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:
Voting for candidate:
Zipcode:
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes
If a company cannot break even or make a profit, their business model has failed and they don't need to stay in business.
@9FS6TV32yrs2Y
Some companies are doing fundamental research or are too niche to be profitable yet their products can be vital for the respective fields they conduct business in.
Yes, and those companies deserve a chance to prove their thesis and get the initial R&D turned into real products and services. This is why the BDC markets exist, and I have no concerns with the government providing R&D funding through the NSF and other channels. But a city giving economic incentives at the expense of their own tax base is doing their citizens a disservice. I'd prefer that the market be allowed to pick the winners rather than a city council doing it on the backs of their taxpayers.
@9FSBHC82yrs2Y
While it is a corporation's responsibility to ensure financial stability of their corporation the loss of jobs from said corporation would be too severe and have a negative impact on the national economy.
Very good point, but if the job losses from a single corporation are going to have a negative impact on the entire national economy, there are bigger issues that need to be worked out. I supported the takeover of the major automakers in 2010, because it was a restructuring that took your point into account and made sure that the automobile manufacturing industry did not collapse. That wasn't a subsidy, really, it was more of an industry rescue package.
This was very different from putting tax breaks to corporations into the law just because the company gives a contribution to a political candidate.
@9F92YNC 2yrs2Y
For example: in the state of KY, eastern KY and the Appalachian region drastically needs many kinds of businesses to serve the people but few corporations are willing to invest in the region due to low numbers of people and economic distress. If the government would assist in bringing in businesses, many problems might be eased and in time the region could be a profitable place for a business to locate..
Any coastal community a hurricane has devastated serves as an example of the need for government investment and assistance (subsidy) in businesses for recovery and survival.
@CockatooPeteRepublican2yrs2Y
Absolutely, areas such as eastern KY and the Appalachian region, which are often overlooked due to less favorable economic conditions, could definitely benefit from such incentives. It's a win-win situation where businesses get a boost to establish and the local community gets job opportunities and economic upliftment. Similarly, for coastal communities hit by natural disasters, these incentives can stimulate recovery and resilience. But how do we ensure that these incentives lead to long-term commitment from businesses rather than short-term gain?
@9FZQ84R2yrs2Y
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1172301798/workers-affordable-housing-companies-building
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/08/us-affordable-housing-corporations-amazon-low-interest-rates
https://ripplematch.com/career-advice/awesome-companies-located-in-affordable-cities-53a99824/
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-cheaper-to-buy-houses-than-to-build-them-and-refine-them-as-a-company
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No
@9FP2KHQ2yrs2Y
Corporations being corporations can already hold their own most of the time, and hold a fair share of the market and social power in general. Saying "NO" would help perpetuate economic disparities and inequalities in America and keep money in the hands of possible corrupt leaders. Giving people the opportunity to acquire employment and climb up the economic ladder is what we want.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, the government should never subsidize private businesses
@9F92YNC 2yrs2Y
The government should subsidize some private businesses: to help some get started, to help some open new locations in needy areas, to help in recovery from natural disasters. The government should be allowed to subsidize for specific reasons and with maximum and minimum money levels.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies
@9FZQ84R2yrs2Y
Companies build more on burnt down places because it's cheaper, a place being more expensive not necessarily attracts companies, that argument is insufficient, mainly because companies take advantage of this to make their own housing restrictions, i.e. 'if you work for us we will give you housing ourselves'
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, but punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@9GBVFHR2yrs2Y
Yes, because if they do move jobs out of the country, it could open up job positions for other people in the world who might be more qualified.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised
@9FP2KHQ2yrs2Y
If the local government were compromised that would be infringing on the civil liberties of the individuals in the area since it is their community. So the corporations would have to find a way to work WITH the community to provide new jobs.
@Ign3usR3xSocialist2mos2MO
The word in the question is "environment" not "government". The question is "is the environment compromised"
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, cities should do whatever they choose
@98PJRK42yrs2Y
Yes, cities should do as they choose
@8TPZGDY4yrs4Y
Yes, and punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@9X45M636mos6MO
Yes , but only if: the local environment is not compromised, the tax revenue will exceed the tax incentives, the company promises to hire local residents, and local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer.
Yes, provided that tax revenue will exceed tax incentives, the company promises to hire mostly local residents, and local citizens vote to approve it.
Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised, the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents, and the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives
@8G5T7885yrs5Y
Yes, but every state should have their own incentive program if they choose to have one at all. This is not a federal level issue.
@B58NX8HIndependent4 days4D
No but make sure that they are employing Americans and keeping American workers there jobs and not undermining them
I think each city and its citizens can decide what they will allow when trying to be competitive to bring jobs to their area.
@B4RBKM63wks3W
Only if the method is to decrease taxes for both new and established businesses at the exact same rate.
@B4KLCSB4wks4W
only if the private business gives jobs to the locals and helps boost the local economy over the long term
Yes, but they should not be zero taxes deals, they should have a few year lifespan and be environmentally sound.
@B4FCJW4Republican1mo1MO
Yes, for the sake of low unemployment, a good supply chain, good trade, a good GDP, and job creation.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
Yes, for the sake of good GDP, good trade, low unemployment, a good supply chain, freedom, capitalism, federalism, weak government, checks and balances, and job creation.
@B3ZYM5D2mos2MO
Yes, First off, we have to preserve freedom, checks and balances, federalism, and a weak central government Second of all, this will lead to decreased inflation, better trade, a lower unemployment rate, and more job creation
@B3VGV2T 2mos2MO
Cities can consider offering economic incentives to private companies to relocate, but there are tradeoffs to consider.
Benefits
Job creation: Incentives can help create jobs and stimulate economic growth
Business investment: Incentives can encourage businesses to invest in communities
Competition: Incentives can help cities compete with other areas for businesses
Drawbacks
Cost: Incentives can be expensive
Ineffectiveness: Incentives may not always be effective
Unfairness: Incentives can create a sense of unfairness for residents who don't work remotely
Instability: Incentive… Read more
@B34MF6V3mos3MO
Yes, only if the local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer and they hire local citizens
@9YNNR5S6mos6MO
Not for relocation if there is a good workforce and resources already in the area, if room for expansion is the question then possibly offer incentive to build another facility to add more jobs in another location.
@9YGN3RS6mos6MO
Yes, but only if the environment will not suffer and the residents will have tax revenue exceed that of the tax cut incentives.
@9KYF8QF1yr1Y
Yes, but I would prefer that money be used to encourage entrepeneurship within the community instead.
@9KVMCZH1yr1Y
Yes, as long as the incentives apply to a wide range of companies and not just specific companies that make specific deals
@9KQTXBGIndependent1yr1Y
Yes as long as the local environment isn’t compromised AND as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed tax incentives
@9KNPCWJ1yr1Y
yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised and promise to create new jobs by hiring local residents
@9KLP5XC1yr1Y
No, the government should make their tax system inviting to all companies and not create different rules for different companies.
@9KH7ZYH1yr1Y
No, punish companies for moving out of country and more to attract companies by improving the infrastructure.
@9KGSD9S1yr1Y
yes, but it should be at the decision of the company whether or not to accept. and if it creates more jobs by hiring local residents
@9KBYNKK1yr1Y
Yes but with safeguards to the local environment and with a sunset clause so tax revenues eventually offset there revenue lost through the incentive.
@9JN2GV81yr1Y
Abolish privatization, abolish ownership, abolish commoditization, abolish the commodity form, et cetera.
@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.
@9J6DPV71yr1Y
Yes, I don't like it but city governments have control over their own economic policies and that should be respected
@9HSK5NS1yr1Y
No. This creates economic development wars between local governments to see who can give away the most tax money.
@9HRGWZQProgressive1yr1Y
Yes, but only if local citizens can vote on whether or not they want he company to relocate and as long as the local environment is not compromised
@6MR65NZProgressive 1yr1Y
Yes, as long as the tax revenue exceeds the tax incentives, the company will not negatively impact the local environment, and the company gives employment preferability to local residents
@9HD6CZV1yr1Y
They should be allowed to without federal legal restrictions, but, such cities should know that big companies lie all the time about salaries, how many people will be hired, and the impact they will have on the environment, and the federal government rarely holds these companies accountable when they do this. Usually the company will blame its bad results and unmet promises on bad economic conditions (as if we’ve had anything other than bad economic conditions for two decades now), and then the government ends up bailing them out. It would be much better to pool community resources into investing in small local businesses and local employers who need help, and expand the amount of workers they can hire, instead of bringing in corporations from outside the community.
@9GSLXJMRepublican2yrs2Y
No because government does not have the authority to tell businesses what cities they can and cannot be in.
@9GM4L8FIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, if the local environment is not compromised and the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents
@9GKVKNBIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, suppose the revenue eventually exceeds the incentives. In that case, the company hires local residents, and locals can vote on the amount of incentives to offer, and spend any excess from the vote to fund local infrastructure.
@9GDP2DY2yrs2Y
Yes, incentivize the corporations to do business in the United States by decreasing corporate taxes drastically, give the corporations tax breaks, and drastically increase tariffs.
@9G8KZQ52yrs2Y
no, cities should use that money to support communities, not corporations, but should have the power to make corporations move if they harm the environment or people in a community.
Yes, as long as the job creation for qualified local residents and corresponding tax revenue will eventually offset the cost of any awarded incentives
@9FS9D4Q 2yrs2Y
Some cos like Allstate just move when incentives are over so no longer term benefit. Just business welfare.
@9FRH8G92yrs2Y
In area where they will be more environmentally friendly, but not a lot because corporation are already unethical.
@9FQK4YQ2yrs2Y
No government should not subsidize businesses, but should punish them for moving out of country by eliminating their ability to do business in the United States or with US citizens
@Yaunti2 2yrs2Y
No, abolish private property and spend the resources elsewhere
@9FMNPCK2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as local citizens can vote on the amount and the company promises more jobs by hiring locals.
@9FH3V5G2yrs2Y
As long as it doesn't create a rise in taxes for the local residents
Yes, but only if the local environment is not compromised, the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents, and the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives
@9F9TFJY2yrs2Y
I'm 50/50 on this. I feel like to a certain extent it's fine.
@9F872K62yrs2Y
No, but if they are in need then they could help with the Amazon Company.
@9F32CRV2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as the people of the state approve.
@9F2MBPC2yrs2Y
Yes, but they shouldn't need to.
@Chase-Oliver2yrs2Y
Yes, because it's not up to the federal government what local governments do.
Perhaps. It depends on the company, how the local people feel about it, statistical impact and environmental impact. Improving local infrastructure and communities to attract companies would be a better long-term solution than directly subsidizing companies.
No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and punish companies from moving jobs out of the country
@9DWX4H32yrs2Y
Local Governments should not have the power to do so, but State and federal should.
@9DWCC782yrs2Y
Government should not be involved; let the free market decide
@9DQ7ZZS2yrs2Y
Perhaps. Depends on the company, how the local people feel about it, statistics and environmental impact.
@9DNYCCJ2yrs2Y
??? why does this matter...
@9DNSK242yrs2Y
A combination of the first three yes answers
@9DN8WHQ2yrs2Y
These stupid policies are why our country is failing now.
@9DLPZB72yrs2Y
Yes, so long as the local environment is not compromised, while punishing them for moving jobs out of the country.
@9DLHCKF2yrs2Y
Yes and the federal government should deal with its own problems instead of trying to tell local government what to do
@9DL7B9H2yrs2Y
This should be handled on a state level and not on a federal level
@9DL79ZP2yrs2Y
This should be governed on the local and state level.
@9DKB6QP2yrs2Y
As long as the environment is not compromised, the jobs are not automated away, and the tax revenue eventually exceeds the tax benefits.
@9DJ6VBH2yrs2Y
If they want to waste their tax dollars, that's their choice but that money should be spent on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies.
@9DJ5VRR2yrs2Y
No they should use that money to improve infrastructure
@9DHQ4TY2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for poorer communities where research would show a significant improvement in jobs and overall financial growth.
@9DCSVZT 2yrs2Y
No, only small businesses should be given tax incentives to relocate. Company should be disincentivized from moving their businesses outside of the country.
@9DF8SB82yrs2Y
There needs to be some kind of offset where money paid by city is paid off by the company in a certain period of time..
Certain environments need to be protected better however the economic benefit of such companies is very appealing to smaller cities.
@9DCTHH72yrs2Y
Corporations should not exist, period.
@8VGYZK8 2yrs2Y
No, they should only be able to make changes that are generally applicable to all businesses.
@9D7QLMD2yrs2Y
Yes, if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer; and as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives.
No, abolish private property and reallocate the money to areas of need
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
