The taxpayer in NY ends up better off after this deal; even critical articles like the OP acknowledge that the subsidies are dwarfed by the increase in tax revenues that the state will gain.
To recap, Amazon is getting ~$1.5b in performance-pegged tax breaks over 10 years. The OP gives an estimate of $14b over 25 years in tax revenue added; that gives $5.6b over the same 10 year period, or over $4b net gain to NY taxpayers.
Note, if the office turns out to be less successful at generating tax revenue than projected, then the tax breaks scale down.
There are legitimate arguments against this kind of deal, such as that it encourages a race to the bottom where desperate cities offer close to zero net taxes. But we're pretty clearly quite far away from that equilibrium; cities still have bargaining power in these negotiations.
you added a qualifier that OP did not add. Yes, the new york taxpayer is better off, but this is rent-seeking behavior
New York is better off by subsidizing Amazon in the same sense as Luxembourg is better off compared to other European countries by being a tax haven. Hardly something applaudable.
That's literally what taxes are for.
What is happening here is that New York creates an incentive that is supposed to motivate Amazon to move economic activity out of some other location in the US to New York, at the disadvantage of everyone else, who now can either enter into this competition and erode their own tax base, or take the loss.
If you could simply increase your tax revenue by giving tax money away to companies, you would have invented a magical tax money printing machine.
I find it the height of irony that, on a site created by a startup accelerator, you're saying that you can't help a business by giving it cash
related article precisely on this issue:
https://hbr.org/2018/07/landing-amazon-hq2-isnt-the-right-wa...
Maybe. But what if all the other cities/States collude - or independently - for the benefit of their taxpayers, decide to give Amazon a “personalized tax deal” like NY/NYC gave Amazon...only to Amazon’s detriment?
If other states/cities are going to take the good employers with custom tax deals I think everyone else should make sure those subsidized companies aren’t also eating up their local economies/businesses.
> I am glad that both sides agree that this is wrong.
Saying so don't make it so? Of course there are large camps on both sides that dislike this kind of deal, but I don't think boosterism is universally unpopular with voters. This wasn't a shady, "backroom" deal. Governor Cuomo and Northam have both been extremely open about their support for luring Amazon with benefits.