So Amazon turns down NYC -

[baldgriff]

MSNBC calling out AOC...

Already saying that she is going to drive more people to Trump. I wont vote for him!

[onejayhawk]

Sorry - I figured most of the left leaning folks here would have already known about AOC's mis-speak. My apologies for not including the portion in there about how NYC should spend the offered Tax Credits now to fix the train system and teachers pay.

Just from a math perspective - NYC appeared to be getting a very good deal in order to capture the business and other business that would like come from the influx of those jobs and the income and sales taxes it would created. Thats the pragmatist in me speaking.... lol!

No lie. Not counting the new jobs, construction money spent, and the ongoing boost to the local businesses, the state was going to get an estimated 30 $Billion in new taxes. The deal was for only 10% of that.

J

[baldgriff]

Sorry - I figured most of the left leaning folks here would have already known about AOC's mis-speak. My apologies for not including the portion in there about how NYC should spend the offered Tax Credits now to fix the train system and teachers pay.

Just from a math perspective - NYC appeared to be getting a very good deal in order to capture the business and other business that would like come from the influx of those jobs and the income and sales taxes it would created. Thats the pragmatist in me speaking.... lol!

[The Feral Slasher]

The Cato article is an interesting take - and I do appreciate that they suggest alternatives to fixing NYC's current issues. They are fantastic long term solutions that long term likely could help fix NYC's situation.

The suggestions that Cato makes are made from the perspective that NYC is "less competitive" in the marketplace due to their high property taxes and overly restrictive regulatory environment.

As such, I agree that NYC could become more competitive in the competition of drawing businesses to itself.

It is possible for me to be Libertarian and still have a different take on an individual transaction and see the benefits of the transaction to that community. I just dont view the $3Billion Credit as "pork" - I view it as a bid - one that very well may be necessitated to be competitive and offset NYC's other issues that the CATO institutes long term suggestions I would agree with.

Lets be honest - making the changes to the tax code and regulatory environment in NYC is going to be a very long term process.

Again the original purpose of this thread was to recount the inability of certain elected officials to understand that a Tax Credit is not actually Cash on the table.

Well below is your original post which says nothing at all about equating Tax Credit and Cash. So I'm not sure how that was your original purpose ?

so rather than some 25-50 thousand jobs bringing great amounts of business and capital to the area - people rejoice (led by AOC and group) because they "defeated" the big bad greed corporations and didnt give them the 3 billion tax break.

Have fun not working and just keep asking for policies to take money from the rich guy.

[baldgriff]

The Cato article is an interesting take - and I do appreciate that they suggest alternatives to fixing NYC's current issues. They are fantastic long term solutions that long term likely could help fix NYC's situation.

The suggestions that Cato makes are made from the perspective that NYC is "less competitive" in the marketplace due to their high property taxes and overly restrictive regulatory environment.

As such, I agree that NYC could become more competitive in the competition of drawing businesses to itself.

It is possible for me to be Libertarian and still have a different take on an individual transaction and see the benefits of the transaction to that community. I just dont view the $3Billion Credit as "pork" - I view it as a bid - one that very well may be necessitated to be competitive and offset NYC's other issues that the CATO institutes long term suggestions I would agree with.

Lets be honest - making the changes to the tax code and regulatory environment in NYC is going to be a very long term process.

Again the original purpose of this thread was to recount the inability of certain elected officials to understand that a Tax Credit is not actually Cash on the table.

[The Feral Slasher]

I don’t know...that’s why I asked. You seem to be more well versed in political theory than I am.

It is my understanding that both of these groups would be very much against corporate subsidies. Not sure I'm an expert, but I'd be very surprised to hear otherwise.

[nots]

I don’t know...that’s why I asked. You seem to be more well versed in political theory than I am.

[The Feral Slasher]

Are you surprised as well that AOC’s position is a lot more Libertarian (based on what you posted earlier) than democratic socialist?

Is it possible that the Libertarian and democratic socialist positions intersect in some areas ? I beleive that is the case here, don't they both traditionally oppose corporate subsidies ?

[nots]

I'm telling you your position is the exact opposite of those held by every libertarian organization I have ever seen. This surprised me, my assumption was that your position would be similar to the libertarian position and it's clearly not.

Are you surprised as well that AOC’s position is a lot more Libertarian (based on what you posted earlier) than democratic socialist?

[The Feral Slasher]

I've already posted several links that back this up. HEre is another

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/attract-businesses-amazon-lean-government-not-pork

he Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

and here is another.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/amazon-deal-was-outrage-beginning

[The Feral Slasher]

I'm telling you your position is the exact opposite of those held by every libertarian organization I have ever seen. This surprised me, my assumption was that your position would be similar to the libertarian position and it's clearly not.

I've already posted several links that back this up. HEre is another

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/attract-businesses-amazon-lean-government-not-pork

he Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

[The Feral Slasher]

So are you denying that cities don’t compete with each other to stay alive or grow their tax bases?

Again - I dont believe that The Government should be determining who stays afloat (see my opinion on the Bank Buyouts).

I will go back to the question I asked you 5 times yesterday:


According to the site you posted earlier about Libertarian platform. I don’t see Libertarians saying Private Business and Government can’t bargain with each other – Government should not be in a position to compete and create laws that undercut the Private Sectors ability to compete in the Open Market.


To deny that cities and states don’t compete for businesses and people to visit or stay in their cities or states quite honestly is fool-hearty. States and Large cities spend millions in advertising to draw people and business to their locations all of the time. They do this to continue to grow their tax base.

In this transaction the Government is not competing with Private Enterprise – they are attempting to bring more private enterprise back to their City.

How else will a city survive if it does not draw business to its domain? Again, I look at this as a market place transaction between a Local Government and a Business. The Local Government is competing with other Local Government for the tax revenues that will be created when some 25,000 jobs and all of the ancillary jobs that come with it are brought to the area. The Local Government is making a Bid/Offer for the jobs that Amazon states it is creating. The Local Government and Amazon are essentially entering into a business transaction. This is very much unlike what the Federal Government did to keep multiple banks afloat buy bailing them out.

I'm telling you your position is the exact opposite of those held by every libertarian organization I have ever seen. This surprised me, my assumption was that your position would be similar to the libertarian position and it's clearly not.

[baldgriff]

So are you denying that cities don’t compete with each other to stay alive or grow their tax bases?

Again - I dont believe that The Government should be determining who stays afloat (see my opinion on the Bank Buyouts).

I will go back to the question I asked you 5 times yesterday:

Do you believe that Government should not trade with Private Business?

According to the site you posted earlier about Libertarian platform. I don’t see Libertarians saying Private Business and Government can’t bargain with each other – Government should not be in a position to compete and create laws that undercut the Private Sectors ability to compete in the Open Market.

Government should not compete with private enterprise.

To deny that cities and states don’t compete for businesses and people to visit or stay in their cities or states quite honestly is fool-hearty. States and Large cities spend millions in advertising to draw people and business to their locations all of the time. They do this to continue to grow their tax base.

In this transaction the Government is not competing with Private Enterprise – they are attempting to bring more private enterprise back to their City.

How else will a city survive if it does not draw business to its domain? Again, I look at this as a market place transaction between a Local Government and a Business. The Local Government is competing with other Local Government for the tax revenues that will be created when some 25,000 jobs and all of the ancillary jobs that come with it are brought to the area. The Local Government is making a Bid/Offer for the jobs that Amazon states it is creating. The Local Government and Amazon are essentially entering into a business transaction. This is very much unlike what the Federal Government did to keep multiple banks afloat buy bailing them out.

[The Feral Slasher]

So this transaction is different in many ways as the Government appears to be Voluntarily participating in the transaction - rather than overseeing/legislating the transaction. I believe that it is a very significant difference when discussing the trade. I dont view the 3Billion tax credit as anything more than a "bid" for the XXBillions of tax revenues that will be generated long term to the benefit of the city, its people and its infrastructure. Other cities are of course welcome to make a bid for the business also - should they choose to compete for the business.

The life blood of a city and its government is the tax base and multiple transactions that occur within its boundaries. Cities do compete on a large scale to attract people and business to their districts. How do they attract these businesses and people? By continuing to grow the tax base, provide better amenities and opportunities than other cities. There is a competitive market between cities and to play ignorant of that is silly. NYC was able to offer something to compete and draw business to itself that other cities may not have been willing or able to do. Are we complaining about NYC's "unfair advantage" relative to making this offer? That city has to compete in the marketplace to attract jobs. One could make the case that the City Government may be attempting to control or manage trade - but in order for the city to continue to prosper they need to make sure trade continues in their domain rather than the other cities that they are competing with.


So on one hand while I understand that cities have to compete to draw business and can understand using various credits to attract large businesses. I will on the other hand state that I was completely opposed to the Bank Bailouts given by the Federal Government. I dont believe once a business is up and running that it is the job of the government to ensure that a company or number of companies should stay in business. The banks in my example, made a bad business decision related to its investing and lending habits and in my mind - they should have been allowed to fail and let some other entity enter than marketplace - and possibly find a better more efficient way to conduct the business.

I think this is all a misunderstanding. I thought your beliefs were in line with other Libertarians on the issue of corporate subsidies, and clearly they are not, I believe they are pretty much exactly the opposite. So I was operating under a bad assumption. Here's another article I found that discusses what I believe the consensus view of Libertarians regarding corporate subsidies. It's a very short article, I included a few snippets, but you may want to read.

https://www.lpnc.org/corporate-welfare

By taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to businesses in the form of “corporate incentives,” our state and local governments are playing a game of Reverse Robin Hood. They are robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. The Libertarian Party of North Carolina denounces all corporate welfare programs as fiscally irresponsible and calls for their immediate abolition.

This theory has two fundamental defects. First of all, the government has no place in deciding which jobs should be created and maintained. A free market is infinitely better equipped to respond to the economic needs of businesses and consumers. When the government starts funding already successful companies, it becomes harder to compete in the marketplace if you have a new company with an innovative idea or service.

[Teenwolf]

Wow, Politico. Such establishment hackery that consistently tries to draw the narrative that centrism is more viable than true leftism.

Do you have any idea how far the MSM has pushed the Overton window to the right? Policies that are consistently labelled as "far-left" enjoy widespread support in public polling. That makes leftist populism (raising taxes on the rich, Med4All, gun reform, marijuana legalization, etc.) a better and more pragmatic strategy to win than centrism in most cases.

Pete Buttigieg had some excellent commentary on this topic recently. ACA is already a deal brokered based on compromise between appeasing public and corporate interests, satisfying nobody. Now that the public have shifted to supporting Med4All, it makes sense for political leaders to support the will of the people, rather than prematurely bending the knee to right wing concerns. Obama was disallowed from doing his job despite nominating attempting to nominate a centrist pick to the SC. So we've clearly seen the futility of centrism at work. Not interested in that going forward.