[grecy]

The average citizens of America have to foot the bill for everything funded by taxpayers, while the uber-rich (Amazon in this case) get special exemptions and don't have to pay for that stuff. As a result, things that are tax-payer funded in the USA are lacking compared to other OECD countries.

It's madness that a multi-billion dollar company doesn't have to help pay for things they get direct benefit from, and frankly it is supposed to be illegal. I'm not allowed to not pay my taxes, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Amazon should be paying.

[jack6e]

> I'm not allowed to not pay my taxes

But you ARE allowed and entirely free to move to cities with lower tax rates, or states with no income tax at all, or any other location that provides you a better balance of income to tax costs. Amazon is an entity with the same rights to make decisions about re-locating to the locality with the most advantageous income/cost ratio.

[grecy]

> But you ARE allowed and entirely free to move to cities with lower tax rates

Absolutely. But I can't negotiate with those places to get a special tax rate just for me. There is no "Dan's tax rate" that is different from everyone elses.

Oh, but if I just get rich enough.... they I won't have to pay taxes the same as the common-folk.

[maxxxxx]

That's what's bothering me too. Give the same conditions to all businesses not just a favored one.

[pzh]

> But I can't negotiate with those places to get a special tax rate just for me. There is no "Dan's tax rate" that is different from everyone elses.

That’s only because your tax contribution is very small and you don’t have leverage. If 60% of the residents of a city leave, you can bet the city will quickly lower or remove taxes to try to attract more people.

[jasode]

>If 60% of the residents of a city leave, you can bet the city will quickly lower or remove taxes to try to attract more people.

That's exactly right. E.g. Michigan has designated NEZ zones[1] offering tax breaks (e.g. sometimes half the tax rate) to attract potential homeowners to distressed neighborhoods like inner city Detroit.

Sure, residents in another wealthy city (like Bloomfield Hills) in Michigan might complain they don't get the same tax subsidies as downtown Detroit but it still doesn't change the fact that governments will offer tax incentives for certain people (not just companies) to justify a desired economic outcome.

Detroit has to make those tax concessions because residents are fleeing and the city suffers from a lower tax base. The more desirable cities like San Francisco don't have to make the same tax concessions.

(I make no comment on whether NEZ actually works as intended or whether it is a net positive economically.)

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/06/22/detroit-...

[mbell]

> The average citizens of America have to foot the bill for everything funded by taxpayers, while the uber-rich (Amazon in this case) get special exemptions and don't have to pay for that stuff.

Not that there aren't issues with our tax system but this is completely inaccurate[1]. It can certainly be argued that the top end of earners should pay more, but they already do carry the overwhelming majority of the income tax burden.

[1] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...

[lolsal]

> It's madness that a multi-billion dollar company doesn't have to help pay for things they get direct benefit from, and frankly it is supposed to be illegal.

Amazon will absolutely be helping pay for things that they get a benefit from. I think you're misunderstanding the exchange that is happening. To oversimplify, it's basically this:

City: We'll give you tax breaks, decent infrastructure, low property prices and a good pool of local technical talent

Amazon: We'll give you tech jobs, lots of tax revenue from the business, lots of tax revenue from our employees and raised property values.

> I'm not allowed to not pay my taxes, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Amazon should be paying.

Not paying your taxes and receiving tax breaks are completely different. Do you take deductions on your taxes? Even the standard deduction? Those are tax breaks.

[ams6110]

All the Amazon employees pay taxes, as you note. Taxing Amazon itself on top of that just leaves it with less resources to pay employees. And why should a city reap an extra tax windfall when an Amazon decides to locate there? Amazon isn't really going to add much burden to city services.

[s73ver_]

So it’s ok that Amazon just passes their tax burden onto their employees?