If only people had looked to see if this were true in instances like this in the past.

Hey guys, I think Tien is right. If not for corporate handouts no one would want to work/live in NYC, never mind set up shop there.

If anyone even has a small interest in sports, cities have found out paying for arenas "because they pay for themselves" was a gigantic scam. Some are starting to wise up. It's the exact same playbook. Ask for ~1 billion for a stadium, even though you're a billionaire. Hire someone to claim it will boost revenue/increase jobs. By the time they figure out you swindled them it's too late.

Well they keep giving hundreds of millions or even billions to billionaire sports owners in stadium deals that have been proven to provide zero economic benefit to the area, so...yes?

Lol,

Nevermind the schlock companies who don't even ask for $3b who might want to start up in LIC. We gotta **** the RoI chicken that may or may not come to fruition.

LIC has been gentrified for years. Right now it's basically just residential zone for lawyers/bankers and their families working midtown and there isn't much activity during the day. Having Amazon there will dramatically expand employment opportunities there and even low income people that rely more on service industries will have a lot more jobs.

This isn't like the Hudson Yards development in Manhattan because LIC will not slow down the subway (which are bottlenecked in the tunnels connecting Manhattan to outer boroughs but otherwise actually fine) substantially where it matters.

I'm not somehow that unquestionably supports government subsidies for corporate entities. In NYC alone I thought the hundreds of millions of subsidies (some would say billions but some of that money would be spent by city in any kind of re-development plan) for the Hudson Yards development were completely unnecessary. That money would have been made available via private means as soon as the 7 train extension to the area was set in stone.

Many of you are not getting how this works. It's not like there is $3Billion sitting in a pile to be deployed to various means. The $3Billion is primarily a tax subsidy that would not even exist unless it is created. Have any of you even filed a corporate tax return?

do you even file corporate tax return, bro?

Maybe those us that are not yet woke can become so by doing some shopping at Tiens profile location?

Gee I wonder if there are any examples of these types of "giveaways" working out for state and local governments. See what I did there...........

Olympics and World Cup come to mind also.

The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games

The costs of hosting the Olympics have skyrocketed, while the economic benefits are far from clear. This has led to fewer states interested in playing host and a search for options to lighten the burdens of staging the big event.

Backgrounder by James McBride

Linked in that article is a book by Andrew Zimbalist - the Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics at Smith College

Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup

The numbers are staggering: China spent $40 billion to host the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing and Russia spent $50 billion for the 2014 Sochi Winter Games. Brazil's total expenditures are thought to have been as much as $20 billion for the World Cup this summer and Qatar, which will be the site of the 2022 World Cup, is estimating that it will spend $200 billion. How did we get here? And is it worth it? Those are among the questions noted sports economist Andrew Zimbalist answers in Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Both the Olympics and the World Cup are touted as major economic boons for the countries that host them, and the competition is fierce to win hosting rights. Developing countries especially see the events as a chance to stand in the world’s spotlight. Circus Maximus traces the path of the Olympic Games and the World Cup from noble sporting events to exhibits of excess. It exposes the hollowness of the claims made by their private industry boosters and government supporters, all illustrated through a series of case studies ripping open the experiences of Barcelona, Sochi, Rio, and London. Zimbalist finds no net economic gains for the countries that have played host to the Olympics or the World Cup. While the wealthy may profit, those in the middle and lower income brackets do not, and Zimbalist predicts more outbursts of political anger like that seen in Brazil surrounding the 2014 World Cup.

In the expanded and updated edition of his bestselling book Zimbalist tackles the bogus claim that the cities chosen to host these high-profile sporting events experience an economic windfall. He now takes aim at the outrageous FIFA scandal, Boston’s bid for the 2024 summer Olympics, and the criticism surrounding the 2015 Women's World Cup.

Keep it all? No, not at all - Bezos will pay taxes at his top marginal tax rate on income from salary/cap gains. Shareholders of Amazon stock may be enriched with capital gains and they will pay their fair share. Thousands of employees working in NYC would have paid city, state and fed taxes at very high marginal rates. Guess what if you live in NYC you will all have to pay more for said infrastructure with the loss of Amazon hq2. Congrats!

Gee I wonder if we should just create $3bil in tax subsidies for any and everyone. See what I did there.................

I think you are in the wrong thread? This is about Amazon not Olympics....oh wait, are you trying to correlate a one time event filled with bribery and corruption with a multi decade (century?) return on investment??

Not sure, maybe? Let's see the calcs. Let's provide the $3Bil in chunks to laundromats, restaurants, doggy day cares, etc. Nope, doesn't work the same.

Wow I agree, great post!

Wealth is after tax dollars. Surely you aren't suggesting double taxation?

Through the Looking Glass Alice!

Haha you funny. So you define success as stagnant real estate prices?

So were all you against Amazon hq2 a few months ago or only against it when AOC tells you to? BRB, checking posting histories.........

So you don't know wtf you are talking about when it comes to local economies. Considering all those job holders are likely to reinvest in other local businesses. Whereas Amazon type corporations usually don't have the same reinvestment rates in local areas. Like the graph revots' link showed. The benefits for these businesses fall flat over time.

But go ahead and keep flipping more corporate welfare cheeseburgers.

If you want to put it that way - fine.

What I'm trying to do is show that promises made but corporations when related to expected dividends from large scale public investments in their enterprises shouldn't be taken at face value.

We have a parallel situation in the UK with PFI (Private Finance Inititive) where the country is being/has been robbed blind by large corporations - which the public purse then has to bail out when it all goes tits up.

Private Eye did a great piece on it a few years ago

This is the story of the PFI: how it became a jewel in the crown of New Labour, its savings, its costs, its pitfalls and windfalls, and how it changed the face of British accountancy and British politics.

pdf of full report - http://www.private-eye.co.uk/picture...rts/pf-eye.pdf


In summary - Corporations are all about themselves and any benefits - be that for NYC, Olympic/World Cup hosts or the UK under pfi deals - are greatly exaggerated or completely untrue.

I linked to many studies earlier in this thread related to US corporate welfare - it's all just different sides of the same coin.

obamanotbad.jpg

You got us. We all loved billionaires and corporate subsidies until this month.

Eagerly awaiting your findings.