Amazon pulls out of New York headquarters plan

I have stated on ats before I am uncomfortable with the open borders or dishonest immigration stance of current liberals. I actually agree that virtual open borders are incongruent with many liberal safety net, labor, health care, and wage beliefs/policies.

See my comment above regarding how many such jobs don’t even go to locals, and cost of living increases often outstrip job and economic growth. This happened in Seattle and SF with tech. It’s not simple.
a reply to: StoutBroux

My first thought when I started this news release was that New York had shot themselves in the foot.

Someone is going to get a windfall when Amazon decides on a location. Frankly I wouldn't do it in a ragged out big city or corrupt state. I believe it would be more profitable all around to headquarter in some smaller state in the northern-ish mid west. Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska.... somewhere where growth would be possible and cost not prohibitive.

Just a thought...

Look what Elon Musk did... built his factory in Fernley Nevada, a complete nowhere not too long ago.

originally posted by: Plotus
Look what Elon Musk did... built his factory in Fernley Nevada, a complete nowhere not too long ago.

That is one of the largest manufacturing facilities in the world. You have to build it out in the middle of nowhere...

Amazon only chose NYC because of the massive tax breaks. A lot of the other cities which were far better choices didn't offer up as much. While NYC is a great city, it is pretty much tapped out in regards to obscene cost of living, over crowded, etc.

Chicago would have been a much better choice for Amazon when looking at what they claimed was important (educational institutions, public transit, low cost of living, etc. Chicago would be #1 or 2 in EVERY category.

However, I thought Amazon missed a great marketing opportunity. They could have move to Detroit and really spearheaded a revival of a once great city. $130k type salaries would be lovely in Detroit. You'd need a few room mates in NYC making $130k.

All good points, but tax benefit would likely be offered anywhere they wanted to go. Any smaller state. Placing your hopes on a failed state or city would not be too prudent. You need No baggage dragging you down.
a reply to: Edumakated

originally posted by: Plotus
All good points, but tax benefit would likely be offered anywhere they wanted to go. Any smaller state. Placing your hopes on a failed state or city would not be too prudent. You need No baggage dragging you down.
a reply to: Edumakated

Every city offered tax benefits and other financial incentives, but it was clear NYC really offered the most. My only complaint is that Amazon's RFP listed all these other things they were looking for in a city and NYC hardly fits the bill for what Amazon claimed was important to them. If all they cared about was what city was going to offer the most tax breaks, then that is what they should have said.

I don't like cities offering breaks to companies, but trickle down does work and there is a benefit to city when large corporations locate in these areas, especially when they are bringing highly paid jobs.

I just feel like Amazon should have used this opportunity to really spearhead a revival in a city like Detroit or smaller cities (say like a Kansas City) or somewhere that could really benefit from that influx of highly paid workers.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Why?
Jobs and a Huge tax revenue for the state, so what did they have against it?

Perhaps they were concerned with the fact that they would create more middle class jobs? I mean...usually when an individual and family become less dependent on government, they tend to not want to just hand over their hard earned money and may rethink who and what they vote on...right?

originally posted by: Edumakated
Amazon only chose NYC because of the massive tax breaks. A lot of the other cities which were far better choices didn't offer up as much. While NYC is a great city, it is pretty much tapped out in regards to obscene cost of living, over crowded, etc.

Chicago would have been a much better choice for Amazon when looking at what they claimed was important (educational institutions, public transit, low cost of living, etc. Chicago would be #1 or 2 in EVERY category.

However, I thought Amazon missed a great marketing opportunity. They could have move to Detroit and really spearheaded a revival of a once great city. $130k type salaries would be lovely in Detroit. You'd need a few room mates in NYC making $130k.

Amazon is opening locations in two other states, Virginia is one of them, can't remember the other. You make some great points though. That would have been such a win win for Chicago IL or the state of MI and Amazon. It would have boosted Amazon's approval in many negative minds. Wonder why they didn't consider investing in those areas.

They will be choosing one more place since NY is out of the question. Maybe they will consider MI or IL. Crosses fingers.

a reply to: ausername

An increased influx of people from those states that are over taxing their residents, is causing a great impact for South Florida.

What was once a beautiful, remote, tiny, unincorporated, rural area, is growing into multiple mini cities, bringing large numbers of people into areas, destroying the majority of the natural flora and fauna.

Wildlife has become endangered, and has become a danger to the residents. Florida was once considered a subtropical region, it is now experiencing frequent droughts, alternating with destructive flooding.

You can't fight progress but bulldozing everything in sight to gain profit for a few, while destroying the lives of many, may not be the wisest of choices a State can make.

a reply to: neo96

Amazon hasnt even paid taxes in two years. They got a tax return.

That being said. Her salary in nyc is nothing. A six figure salary is the norm in the city and surrounding area, even crane operators and longshoremen make 130k a year.

The communities didnt want it. The unions didnt want it. The local government didnt want it. People who freaking out the most are those who dont even live there, but look it's new York! Socialists! Bad. Boo.

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: Edumakated
Amazon only chose NYC because of the massive tax breaks. A lot of the other cities which were far better choices didn't offer up as much. While NYC is a great city, it is pretty much tapped out in regards to obscene cost of living, over crowded, etc.

Chicago would have been a much better choice for Amazon when looking at what they claimed was important (educational institutions, public transit, low cost of living, etc. Chicago would be #1 or 2 in EVERY category.

However, I thought Amazon missed a great marketing opportunity. They could have move to Detroit and really spearheaded a revival of a once great city. $130k type salaries would be lovely in Detroit. You'd need a few room mates in NYC making $130k.

Amazon is opening locations in two other states, Virginia is one of them, can't remember the other. You make some great points though. That would have been such a win win for Chicago IL or the state of MI and Amazon. It would have boosted Amazon's approval in many negative minds. Wonder why they didn't consider investing in those areas.

They will be choosing one more place since NY is out of the question. Maybe they will consider MI or IL. Crosses fingers.

The will have "hubs" in VA and Nashville, TN. Now it appears their plan is opening other smaller hubs, so other cities might get something.

Yes, I agree, which is why I said it would have been good marketing and built goodwill to open up in an area that has been over looked.

a reply to: strongfp

Lies.

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Amazon does not pay taxes is false. The company, in its latest annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that it paid $177 million in income taxes in 2014, $273 million in 2015 and $412 million last year.

www.nytimes.com...

Or you agree with Trump?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neo96

Amazon hasnt even paid taxes in two years. They got a tax return.

That being said. Her salary in nyc is nothing. A six figure salary is the norm in the city and surrounding area, even crane operators and longshoremen make 130k a year.

The communities didnt want it. The unions didnt want it. The local government didnt want it. People who freaking out the most are those who dont even live there, but look it's new York! Socialists! Bad. Boo.

right.
Almost every person on this thread is making this a circle jerk and focusing on just the job and tax numbers, in a vacuum. Then adding silly partisan comments about leftists.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neo96

Amazon hasnt even paid taxes in two years. They got a tax return.

That being said. Her salary in nyc is nothing. A six figure salary is the norm in the city and surrounding area, even crane operators and longshoremen make 130k a year.

The communities didnt want it. The unions didnt want it. The local government didnt want it. People who freaking out the most are those who dont even live there, but look it's new York! Socialists! Bad. Boo.

Getting a tax return doesn't necessarily mean you didn't pay taxes, it means you paid more than was required....

Not going to speak on Amazon as I haven't seen their 10ks, but Amazon wasn't all that profitable until a few years ago... In fact, their profits are pretty small relative to overall revenue....

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neo96

Amazon hasnt even paid taxes in two years. They got a tax return.

That being said. Her salary in nyc is nothing. A six figure salary is the norm in the city and surrounding area, even crane operators and longshoremen make 130k a year.

The communities didnt want it. The unions didnt want it. The local government didnt want it. People who freaking out the most are those who dont even live there, but look it's new York! Socialists! Bad. Boo.

It is NIMBYism... the typical cries of "affordable housing" and all the other BS liberals start bringing up anytime a business with deep pockets tries to move somewhere. Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I live in a very liberal town and we see the same sh*t on a smaller scale. Big developer wants to build luxury high rise then the socialist start demanding half the building be affordable housing, wanting to restrict height, and all kinds of other off the wall demands. Eventually, the developer says screw it and locates somewhere else leaving the area with ZERO.

a reply to: neo96

Check out there tax situation as trump rolled out the new tax reform.

Here I'll even link you fox news so you know it's not 'fake news'.

a reply to: neo96

Check out there tax situation as trump rolled out the new tax reform.

Here I'll even link you fox news so you know it's not 'fake news'.

a reply to: Edumakated

Getting a tax return doesn't necessarily mean you didn't pay taxes, it means you paid more than was required....

The 2017 Tax Act was signed into law on December 22, 2017. The 2017 Tax Act significantly revises the U.S. corporate income tax by, among other things, lowering the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, eliminating certain deductions, imposing a mandatory one-time tax on accumulated earnings of foreign subsidiaries as of 2017, introducing new tax regimes, and changing how foreign earnings are subject to U.S. tax. The 2017 Tax Act also enhanced and extended through 2026 the option to claim accelerated depreciation deductions on qualified property. We have not completed our determination of the accounting implications of the 2017 Tax Act on our tax accruals. However, we have reasonably estimated the effects of the 2017 Tax Act and recorded provisional amounts in our financial statements as of December 31, 2017. We recorded a provisional tax benefit for the impact of the 2017 Tax Act of approximately $789 million. This amount is primarily comprised of the remeasurement of federal net deferred tax liabilities resulting from the permanent reduction in the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, after taking into account the mandatory one-time tax on the accumulated earnings of our foreign subsidiaries. The amount of this one-time tax is not material. As we complete our analysis of the 2017 Tax Act, collect and prepare necessary data, and interpret any additional guidance issued by the U.S. Treasury Department, the IRS, and other standard-setting bodies, we may make adjustments to the provisional amounts. Those adjustments may materially impact our provision for income taxes in the period in which the adjustments are made.

We recorded a provision for income taxes of $950 million, $1.4 billion, and $769 million in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Our provision for income taxes in 2016 was higher than in 2015 primarily due to an increase in U.S. pre-tax income, partially offset by an increase in the proportion of foreign losses for which we may realize a tax benefit, an increase in tax amortization deductions, and a decline in the proportion of nondeductible expenses. We have recorded valuation allowances against the deferred tax assets associated with losses for which we may not realize a related tax benefit.

Our provision for income taxes in 2017 was lower than in 2016 primarily due to excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation and the provisional favorable effect of the 2017 Tax Act, partially offset by an increase in the proportion of foreign losses for which we may not realize a tax benefit and audit-related developments.

services.corporate-ir.net...



All they do is parrot.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neo96

Check out there tax situation as trump rolled out the new tax reform.

Here I'll even link you fox news so you know it's not 'fake news'.

IT is GD fake news.

Read their GD SEC Filing.