New York Taxes

[Ben]

I thought this was kinda hilarious. All the Bronx chick acolytes are going after Cuomo because of all the tax incentives he gave to Amazon to get them to put their new HQ in NY.  His response was basically, "If we didn't give them incentives to counteract our high taxes, they'd have gone to Texas. 


https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/11/15/spit-take-warning-andrew-cuomo-accidentally-spills-the-beans-with-this-take-on-amazon-deal/

[TommyGunn]

Yea ... I get it.   But that Amazon deal STINKS of corporate welfare.   

[Angel Eyes]

... and the other New York-based companies will be "Hey, where's our tax break??"


But is an amusing tacit admission that NY taxes are too high.

[MechAg94]

I also heard earlier that Amazon demanded all sort of data from these cities (all that were in the bidding process) on investments and development plans.  It was apparently a treasure of marketing info they just handed over in hopes of landing the Amazon location. 

[Ben]

Yea ... I get it.   But that Amazon deal STINKS of corporate welfare.   

Oh, I agree with that, but just like that NY has to admit the only way they can get businesses is with workarounds to their high taxes.

[charby]

I wish the practice of having to give text credits to a business would go away. Somewhere I read that there has never been a tax credit given to a business to relocate to expand that ever paid for itself. Wish I could find that article.

[zahc]

Couldn't the feds stop these incentives on the basis of equal protection? Why doesn't my hotdog stand business get a sweetheart "incentive"? Because I'm not important, don't have enough lobbyists, what? Isn't there an actual tax code? Do they change the law for these companies using due process, or do they just give them a get-out-of-taxes-free card? If so what is the legal basis for that card? It seems like taxpayers in the state, including businesses that didn't get a special treatment, have some kind of standing for a lawsuit. Plus, I think the feds could do a commerce-clause smackdown over this behavior... it's just a prisoner's dilemma where states have to do it because all the other states are doing it too. I would like to see high-tax states sleep in the bed they made for themselves, and low-tax states reap the rewards of being business-friendly, and most of all, not have to tax burden shifted to the small businesses that don't have political clout to get a special corruption discount.

[Ben]

I would like to see high-tax states sleep in the bed they made for themselves, and low-tax states reap the rewards of being business-friendly, and most of all, not have to tax burden shifted to the small businesses that don't have political clout to get a special corruption discount.

Indeed. Especially because the high tax states always seem to be run by the left-leaning "we're here for the little guy" crowd. Yet they're always the ones that are in bed with the mega-corps. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be giving incentives to small business only. Though I'd prefer no incentives to anyone, other than an equal low tax playing field.

[MillCreek]

Washington state loves to throw tax and other financial incentives to Boeing.  The smartest thing Boeing ever did was to open up the plant in South Carolina so as to be able to threaten to move production out of Washington.

[French G.]

One, you know somebody screwed up if Tucker Carlson and Ocasio Cortez agree on something.

Second, enough about New York, I want to know what trashy deals got done for the northern Virginia one.

[Brad Johnson]

What gets me is businesses will move to some place under the benefit of tax breaks knowing full well those tax breaks will end and they will be paying full pop for the rest of their business lives. Five or ten years worth of tax breaks surely can't offset a lifetime of some of the highest corporate taxes in the nation.

That is, unless they plan on taking advantage of the breaks and then high-tailing it to greener pastures the moment they end. That would be sweet, sweet karma indeed...  

Brad

[MikeB]

What gets me is businesses will move to some place under the benefit of tax breaks knowing full well those tax breaks will end and they will be paying full pop for the rest of their business lives. Five or ten years worth of tax breaks surely can't offset a lifetime of some of the highest corporate taxes in the nation.

That is, unless they plan on taking advantage of the breaks and then high-tailing it to greener pastures the moment they end. That would be sweet, sweet karma indeed...  

Brad

Or they get them extended by threatening to leave. See statements about Boeing and Washington.

I personally don't believe these deals are strictly constitutional under equal protection, but I think they usually submit them as a bill to the state legislature to make it all seem legit as it isn't an arbitrary change by the governor/mayor/whathaveyou, but an actual legal bill. I still think that is unconstitutional, but that's my understanding of how they sort  of get around it.

[Scout26]

Illinois did it with Boeing's HQ move to Chicago.  They've also down it when Caterpillar, State Farm, and ADM threatened to leave Illinois.

Usually it has to be passed as legislation (depending on the tax breaks whether property or income or other) at the appropriate level of the tax break.  Chicago is notorious for handing out TIF and other property tax breaks to companies here.  Cabela's learned the hard way about how the Cook County board will renege on promises.  (Which is why the entire second floor is closed off at the Hoffman Estates store.  Cook County imposes taxes based on the dimensions of the sales floor.  Which they told Cabela's they wouldn't do to them.  Nor charge an extra gun, nor ammo taxes.   Which they do now...

[230RN]

Mike B said,

"I personally don't believe these deals are strictly constitutional under equal protection, but I think they usually submit them as a bill to the state legislature to make it all seem legit as it isn't an arbitrary change by the governor/mayor/whathaveyou, but an actual legal bill. I still think that is unconstitutional, but that's my understanding of how they sort  of get around it."

...................................

My understanding is that all laws passed by the legislatures are presumed to be constitutional and operational until challenges to their constitutionality are successful in court.

That's the way I heard it from a lawyer  on another board.

See, the theory is that when they take their oaths of office to defend and support the Constitution, they meant it.  Hahahaaaaa.  Thus, any law they pass is inherently constitutional until it is actually struck down on constitutional grounds by a court.  Hee-hee-hee-heeeee.

Meantime, of course, you are usually in the pokey for violating that law in the first place.

Terry