart has paid $64B [1]. So they're basically leeches demanding public services while contributing virtually nothing. As someone whose name I've forgotten said, the fundamental question surrounding silicon valley / SV type companies is how do you run a country when a company with $0.5T market cap / Fortune #12 essentially pays no taxes. Who pays for roads/fire services/schools.
[1] https://www.l2inc.com/daily-insights/no-mercy-no-malice/brea...
It's absurd to think that there is no tax money being injected into the city simply because the corporate tax collected is low. They are spending their profits! Some of it in Seattle, and in other places they have physical presence on wages, real estate, etc.
Honestly you need to explain your premise that they contribute nothing... it's illogical. Where is the money going?
Why are "taxes" the only way citizens of a community can prosper? Do wages not count? If they do count, would you like to argue that Amazon is not paying wages to thousands of employees?
Do those employees pay taxes? Taxes aside, are the wages themselves beneficial?
One final point: "tax breaks" in and of themselves seem silly to rail against, like a shareholder being upset at "discounts".
Is your contention that a city giving any tax breaks will see less tax revenue as a result of Amazon coming into their city than if they didn't? Surely it's a question of how much no?
Wages by themselves are not beneficial because cities and countries require money to build/maintain public works.
The history of cities giving tax breaks to attract business and that resulting in a net positive outcome for the city is very very slim. See eg any economist (except those paid for by sports teams) that's covered this.
Above some threshold, which can still be very low, they are going to get massive amounts of tax revenue, aside from the fact that wages, jobs, and citizens paying taxes will increase.
You might dispute this, but I don't see any numbers or qualifiers with anyone saying "tax breaks", in and of themselves are always on balance, whatever the specific details, worse than not having the companies be there.
There are lots of debates on the correct form of taxes anyways. Corporate taxes of non-trivial rates seem pointless to me, or.. detrimental actually. Property tax abatements? No different from a landlord giving rent deferrals to a whale tenant. It can be a very practical choice
Politicians' incentives not being aligned with long term goals of a city? Yes.. that is a problem. But still. The right choice could very well be massive tax breaks, even among those of differing political philosophies.
I sort of agree only on corporate tax breaks - pragmatically there is little point keeping them so high that most international corporations keep their profits offshore. I'd favor lowering corporate overseas rates, but only in combination with increased enforcement against tax avoidance schemes. But to me thats an unrelated to local city/state tax breaks given to corporations.
Since Amazon uniquely doesn't earn much profit, preferring to invest / spend as much of their revenue as possible, one could argue that there is an opportunity cost to collecting more money from Amazon in taxes vs leaving it to them to spend how they see fit. The cost is whatever alternative use they would place on that money... more employees hired, higher wages / benefits, more R&D, more capital expenditure, more construction, who knows.
Or course, in every one of those cases, there would likely be taxes involved anyways...
Good jobs are the lifeblood of any community, and Amazon has provided them in spades in Seattle in a way that is far from extractive. They buy land and build on it and have transformed South Lake Union from a dead, dangerous warehouse district into a thriving neighborhood in ten years time. [1]
Almost all of the "problems" that Seattle faces due to Amazon's presence are problems that hundreds of towns would gladly take in exchange for the tens of thousands of high-end jobs that would bolster their community. [2]
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/amazons-south...
[2] See map after article for current HQ2 bids. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/georgia-town-of...
For many, giving up some taxes from a company that isn’t currently there is a no brainer.
Seattle costs are ginormous.