In November 2018 the online e-commerce company Amazon announced it would be building a second headquarters in New York City and Arlington, VA. The announcement came a year after the company announced it would accept proposals from any North American city who wanted to host the headquarters. Amazon said the company could invest over $5 billion and the offices would create up to 50,000 high paying jobs. More than 200 cities applied and offered Amazon millions of dollars in economic incentives and tax breaks. For the New York City headquarters the city and state governments gave Amazon $2.8…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Voting for candidate:
Zipcode:
@8TPZGDY4yrs4Y
Yes, and punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@9JKFFD4Republican 1yr1Y
Yes, as long as the company hire local residents that are American Citizens, their tax revenue eventually exceeds the incentives, 10% employee surcharge tax per employee for companies that hire employees out of the country.
@9GSLXJMRepublican2yrs2Y
No because government does not have the authority to tell businesses what cities they can and cannot be in.
@9MMW4Z8Republican12mos12MO
Yes, as long as local environment is not compromised, new jobs are created, and citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer
@9L4R9YCRepublican1yr1Y
Yes, but only if local citizens can vote on the incentives (and amount) and the creation of new jobs that hire local residents without hurting the local environment.
@9FTYYBW2yrs2Y
Yes, but local citizens should be allowed to vote on how much to offer and the as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives and only if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents AND if they don't adhere to the promises they made they must reimburse the incentives they received in timely manner.
@93WW549Republican3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if there is no corruption involved, net government income is positive, and environmental regulations are obeyed
@93JCH7ZRepublican3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as tax revenue eventually exceed tax incentives and companies create new jobs by hiring local residents.
@92DY85LRepublican3yrs3Y
Yes they should be aloud to Offer but not force uncles their are major specific reasons.
@928ZKK2Independent3yrs3Y
Yes as long as it remains in the US
@8ZNGTF3Republican3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives, the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents, and if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer.
@8ZJTS84Republican3yrs3Y
Only if they promise to hire local citizens for more jobs, to boost the local economy. Also local citizens should vote upon the amount of incentives, with a set maximum limit.
@8ZC6H3VRepublican3yrs3Y
The city should do whatever it takes to allow jobs to be created. A strong economy is vital to society.
@8Z25R7N3yrs3Y
Yes as long as the company plans to employ local citizens of the area and I would prefer a lower corporate tax for all businesses
@8YZW59JRepublican3yrs3Y
The federal government should have no bearing on local laws and decisions
@8YNTY7YRepublican3yrs3Y
This is a matter for cities and their inhabitants to determine, in conjunction with Sate laws. The federal government should have no role in this.
@8Y64VZ6Republican3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as the relocation is inside of the US
@8XK6HLSRepublican3yrs3Y
yes, but only if you are relocating to the USA
@8XJ6ZD93yrs3Y
Yes, but lower corporate taxes as well especially of smaller and local business
@8WF8HXVRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, they should be allowed to but they shouldn't actually do it.
@8VP8J6WRepublican4yrs4Y
I hate the environmental laws ruining this country
@8V58W2CRepublican4yrs4Y
Do not know enough information to form opinion
@8TXLTPF4yrs4Y
Yes, with all the conditions mentioned in other options.
@8TMQCNCRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, so long as within a specified period of time, tax revenues WILL exceed the granted tax incentives and so long as the new employer actually employs local workers, both labor, and management personnel, to fill most of the positions created by the new plant.
@8SZ38ZQRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, if the incentive is cuts state corporate taxes and regulations.
@8RS7HN44yrs4Y
No, this causes a race to the bottom
@8RN6JVDRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if they are staying in the USA
@8RJS6QRRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, if they want to and should hire local residents and should offer community outreach programs to increase more economic jobs and to promote local jobs.
@8QYDND5Republican4yrs4Y
If a company is owned by someone it is up to them what they do with it but I would hope they will stay in America and help build jobs and futures for Americans.
@8QCMYY7Republican4yrs4Y
Yes, only if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents and the local environment is not compromised. This would cause the unemployment rate to drop and get people off of food stamps and SNAP benefits. Conduct an audit to ensure any and all guidelines are met.
@8P26X7CRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, so long as the tax revenue exceeds the incentives and if the citizenry consent. On the flip side, if a company outsources, especially a manufacturing firm, the factory should be seized and ownership should be held cooperatively by the workers with permission to continue the manufacture of products. All IP and patent rights should be forfeited.
@8NY3WLJRepublican5yrs5Y
No, the government should never subsidize private businesses. Punish them for moving jobs out of the country and spend that money on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies.
@8M825GQRepublican5yrs5Y
No, we should lower the corporate tax to incentivize companies to stay in the US.
@8LNPWV8Republican5yrs5Y
It depends. Who they are and why they fell the need to relocate.
@8JFT2GJRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring the local residents first AND a time line set for company duration at that location. Company leaving/abandoning facility prior to set time line pays penalty to the tune of their tax incentives plus a percentage back.
@8J3L8X8Republican5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as it will help create jobs for people that are in the area
@8CK2624Republican5yrs5Y
no keep it the way it is
@9BP3NRXRepublican2yrs2Y
If the private company agree
@9B5CG66Republican2yrs2Y
Yes and No,spend that money on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents as long as the local environment is not compromised and the government should never subsidize private businesses
@99C7PBNRepublican2yrs2Y
Yes, only if the given cities fairly compensate the companies and pay reimbursement costs
@97WLQHG2yrs2Y
They would need to provide triple the amount they used to recruit the company as tax breaks for the citizens of the city.
@974P3FSRepublican3yrs3Y
I do not have a preference for this question.
@96TZ765Republican3yrs3Y
No, governments should,lower costs, including income taxes to attract businesses so as not to favor some business over others.
@8W8VHJZ4yrs4Y
No, the government should never subsidize private businesses and should punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@8M28HGLRepublican5yrs5Y
We should make them promise to create new jobs by hiring local residents, and let local citizens vote on which incentives are chosen. Also, we should punish companies who move jobs out of the country.
@87V5TYYRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, and increased spending on infrastructure will further attract companies
@8GTWWZJ5yrs5Y
I need more information for an opinion.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
