[maxsilver]

> Just because Amazon happens to be for-profit, their presence in your city is an extraordinary asset

It's not though. You purposefully used examples of public or non-profit groups to make it sound like a benefit. But it's not. A more fair comparison would read:

It's like someone came to your town and I said, "I want to build a $20m McDonalds, Mobile Gas Station, WalMart and a Best Buy". I would hope your town says "good luck with that" and not "that's amazing, how should we corrupt the local market to make it easier for you to do that". Amazon is no different in any way except scale.

In a sane world, Amazon HQ2 would terrify cities, who will need to ensure they have extra taxes in place for Amazon, to ensure the city can handle the massive pollutions Amazon HQ2 will generate in the local housing markets, local economy, and local infrastructure.

> We’ve proven that this public/private partnership is basically the most effective growth engine we’ve got

Proven? Can you cite some examples? I've only seen "Public/private partnerships" used as a label to mask corruption and theft; as a way to socialize any losses but privatize any gains.

[wmeredith]

> "Public/private partnerships" used as a label to mask corruption and theft; as a way to take socialize any losses but privatize any gains

I couldn't have said it better.

[twostoned]

This is exactly what it is. Agreed.

I got a bit excited and should add more detail: we're in a time when taxes are being shifted more and more away from those who have (rich & corporations) to those who have not. A public/private partnership seems insane to people because it is. The private companies have all the resources and need to leverage further their wealth from the public sector. They can easily front this by themselves and still be printing money without a care in the world. Didn't the corporate tax rate in the USA just get reduced from 35% to 21%? Private top-tier income tax was something like 96% during WWII and now it's down to what, half of that? So not only do you blatantly and overtly go out of your way to avoid contributing to the public fund but then also get politicians to give you deals and project-specific loans out of that exact same reduced, exhausted public purse? OOkay. Then you tell us that we should be thanking you because you're providing jobs... what kind of jobs and to whom?

I'm always skeptical of these things to say the least. Then to claim that there's proof... umm.... are you referencing Atlas Shrugged?

[refurb]

we're in a time when taxes are being shifted more and more away from those who have (rich & corporations)

Actually the exact opposite is happening. The top quintile is pay a bigger share of taxes than before.[1] In 1960, the top quintile paid 56.5% of all federal tax revenue. In 2005 it was 69%.

Care to revise your position based on that?

[1]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/... (table on right)

[bhickey]

> Actually the exact opposite is happening.

You're mistaken and given your responses elsewhere I think you're either confused or arguing in bad faith.

The mean tax rate paid by the top 0.1% of earners in 1979 was just over 40%. This fell to about 25% in 2010.[1] Marginal rates followed a similar trend. Meanwhile the US Gini coefficient rose from .415 in 1979 to .476 in 2012.[2] This implies that the top quintile pays a greater share of Federal taxes because they're proportionally richer than the other quintiles. The poor don't pay much Federal tax because you can't get blood from a stone.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917..., page 3

[2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/05/mapping-three-decades-i...

[refurb]

First off, the Gini coefficient has a shit ton wrong with it. A country would score better if everyone was poorer, but equal, rather than wealthier but unequal. I for one would choose the later, even if I'm not one of the top earners.

Second your graph shows rates for the top .1% and .01%. I was talking top quintile which you seemed to have forgotten plus you didn't challenge the data I provided.

[haikuginger]

The stat you cite is actually 1979, but if you look at the income proportions[1] at that time relative to current by-quintile income proportions, the growth in taxation of the top quintile between 1979 and 2005 is slightly greater than linear with that income growth.

[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

[refurb]

Thanks for the correction on the year.

Income growth can definitely explain the increase in tax burden, but my point still stands, no? The tax burden is not shifting from the wealthy to the poor.

And if you look at the bottom quintile, their tax burden has fallen, even though income continues to rise.

[bomb199]

The wealthier are paying a lower percent of their wealth/income, it's just they make so much more than the masses it doesn't matter.

Should think of the marginal utility of their funds. If a $20,000 a year person pays $5,000 - it's much worse than a $10,000,000 paying $100,000.

[tinymollusk]

[that page may 404 if you have a bunch of anti-spyware on your browser. It worked when I popped open an incog window.]

How should I interpret that chart, considering things like wealth versus income? There's some sort of transition between those -- I would guess more wealth was held in non-taxed trusts or investments back then, compared to now? Does the estate tax change behavior?

I think the point is to look at how much of the government is paid for by the top quintile than the others, over time, compared to each group's wealth. Is that correct?

(I am not an economist, just have an amateur interest in complex systems.)

[dumbfounder]

Amazon workers are highly paid, thus bringing the average income up, and contributing to taxes, strengthening the housing market, and much more. That's interesting that you call it pollution. High paying tech jobs are pollution? That doesn't compute to me.

Companies that compete for talent will be pissed, but for lots of others it's a huge win. The only way I see it as a "bad" thing is if you are in a small city that wants to remain small.

It's absolutely nothing like building a McDonalds.

[pjc50]

> contributing to taxes

Well, not in the case of Chicago http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/amazon-hq2-c...

> strengthening the housing market

Like the strong SF housing market which nobody can afford?

[vvanders]

> strengthening the housing market, and much more. That's interesting that you call it pollution.

Talk to anyone who grew up in Seattle or SF pre-tech boom and you might find a different perspective. I think it's worth considering that while it's great for us in tech it's not like it's a net-win for everyone else.

If you work in an industry outside of tech(or a part of tech that doesn't track payscales like the game industry) you may get pushed out of a city/metro just by nature of the impact tech has.

[Johnny555]

But on the flip side, I can't imagine that people living in Detroit were thrilled by the decades of urban decay there.

I think I'd rather live in a city that's so popular that infrastructure can't keep up than to live in a city where entire neighborhoods are empty and are razed due to neglect and criminal activities.

[bohadi]

Good point, but is it not true Detroit was a biz and tech center last century?

[Chaebixi]

It's not a binary choice. The sweet spot is in the middle.

[Johnny555]

but sometimes it is a binary choice. Leaders can see their community dying after the former big industry left -- with lots of luck and years of a strong economy they may be able to attract some replacement industries that keep the town prosperous (but not not overly so).

Or they can hit the "Amazon lottery", bringing in billions of dollars of investment and 50,000 high paid jobs (plus all of the ancillary jobs to support these high paid workers).

So a community could very well face a binary choice.

[dragonwriter]

> and 50,000 high paid jobs

Er, “as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs” is what Amazon claims HQ2 is planned to grow to over an unspecified time horizon. “As many as...” is marketing weasel words for “for some number definitely not exceeding, and probably much smaller than...”; it sets an upper bound, but counts on people treating it as an expected level.

[Chaebixi]

> Leaders can see their community dying after the former big industry left -- with lots of luck and years of a strong economy they may be able to attract some replacement industries that keep the town prosperous (but not not overly so).

That's overly hopeful. I doubt Amazon will seriously consider a dying ex-company town that needs the investment. My bet it's going to pick someplace that's already doing pretty well, overall.

[aidenn0]

My in-laws sold their house in Saratoga for more than 10x what they paid for it, and are quite happy with that result.

[aeorgnoieang]

> strengthening the housing market

Which is a unmitigated benefit only to some current real estate property owners and an almost-entirely unmitigated cost to everyone else.

[bomb199]

Especially all the renters, which is almost the entire Millenial generation.

[s73ver_]

"Strengthening the housing market"

Other than code for "making everything much more unaffordable", what does this mean?

And yeah, it's pollution for those who don't have high paying tech jobs. There are more people living in those cities than Amazon employees; their interests and needs need to be taking into consideration as well.

[throwaway1748]

Unaffordable is relative. If HQ2 brings thousands of high-paying jobs with it, plus creates an ecosystem where tens of thousands of other good paying jobs are created, housing can become more affordable to more people while rising in price.

Owning a house has been a part of the post-WW2 American dream for good reason, and it should remain so. And people buying homes should want their property to retain value

[xg15]

> Unaffordable is relative. If HQ2 brings thousands of high-paying jobs with it, plus creates an ecosystem where tens of thousands of other good paying jobs are created, housing can become more affordable to more people while rising in price.

Shouldn't this have played out just like that in SF then?

[s73ver_]

Except none of that helps someone who doesn't have one of those Amazon jobs, and sees their rent soar anyway.

[dumbfounder]

I would rather live in a housing market that continues to increase rather than one that goes up and down with the wind.

[rspeer]

If the price of housing always increases, how is anyone who's younger than you (and not richer than you) supposed to be able to afford a house?