Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is well-construed analysis of the numbers of the potential tax situation. The obvious reason we need the increase in revenue at all is that we need to fund the services necessary to accommodate this new population growth in the first place. More people -> more taxes to sustain more people at an ideally similar quality of life. So I'd argue that the net change is 0 from increased tax revenues, which means when you factor in the initial incentives, things don't really pan out.
When the average Amazon employees pay taxes, they are contributing to the local tax pool, yes. This money helps the local community as a whole, whether to improve existing services already in place or to fund new ones, all for the purpose of making Raleigh more livable even as new residents come in.
But when you offer incentives in the form of tax breaks, you're really not doing anything but lining the pockets of the 1%, aka furthering income inequality and the extinction of the middle class. The fact of the matter is, trickle-down economics simply doesn't work. It's a hoax, whether you're a conservative or liberal. Tax incentives/breaks for corporations are just tax cuts for the rich under the guise of another name. They're being used to increase shareholder returns rather than to spur new growth and investment. The CEOs themselves have even admitted this: CEOs agree: Corporate tax cuts won't trickle down | TheHill
So no, I don't believe in granting tax incentives to any big corporations, least of all Amazon.
First bolded point above: There's a substantial difference between any jobs coming to town and good paying jobs. When good paying jobs (and LOTS of them) come, the net tax revenue per new person is much higher than what it is for the existing tax base (which includes plenty of lower income and fixed income folks). So, not only are these folks "covering" their own costs, they're adding more to the tax revenue coffers than 30,000 average citizens.
The second bolded has no merits in a serious financial analysis. Sorry, this is simply an emotional, liberal talking point.
The third bolded point is also moot, as localized corporate tax incentives may naively seem like it's commensurate to trickle down economics, but it's not.
Wholefoods is Amazon. You can pick up your food there.
If Walmart could build it like Amazon, they would. They are not keeping Brick and mortar stores open for the goodness of their heart.
Amazon does more than just online retail. I know people who have stores on Amazon and make a living that way.
Whole Foods doesn't really count. Whole Foods wasn't isn't the part of the original Amazon model. Amazon purchased Whole Foods.
People may have retail stores on Amazon, but what does that do for local retailers? People have already claimed that Amazon is a mall killer. They aren't saying that for no reason. I think people in this thread are saying that while Amazon does bring some tangible benefits, there are also some challenges. And the net result when you take that into account is that the value of the benefits is greatly decreased.
ANd let's be real, a lot of Amazon's products come from Asia. Amazon doesn't have a "Made In The USA" store.
Apple, on the other hand, has brick and mortar stores for their products. Does Apple have a bigger heart than Amazon?
Whole Foods doesn't really count. Whole Foods wasn't isn't the part of the original Amazon model. Amazon purchased Whole Foods.
People may have retail stores on Amazon, but what does that do for local retailers? People have already claimed that Amazon is a mall killer. They aren't saying that for no reason. I think people in this thread are saying that while Amazon does bring some tangible benefits, there are also some challenges. And the net result when you take that into account is that the value of the benefits is greatly decreased.
ANd let's be real, a lot of Amazon's products come from Asia. Amazon doesn't have a "Made In The USA" store.
Apple, on the other hand, has brick and mortar stores for their products. Does Apple have a bigger heart than Amazon?
The original Amazon model is selling books so I'm not sure where you draw the line there. Furthermore, Amazon web services are now roughly 75% of profits and 10% of revenues.
Amazon is not the mall killer. Technology is. Traditional malls will have to change or die just like horse and buggy makers, typewriter manufacturers, and record labels before them.
I think that incentives are offered not for the additional taxes that will be collected, but rather the new jobs will spend their money close to home which benefits "everyone" sort of.
But I think that impact fees and tree planting requirements both need to be increased a lot.
I think that incentives are offered not for the additional taxes that will be collected, but rather the new jobs will spend their money close to home which benefits "everyone" sort of.
Incentives are based on both, in almost all caes
Quote:
Originally Posted by architect77
But I think that impact fees and tree planting requirements both need to be increased a lot.
Impact fees are illegal in NC. Municipalities can charge "System Development Fees" for water and sewer, but there are many restrictions.
Of course you have lived in tons of places. But you are 19 years old. 19.
While living in those places, you didn't have the responsibility to raise family, pay back $100s in student loans, pay a mortgage, pay for college for your kids, deal with life events (unemployed for long periods, passing of love ones, divorce, separation, a sick child, ... etc) ...
All these things shape the view of a person, once they reach a certain age. Not everything is rosy .. like it seems to have been the last 8+ years. There will be challenging times. Trust me. And during these tough times, you wish you had an employer that has made good decisions and can stand strong to provide you with a job.
A solid employer, whose model is built on solid decisions is a rock for a whole community.
You're right, and I appreciate your input. I haven't experienced a lot of these things, and for that, perhaps my perspective is a bit short-sighted.
Some things to mention:
1. I wouldn't need to pay back student loans regardless. I'm on scholarship. I don't plan on going to graduate school. Personally, I don't think it's the best use of my time.
2. A mortgage is not vastly different from paying rent. It's the same basic concept, a large monthly expense that you have to plan and budget for.
I will say that it's funny that you're saying "not everything is rosy" to me. I'm literally the one who's being cautious and pessimistic about Amazon/Apple coming here. And in terms of being a "solid employer", that is exactly what Amazon is NOT known for. You can look up their extensive history of worker abuse and general workplace dissatisfaction by everyone from warehouse workers to software engineers in terms of work conditions/culture.
He is 19. When I was 19, I was a computer science major and my understanding of economics was retarded. As a PhD in Economics now, I can assert that you are wasting your time on this genius. Leave such fools alone, they will just drag you down to their own stupidity.
What exactly is "retarded" about my perspective of economics? What is your own perspective?
I hate to tell you my friend, but you will NEVER make people like this see your point of view. They operate primarily based on emotion, which controls their sense of ethics. You will never be able to have a completely rational, intelligent discussion on topics that they feel so passionately about.
How am I operating primarily off emotion? I think you're angry about young people who disagree with what you think is "best" for young people. That's emotional.
First bolded point above: There's a substantial difference between any jobs coming to town and good paying jobs. When good paying jobs (and LOTS of them) come, the net tax revenue per new person is much higher than what it is for the existing tax base (which includes plenty of lower income and fixed income folks). So, not only are these folks "covering" their own costs, they're adding more to the tax revenue coffers than 30,000 average citizens.
The second bolded has no merits in a serious financial analysis. Sorry, this is simply an emotional, liberal talking point.
The third bolded point is also moot, as localized corporate tax incentives may naively seem like it's commensurate to trickle down economics, but it's not.
1. I'm not disagreeing with that. But these 30,000-50,000 non-"average" citizens will probably also demand more, and expect more, in terms of amenities than "average" citizens, yes?
2. No. Just no. This is not simply an "emotional, liberal talking point." It's pretty well-researched by people who know way more about economics than either you or me... stop acting like this has no serious legitimacy in economic or financial discussions. It's more than serious.
3. How is this not the exact, literal definition of trickle-down economics??? Trickle-down economics theory states that "tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else." This is exactly what I'm arguing against... and has been disproven by near-unanimous consensus. Trickle-down economics DOES NOT work. It's a hoax. A myth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
