Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I’ve read that the employees were coming with too, not creating jobs for New Yorkers.

25,000 (over 20 years) new jobs, if it happened, meant more demand for everything needed to service those jobs and those facilities. More demand for city services, but also more demand for the services 25,000 people need -- which would be filled by local businesses. How would this not result in more jobs for New Yorkers? Not to mention revenue from payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes. Not to mention that is diversifies a local economy which is never a bad thing. If there wasn't a spillover benefit to communities from new jobs, why would communities offer tax breaks for companies to move?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Yeah, I'm quite surprised that FogBlue doesn't know (or intimates this) that states were falling over themselves offering gift after gift cutting themselves further and further until New York got the nod by, effectively, paying Amazon to actually set up in New York!! I was stunned how crass the whole thing was.

It was like watching Amazon/ Jeff Bezos sat on a throne, eating grapes and watching Bum Fights and the winner asking on bent knees Amazon/ Bezos to punch them in face for the privilege!!

Shocking.

Bezos didn't take the best offer; he took the best offer in the city where he felt the best business opportunity was -- being close to major customers, closer to Europe, in a place that's a significant worldwide transit hub, in a socioeconomic and racially diverse area, near quality universities for hiring better qualified people, in a place where cultural amenities would keep high-quality employees happy. That's why Bismarck, North Dakota wouldn't have been on the short list even if they'd have offered him a governorship.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Click on the Tweet and read the replies.

I did. Her tweet is buzzwords and tropes and appears to center on the objection to the person and the entity that was asking -- I think. It's not really clear what she's criticizing, which is why tweet is stupid. Many of the replies rightly point out that the multiplier effect would have been quite positive for local business (though of course an increase in local services would also have been needed).

If she thought the deal was too sweet, why the hell should Amazon be blamed for that? Because they're the easiest populist lightning rod, that's why.

 

[BobKowalski]

I did. Her tweet is buzzwords and tropes and appears to center on the objection to the person and the entity that was asking -- I think. It's not really clear what she's criticizing, which is why tweet is stupid. Many of the replies rightly point out that the multiplier effect would have been quite positive for local business (though of course an increase in local services would also have been needed).

If she thought the deal was too sweet, why the hell should Amazon be blamed for that? Because they're the easiest populist lightning rod, that's why.

Not going to get too involved in this one but I read Josh Barro on the subject a few days ago pointing out that neither party, Amazon or New York, really needed the deal. Link to article.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/new-york-and-amazon-dont-need-each-other.html

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Not going to get too involved in this one but I read Josh Barro on the subject a few days ago pointing out that neither party, Amazon or New York, really needed the deal. Link to article.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/new-york-and-amazon-dont-need-each-other.html

It's an interesting piece, and he's probably right -- Amazon is a "nice-to-have" rather than a necessity.

But even if NY hadn't offered dime one in tax breaks, would that change AOC's view -- as expressed in her tweet -- about Amazon's greed, worker exploitation and the "power of the richest man in the world"?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Nate Silver wondering the same thing I was.

 

[bugsyblue]

AOC wants to take on the corporations and get them to pay their fair share of tax. She's targeted Amazon as they are one of the biggest and reputedly push very aggressive tax evasion schemes! In the short term yes maybe it won't benefit the people of Queens. But long term she's fighting a bigger battle which affects many more people.

Now debate her motives all you want - maybe she is doing this for publicity and her own career - but is it really so hard to comprehend that if someone doesn't take a stand against big business then they will continue to take advantage of lax tax legislation and loopholes?

 

[BobKowalski]

It's an interesting piece, and he's probably right -- Amazon is a "nice-to-have" rather than a necessity.

But even if NY hadn't offered dime one in tax breaks, would that change AOC's view -- as expressed in her tweet -- about Amazon's greed, worker exploitation and the "power of the richest man in the world"?

Possibly not as Amazon’s ‘greed’ and ‘worker exploitation’ is well documented. But add that to a £3billion sweetener from the public purse for a deal that NY isn’t crying out for and you are presenting a nice fat target that is begging to be hit.

I’ve nothing against financial inducements to set up businesses but there’s a perception it’s turning into ‘socialism for the wealthy’ and raw capitalism for the rest especially those at the bottom. It’s that perception AOC is tapping into.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

AOC wants to take on the corporations and get them to pay their fair share of tax. She's targeted Amazon as they are one of the biggest and reputedly push very aggressive tax evasion schemes! In the short term yes maybe it won't benefit the people of Queens. But long term she's fighting a bigger battle which affects many more people.

Now debate her motives all you want - maybe she is doing this for publicity and her own career - but is it really so hard to comprehend that if someone doesn't take a stand against big business then they will continue to take advantage of lax tax legislation and loopholes?

It's hard to comprehend for me because the stand to take is against the loopholes, not the business that takes advantage of them. The business does something illegal? Different story. Then be specific about the business, not "big business" as some generalized trope.

 

[bugsyblue]

It's hard to comprehend for me because the stand to take is against the loopholes, not the business that takes advantage of them. The business does something illegal? Different story. Then be specific about the business, not "big business" as some generalized trope.

I agree with that to an extent. It’s absolutely loopholes, incentives and back hand deals which are the problem. But there isn’t an easy solution in a globalised world. Very hard for the UK to stop big British business from moving their HQ to Monaco or HK, as is the case with Dyson. Unless you have a global tax scheme I’m not sure we’d ever be able to legislate fully against it.

Also, and this is quite old school, but big business used to feel a responsibility. Not every decision was based on the bottom line. Times have changed but I still feel corporations should have ethics.