Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Baker Boy

Amazon not coming to NY

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

 

Bottom line, I'm not for government subsidizing private enterprise. 

This is my view in a nutshell. I want the govt to stay out of the way as much as possible and let the market dictate winners and losers  

The little guys have to make it on their own and fend for themselves with no breaks whatsoever.   Yet they have to comply with all the same bullshit regulations from local municipalities, state govt, OSHA, EPA etc as the big guy   

As a start up, Amazon took advantage of interstate commerce sales tax regs and rode that built in discount for 20 years.  They managed to outsmart the tax man.  Fine.  But no more handouts for them.  They’ve had more than enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never understood the argument against gentrification. So what? You'd rather have broken down crack house than a half million dollar townhouse? You know building that townhouse creates a lot of jobs. You know, having that townhouse there attracts a lot of money and people with money.

 

 you'd rather have a ghetto? I really think this Amazon deal is going to bite AOC in the ass.

 

And I'd rather do that myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

This is my view in a nutshell. I want the govt to stay out of the way as much as possible and let the market dictate winners and losers  

The little guys have to make it on their own and fend for themselves with no breaks whatsoever.   Yet they have to comply with all the same bullshit regulations from local municipalities, state govt, OSHA, EPA etc as the big guy   

As a start up, Amazon took advantage of interstate commerce sales tax regs and rode that built in discount for 20 years.  They managed to outsmart the tax man.  Fine.  But no more handouts for them.  They’ve had more than enough.  

If a state wishes to write a business friendly tax code that EVERYONE benefits from, under the philosophy that more growth will outpace low taxes, so be it. Everyone competes evenly.

But these one off deals suck. Not even getting into the eminent domain side of things, where government uses it's power to vacate land for a private corporation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wiffleball said:

Never understood the argument against gentrification. So what? You'd rather have broken down crack house than a half million dollar townhouse? You know building that townhouse creates a lot of jobs. You know, having that townhouse there attracts a lot of money and people with money.

 

 you'd rather have a ghetto? I really think this Amazon deal is going to bite AOC in the ass.

 

And I'd rather do that myself.

The argument against gentrification is that in inner cities, it drives out the poor residents (who usually rent, often with government subsidy) and they then have to go far out of the city where they can afford housing, but there isn't the same job and infrastructure opportunity.

Which is a big boo hoo. Want to keep your house? Then own it. If you're on section 8, live where the guy paying the rent tells you.

I think we should move all government housing to the middle of nowhere. I'm nice, I'll even provide a free shuttle into town and back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Why not? How bout for one, it skews things in favor of the big guy.

 

Little guy with one factory or one warehouse doesn't get deals like that. Only the huge guys do.

Bottom line, I'm not for government subsidizing private enterprise. 

You are acting like corporations haven't negotiated deals from the beginning of time.   The little guy doesn't bring billions of dollars in tax revenue.  If Amazon only brings in half the jobs and half the salary promised, that is a Billion a year in salary to local workers.  If they bring in all they promised that is 4 Billion.  Either is a boon to local business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

You are acting like corporations haven't negotiated deals from the beginning of time.   The little guy doesn't bring billions of dollars in tax revenue.  If Amazon only brings in half the jobs and half the salary promised, that is a Billion a year in salary to local workers.  If they bring in all they promised that is 4 Billion.  Either is a boon to local business.

Who's acting like that? Nobody said Amazon was the first behemoth to seek and receive incentives.  They just happen to be the latest, and highest profile example.  I believe it's a bad system 

As tbbom said, let states create an economic environment that's fair and equitable for all, then I'd be fine with it.  Some sorta tax rebate for every sf of developed commercial space and each new job created.  

Plus, not all corporations keep their promises.  

 

Foxconn: $4.5 billion for 13,000 jobs, the rough equivalent of Wisconsin paying 30% of Foxconn's payroll for 15 years,

  • Last week, the company said it won't build the plant. Then, after a reported conversation between the company and President Trump, it said it actually will. No one knows what will happen next.
  • In a new investigation, Bloomberg reports that Foxconn's promises were never realistic. In the past, the company has failed to deliver on such pledges in Brazil, India and Pennsylvania, per Bloomberg.

Comerica took a $3.5 million grant from the city in 2007 on the condition of adding 200 high-paying jobs, Comerica went back to Dallas in 2012 with an amended offer.

  • The company wanted to count the relocation of 16 executives — the CEO among them — as part of the total job number, in addition to positions created at two subsidiaries.
  • Comerica also included substantial executive salaries when calculating the average compensation of the added jobs.

Evergreen Solar received a $58 million grant commitment to build a plant in Massachusetts, but eventually scrapped construction plans. The state recovered just $3 million of $21 million Evergreen had already received

Since the 1990s, the typical size of a corporate tax break has tripled, and although these incentives are open to all businesses, 70% of the deals and 90% of the dollars go to big companies.

Don't even get me started on the automakers:

https://www.autonews.com/article/20181203/OEM01/181209951/gm-may-keep-cashing-in-michigan-tax-credits-after-cuts-closures

At the same time, the Snyder administration signed a nondisclosure agreement with GM to shield the value of the automaker's tax credits from public disclosure -- a deal some lawmakers with GM plants in their districts want to re-examine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was fairly disgusted with how so many cities(Detroit included) donned gold plated knee pads to blow Amazon in an effort to bring their HQ here.  It was reported almost everyday in the news for a while.   really was a sickening game Amazon was playing with these cities.....they knew it was all a big game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is similar to pro stadiums to me.  They bring in tons of money to the community. Thousands of jobs for the community.  But it’s almost like they hold the city hostage.

Im torn.  I guess it depends what the net-net bottom line does for the city.  Does the revenue-jobs out pace the tax incentives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vuduchile said:

 

As a start up, Amazon took advantage of interstate commerce sales tax regs and rode that built in discount for 20 years.  They managed to outsmart the tax man.  Fine.  But no more handouts for them.  They’ve had more than enough.  

This statement makes no sense.  You realize sales tax is not an expense to Amazon, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bert said:

This statement makes no sense.  You realize sales tax is not an expense to Amazon, right? 

Not paying sales tax allowed them to offer goods at a lower price undercutting the brick and mortar stores. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Not paying sales tax allowed them to offer goods at a lower price undercutting the brick and mortar stores. 

Amazon doesn't pay sales tax.  They simply collect it for the state.  I can't speak for all states but in CO the consumer was supposed to pay sales tax on anything they bought.  It was the consumer breaking the law, not Amazon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Not paying sales tax allowed them to offer goods at a lower price undercutting the brick and mortar stores. 

First, you mean not charge and collect sales tax.  Huge difference.  Company's making sales via catalog were the fist ones to do this, not amazon.  The Supreme Court decision allowing the practice came out in 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strike said:

I can't speak for all states but in CO the consumer was supposed to pay sales tax on anything they bought.  It was the consumer breaking the law, not Amazon. 

True in most states it falls under the use tax laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bert said:

This statement makes no sense.  You realize sales tax is not an expense to Amazon, right? 

Of course they don’t pay it.  And neither did their customers for 20 years.  

But brick and mortar stores who made an investment in the state where they sold had to charge it. 

That was an average of 6% off when you purchase from amazon vs a brick and mortar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vuduchile said:

Of course they don’t pay it.  And neither did their customers for 20 years.  

But brick and mortar stores who made an investment in the state where they sold had to charge it. 

That was an average of 6% off when you purchase from amazon vs a brick and mortar. 

And every customer that did not remit use tax on those purchases was breaking the law.

Amazon didn't create the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vuduchile said:

Of course they don’t pay it.  And neither did their customers for 20 years.  

But brick and mortar stores who made an investment in the state where they sold had to charge it. 

That was an average of 6% off when you purchase from amazon vs a brick and mortar. 

Then their customers were breaking the law. Not amazon .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a classic cutting off the nose to spite the face action by NY.  Some idiots like AOC don't like Amazon for irrational reasons and make a stink to the point that Amazon decides it's not worth it.  Doesn't hurt Amazon at all but will hurt NY.  AOC literally said yesterday that NY should use the same money for schools instead not realizing that without Amazon coming there is no money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Then their customers were breaking the law. Not amazon .

Amazon exploited the sales tax loophole that didn’t require them to charge sales tax to customers when shipping to most states where they had no physical presence.    As I said before. Good for them outsmarting the tax man and gaining a competitive advantage in doing so. 

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1992 ruling giving states authority to demand online retailers collect and remit sales taxes   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vuduchile said:

Amazon exploited the sales tax loophole that didn’t require them to charge sales tax to customers when shipping to most states where they had no physical presence.    As I said before. Good for them outsmarting the tax man and gaining a competitive advantage in doing so. 

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1992 ruling giving states authority to demand online retailers collect and remit sales taxes   

 

 

 

And Amazon complies with the law.  Now I pay sales tax.  Do you buy from Amazon?  If so,.prior to them collecting sales tax did you voluntarily remit sales tax for your purchases from Amazon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon treats its workers like shiit and drives small businesses under, but cities are supposed to bribe them with tax breaks and other perks?

When did Republicans become such bootlickers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MDC said:

Amazon treats its workers like shiit and drives small businesses under, but cities are supposed to bribe them with tax breaks and other perks?

When did Republicans become such bootlickers?

Lol.  So the politicians who made this deal are Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strike said:

Lol.  So the politicians who made this deal are Republicans?

No but the Geeks who are so eager to bend over and spread their cheeks are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MDC said:

Amazon treats its workers like shiit and drives small businesses under, but cities are supposed to bribe them with tax breaks and other perks?

When did Republicans become such bootlickers?

Honest question for you... Do you use Amazon at all?

Everyone is 100% entitled to their opinions, so if you feel so strongly that Amazon is a shady company then I assume you don't use their services. It's all part of capitalism.  You're always free to take your business to Company Y if Company X rubs you the wrong way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strike said:

And Amazon complies with the law.  Now I pay sales tax.  Do you buy from Amazon?  If so,.prior to them collecting sales tax did you voluntarily remit sales tax for your purchases from Amazon?

Of course not   And neither did 99% of all amazon users.  

Amazon AND it’s customers exploited that loophole for 20 years. 

Customers saved money by buying there, and Amazon gained market share because of it  

Those days are over but it doesn’t erase the years of competitive advantage Amazon enjoyed due to the tax loophole  

Nobody envisioned an online retailer selling nearly every imaginable product and service online back in 92   Except maybe Bezos   

Amazon does  not need anymore help from our government   They’re just fine  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats elected a racist Governor in VA

A rapist Lt. Governor in VA

Democratic policies scared Amazon away 

Thats just in one month. Put a nail in 2020 you all are done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DonS said:

Honest question for you... Do you use Amazon at all?

Everyone is 100% entitled to their opinions, so if you feel so strongly that Amazon is a shady company then I assume you don't use their services. It's all part of capitalism.  You're always free to take your business to Company Y if Company X rubs you the wrong way. 

Sometimes. I try to limit it to the degree that I can.

Honestly my issue isn’t really wish Amazon doing everything it can within the law to increase its competitiveness. I don’t think US cities should be bidding against each other for the “right” to host Amazon at all. It’s a sad commentary on how much power corporate America yields that 70+ cities would play this game in the first place. Even sadder that so many people seem to think that’s fine. 

I would feel the same way if it was another business. I guess it seems worse since Amazon is known as a crap employer that runs small businesses under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MDC said:

Sometimes. I try to limit it to the degree that I can.

Honestly my issue isn’t really wish Amazon doing everything it can within the law to increase its competitiveness. I don’t think US cities should be bidding against each other for the “right” to host Amazon at all. It’s a sad commentary on how much power corporate America yields that 70+ cities would play this game in the first place. Even sadder that so many people seem to think that’s fine. 

I would feel the same way if it was another business. I guess it seems worse since Amazon is known as a crap employer that runs small businesses under.

Fair enough. 

It is a tricky subject wrt the impact on small businesses, though. I would think that some small businesses survive - - or wouldnt even exist - - if it weren't for Amazon.  They definitely pioneered the entire online shopping paradigm that everyone now embraces, and that all customers now expect from companies competing for their business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DonS said:

Fair enough. 

It is a tricky subject wrt the impact on small businesses, though. I would think that some small businesses survive - - or wouldnt even exist - - if it weren't for Amazon.  They definitely pioneered the entire online shopping paradigm that everyone now embraces, and that all customers now expect from companies competing for their business. 

Honestly the stuff about their business practices is just gravy to me. I don’t think cities or states should be “bidding” on companies with tax breaks at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bert said:

And every customer that did not remit use tax on those purchases was breaking the law.

Amazon didn't create the situation. 

Technically, the Supreme Court created the situation with their '92 ruling in Quill Corp v North Dakota

But Bezos, Amazon AND their customers leveraged that loophole for a long time.  Long enough to become dominant.  They've also managed to avoid income tax all over the world through their aggressive tax planning strategies.  I assume you already know all this.  Aren't you a tax guy of some sort? 

Dean Baker and Evan Butcher did a rough calculation showing that if Amazon had always been required to collect sales taxes, it would have collected a total of $20.4 billion in sales taxes from its founding in 1994 through 2015, which is more than twice its lifetime profits of around $9.1 billion.

That's effectively $20 billion in discounts to their customers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

Amazon exploited the sales tax loophole that didn’t require them to charge sales tax to customers when shipping to most states where they had no physical presence.    As I said before. Good for them outsmarting the tax man and gaining a competitive advantage in doing so. 

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1992 ruling giving states authority to demand online retailers collect and remit sales taxes   

 

 

 

They complied with the laws on the books.  Saying they exploited a tax loophole is like saying you are exploiting the tax code by taking a tax deduction for your mortgage interest and property tax.  People how rent don't get the deduction so you have an advantage over them.  

 

Amazon may be a horrible company, I really don't know, but to attack them for compiling with tax law is silly.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vuduchile said:

Technically, the Supreme Court created the situation with their '92 ruling in Quill Corp v North Dakota

But Bezos, Amazon AND their customers leveraged that loophole for a long time.  Long enough to become dominant.  They've also managed to avoid income tax all over the world through their aggressive tax planning strategies.  I assume you already know all this.  Aren't you a tax guy of some sort? 

Dean Baker and Evan Butcher did a rough calculation showing that if Amazon had always been required to collect sales taxes, it would have collected a total of $20.4 billion in sales taxes from its founding in 1994 through 2015, which is more than twice its lifetime profits of around $9.1 billion.

That's effectively $20 billion in discounts to their customers.  

I am very familiar with how sales tax works.  Did he analyze the sales tax dollars that were not collected from goods sold from catalogs since 1960?  Were did he analyze the customers breaking the law? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bert said:

They complied with the laws on the books.  Saying they exploited a tax loophole is like saying you are exploiting the tax code by taking a tax deduction for your mortgage interest and property tax.  People how rent don't get the deduction so you have an advantage over them.  

 

Amazon may be a horrible company, I really don't know, but to attack them for compiling with tax law is silly.   

The other thing these people are ignoring is that Amazon wasn't alone.  Pretty much all online retailers followed the same practice.  Amazon was just the biggest and therefore the boogey man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bert said:

They complied with the laws on the books.  Saying they exploited a tax loophole is like saying you are exploiting the tax code by taking a tax deduction for your mortgage interest and property tax.  People how rent don't get the deduction so you have an advantage over them.  

 

Amazon may be a horrible company, I really don't know, but to attack them for compiling with tax law is silly.   

Bad analogy.

Except for Christmas lights and yard maintenance, I'm not in competition with my renting neighbors. 

How can you not see that the law created an unfair trading advantage for Amazon vs Brick and Mortar stores?  Why do you think the Supreme Court overturned it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strike said:

The other thing these people are ignoring is that Amazon wasn't alone.  Pretty much all online retailers followed the same practice.  Amazon was just the biggest and therefore the boogey man.

This is correct.  All online retailers benefited from the sales tax laws where they could.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

This is correct.  All online retailers benefited from the sales tax laws where they could.  

Also, Amazon was already collecting tax for 45 states at the time of the new SC ruling so it really didn't impact them much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bert said:

I am very familiar with how sales tax works.  Did he analyze the sales tax dollars that were not collected from goods sold from catalogs since 1960?  Were did he analyze the customers breaking the law? 

Mail order catalogs were the front runners for sure.  I've never seen any studies about lost sales tax from mail order catalogs though.  One difference between Amazon and the Sears Catalog or any other catalogs connected to brick and mortar stores is that Sears had physical stores all over the US.  This compelled them to collect sales tax on any orders going to a state where they had a store. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wiffleball said:

Never understood the argument against gentrification. So what? You'd rather have broken down crack house than a half million dollar townhouse? You know building that townhouse creates a lot of jobs. You know, having that townhouse there attracts a lot of money and people with money.

 

 you'd rather have a ghetto? I really think this Amazon deal is going to bite AOC in the ass.

 

And I'd rather do that myself.

It's a circular argument.

The whining about gentrification, then the whining about ghettoization.....  boohoo.....on and on, I cannot make people NOT make their home and neighborhood nice, nor can I stop people from sh!tting their home or neighborhood up... people are what they, do what they do, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

Mail order catalogs were the front runners for sure.  I've never seen any studies about lost sales tax from mail order catalogs though.  One difference between Amazon and the Sears Catalog or any other catalogs connected to brick and mortar stores is that Sears had physical stores all over the US.  This compelled them to collect sales tax on any orders going to a state where they had a store. 

There was also the crap they sold via TV commercials. Only a state or two would have to add sales tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vuduchile said:

Bad analogy.

Except for Christmas lights and yard maintenance, I'm not in competition with my renting neighbors. 

How can you not see that the law created an unfair trading advantage for Amazon vs Brick and Mortar stores?  Why do you think the Supreme Court overturned it?

 

It gave them an "unfair" trading advantage because people broke the law. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×