On 2/16/2019 10:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:


One very legitimate question that should be asked about subsidizing Amazon
is how is it fair to the local hardware stores in NYC or to Macy's, Target,
etc? They are in NYC paying full taxes. They have to compete against
Amazon, which is undercutting their business and prices. Why should they
have to pay full taxes to NYC and state, but Amazon gets a break?

I can see this when there is an economically depressed area and the govt
does it with all businesses that choose to open new facilities there.
But when it's a huge, successful company that's actually putting the hurt
on many local businesses, it sure become highly dubious. To be sure, there
would be a lot of help to the businesses that are near the Amazon facility.
Even the local hardware store would likely be a big beneficiary. But for
businesses outside the immediate area, if they are competing against Amazon
in any way, it sure isn't fair that they pay full taxes, while A gets
subsidized. But IDK what the answer is either. If state A offers a
subsidy and B doesn't, B won't get big players like Amazon to come there.
It would take agreement across all or most of the states to stop this and
that isn't going to happen.

You make a valid point, but it comes down to greed. No, not
capitalistic greed on the part of Amazon. Greed on the part of the
government.

Tax breaks have been going on for decades. When a billionaire sports
team wants a new stadium to play in, he gets government subsidy. When a
kid wants to open a lemonade stand and will employ two kids, the local
towns offer him tax breaks to open there.

I bet Macy's would get a break if they were to enlarge or build a new
store too.

The choice should be made to locate in the best possible place as deemed
by the business on a level playing field, no tax breaks. I'm not a
football fan but my tax dollars went to fund a new stadium.