Would the tax breaks eventually be offset? Amazon paid zero federal tax for the last two years running. They're experts at tax avoidance. I don't see any reason to assume they wouldn't do the same in NY.
> Amazon paid zero federal tax for the last two years running
Not paying Federal income tax isn't paying no taxes. Also, the "zero federal tax" meme is popular among the Bernie Sanders crowd, however, much of Amazon's credits were due to paying stock-based compensation. In 2017, they paid out almost a billion dollars in stock compensation -- compensation for which recipients are taxed -- and taxed at a higher rate than the equivalent funds would have been taxed if retained by the company since such compensation is taxed as ordinary income -- not only are federal income taxes due, but also social security and medicare taxes. The point is that $917 million in stock compensation was written off against Amazon's income, but that $917m likely yields roughly $250 million in federal tax revenue , while if that were taxed as company income, it would yield roughly $110m given the historical effective tax rate paid by Amazon.
Essentially this: If Amazon didn't exist, the US government would be far worse off in terms of tax revenues, despite Amazon paying "zero" taxes. An intelligent view of the situation wouldn't look at "federal taxes paid" by the entity of Amazon, but their total tax revenue impact on the United States government -- including their state and local, and taxes paid by their employees. If you wanted to be more intellectually honest about Amazon and taxes, you'd also include the tax impact of everyone that profits as a result of Amazon. There's also the impact at the consumer level -- the price of products is the sum of all of the inputs used to produce, market and deliver that product. If you raise the price of any of those inputs, prices necessarily increase. Let's say we increase the taxes of Amazon -- that means that their "Hefty Garbage Bags" are now selling for more money, but that also means that competitors selling Hefty Garbage Bags can also raise their prices. Essentially corporate taxes have the same market-wide effect as a tariff -- raising prices for everyone. Who gets harmed most by higher prices for consumer goods? It isn't the "rich." It's the poor and middle class. Lower prices for goods helps the economy far more than the equivalent amount collected in taxes due to deadweight loses.
At least one of the following would have to be true for that to follow: new people would have to move to NYC specifically for Amazon (or to fill vacancies created by people leaving other companies to work at Amazon), or otherwise-unemployed people would have to become employed because of Amazon, or the people taking Amazon jobs would have to be paid more than they otherwise would. None of these would be guaranteed, though. Unemployment in NYC is already low, and there are significant impediments to moving to NYC unrelated to hiring (high cost and limited availability of housing, for instance). It might well be that the same people would end up employed regardless, just at Amazon instead of elsewhere, and other employers would just have higher vacancy rates. These same people would then produce less total revenue for the city/state because more of the taxes they would have been paying regardless would go to subsidizing Amazon.
It has, but is almost undoubtedly slowing as Seattle becomes more expensive and housing becomes more scarce (in other words, as it becomes New York-like). Massive inbound migration was possible because pre-Amazon, housing in Seattle was comparatively plentiful and cheap.
Seattle has a housing crisis because it has large amounts of the city with extremely restrictive residential zoning and refuses to compromise. They have large areas where multi-tenancy housing can't exists. Additionally, in the US everyone believes housing is not a depreciating asset. There is a reason Tokyo is the largest city in the world while being significantly cheaper to live in then similar cities.
Of course. This is true of New York as well, especially outside of Manhattan. I, too, would prefer a regulatory environment that allows for denser construction. None of that changes the fact that the regulatory environment is what it is, and as a practical matter it limits the extent to which people are able to move to either city to work for Amazon.
How much increase in tax revenues will NYC get now that they’ve scared off their expansion? NYC is not responsible for Amazon’s success and is not entitled to a share in their revenue via taxes.
Claiming that they are simply because they want to expand and hire into their market does not result in successful outcomes for either party.
But it's also not the case that the increase of "income and sales tax payers" for NY would be zero without Amazon, so the benefit would have to take that baseline into account. It's not an easy calculation, and there are reasons beyond pure money as to why you wouldn't want an Amazon HQ.
all people who would qualify to work at Amazon getting 150k per year are already working somewhere making something close to that. this was not going to change employment rate or boost income taxes. this was going to drive housing prices, especially rent thru the roof though.
> all people who would qualify to work at Amazon getting 150k per year are already working somewhere making something close to that. this was not going to change employment rate or boost income taxes. this was going to drive housing prices, especially rent thru the roof though.
Those people might not currently be in NYC, and they might have moved to NYC to work for Amazon. NYC would have received more income tax revenue if high earners moved there from somewhere else.
