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 billion in tax credits and construction grants. For the Arlington, VA headquarters the city and state governments gave Amazon $500 million in tax breaks. Opponents argue that governments should spend the tax revenue on public projects instead and that the federal government should pass laws banning tax incentives. The European Union has strict laws which prevent member cities from bidding against each other with state aid (tax incentives) in an effort to lure private companies. Proponents argue that the jobs and tax revenue created by the companies eventually offset the cost of any awarded incentives.
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
No, the government should never subsidize private businesses
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
No, but punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
Yes, if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
Yes, but only if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
Yes, but I would prefer lowering corporate taxes to benefit all local companies
@ISIDEWITH4yrs
Yes, as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives
@947J5NF4 days
No opinion, not enough information
@947CRGP4 days
No, lower taxes instead
@9473QH94 days
Yes but it should be a decision by vote of people within the community by special election to reflect the interest of the people who live there
@9466WKS7 days
Yes but that is usually a stupid idea.
@9457DY71wk
Yes but it should not be mandated and should be reimbursed a price above what its worth
@944QNMB2wks
OK to offer lower taxes, but not subsidies.
@943T2CG2wks
Yes, with all the clauses stated
@943HG9Q2wks
No, unless the company is destructive to the environment.
@93ZN5DW3wks
Yes, and tax and fine and punish companies for moving jobs outside of the USA
@93YWH8X3wks
Yes, but only if agreed upon by a vote of local citizens.
Sure, why not? Kill off rural areas, move more people to the megalopas' and increase population density, pollution, and crime in those areas.
Yes, but only if there is no corruption involved, net government income is positive, and environmental regulations are obeyed
@93WCKMN4wks
Yes as long as the area is financially struggling
No, and the state should set up AI infrastructure to establish cybernetic planning (at local and national levels) and reduce inequality while avoiding the economic calculation problem present in old planned economics
@93TXNWK1mo
Yes, they should be allowed but they shouldn't do it
@93SHQL71mo
Yes as long as the money is there as we as accountability and transparency
Yes as long as the company plans to employ local citizens of the area and I would prefer a lower corporate tax for all businesses, but I believe personally that this should be left to the states.
As ł as tax revenue exceeds incentives within a certain period, creates local jobs, and is fined if they move out of the state before repaying the incentive.
@93RYYVR1mo
Yes, but it should be public knowledge and not to exceed the tax revenue
@93RSYKK1mo
Yes, as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives and if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer
@93RQBP21mo
Yes, as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives and only if the environment is not compromised and new jobs are created by hiring local residents.
Yes, as long as representatives / local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer. Ideally, companies would also be encouraged to hire local residents along with the move & more money would be spent on improving infrastructure & the community to better attract companies.
@93NLBNQ2mos
No, it will end of costing the taxpayers in the end.
@93MP4RT2mos
Depends on the company and state decision.
@93M4NL52mos
Yes, but penalize the same companies that leave after the incentive time frame is up.
@93LYQ2S2mos
No, the government should never subsidize private businesses and the government should never subsidize private businesses
@93LPRYJ2mos
Yes, but the municipality should have a referendum before the company relocates to see what the population thinks
@93L2L7H2mos
not enough information to form an opinion
@93KRRDP2mos
Yes, only if there are repercussions for not meeting their job quota and environmental safety standards
Tentative yes, but we need studies to verify that communities economically benefit from tax revenue and job creation, if they don’t I think it should be a banned practice as it is spending community money against their interests
Yes, as long as tax revenue eventually exceed tax incentives and companies create new jobs by hiring local residents.
@sdotts1362mos
Yes, but only on a uniform basis equally applicable to all companies.
@93J33PZ2mos
I don't think they should on principle, but I'm not willing to take away their ability to do so.
No, implement strict regulations, punish them for moving jobs out of the country, nationalize all industry, end all trade deals, and implement tariffs on imported goods.
Yes as long as the local environment is not compromised and also punish them for moving jobs out of the United States. Also, let's lower corporate tax to benefit all local companies.
@WaywardScholar2mos
Yes, but it must be voted on by the local citizens and I would prefer lowering corporate taxes to benefit all local companies.
@93GF92G2mos
I do not have enough knowledge on the topic to make an informed opinion
@93GBLJG2mos
yes, as long as incentive is not tax break
@93G4HWR2mos
No, if not strongly regulated this would become abused
@93DJX4W2mos
Yes, but not for a specific company or industry.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
