That's certainly one view. Another is that these are just breaks on excessive taxes by one government to compete with other governments that have sane corporate taxes in the first place.
I don't understand how tax reductions are considered welfare. It's not money the government has already being passed out to Amazon. The government would have still made money in this scenario, just less.
The money for these sorts of capital grant giveaway always comes from "somewhere."
[1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2010/03/09/albany-didnt-cut-the-...
Only they're not. That's not always the case.
For instance, Wisconsin has no corporate tax at all. So they made a deal to just hand over giant boxes of cash to Foxconn at each of several milestones. Think about that. ZERO tax, was just too high.
And I've discovered that Wisconsin is not the only place that has made deals like that. Look at it anyway you like, if corporations are at the point where they are openly saying:
"Paying no tax is not enough, we want you to give us money."
Something is out of place.
https://www.nycedc.com/program/relocation-and-employment-ass...
https://www.nycedc.com/program/industrial-commercial-abateme...
These programs are designed to encourage specific behavior, like companies moving to and making capital investments in particular areas of the city. Any company that does so qualified for a formulaic tax break. NYC did not offer any tax breaks to Amazon beyond its existing incentive programs.
It does appear to be a "don't hate the player, hate the game" scenario which I do think is worth looking at. I would love to see real discussion with details like the link you presented from both side, and not these emotionally charged garbage opinion pieces presented almost as articles with no sources or credibility.