HorrorMovieFans.com

An Amazon headquarters is going to Long Island, and I thought it was pretty stupid at first but apparently they are getting good tax breaks to do so, makes more sense. So Libs and Socialists, explain why this is so horrible?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocasio-corte ... 22664.html

New York's newly elected chick don't cut no mustard.

I used to wonder what totally unqualified 29 year old waitresses think about major economic and geopolitical issues. Thanks to democrats, I no longer have to wonder. Thank you democrats!

I am glad she thinks Amazon not coming to New York with make the subways stop crumbling. Enlightening.

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Is Tucker Carlson liberal? Maybe he can explain it better. Tee hee.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fo ... eec2bf7087

Jmac Attack wrote:Is Tucker Carlson liberal? Maybe he can explain it better. Tee hee.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fo ... eec2bf7087

She does have a point but it misses a different larger point.

showa58taro wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Is Tucker Carlson liberal? Maybe he can explain it better. Tee hee.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fo ... eec2bf7087

She does have a point but it misses a different larger point.

Oh, I didn't read it, lol. Was giving Reign shit for his jab at libs. I'll have to read it and watch the video tonight after work.

showa58taro wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Is Tucker Carlson liberal? Maybe he can explain it better. Tee hee.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fo ... eec2bf7087

She does have a point but it misses a different larger point.

What is the larger point? Also I think I am leaning more to the Tucker/ditz side.

She has no larger point, because she is a moron.

The bigger picture here is that entire shit show is run by democrats. They have to incentivize like that because the taxes are way too high to begin with.

So now, you have a situation where a company with leverage pays a much smaller rate than all their smaller local competitors, tilting the playing field even further. It is why liberal policy is as stupid as a submarine with screen doors. They can't get out of their own way.

Foo wrote:She has no larger point, because she is a moron.

The bigger picture here is that entire shit show is run by democrats. They have to incentivize like that because the taxes are way too high to begin with.

So now, you have a situation where a company with leverage pays a much smaller rate than all their smaller local competitors, tilting the playing field even further. It is why liberal policy is as stupid as a submarine with screen doors. They can't get out of their own way.

This. Their stupid policies make it so you have to incentivize out the ass to get the biggest company in the world to even look at your liberal dumpster fire, they do and bring thousands of jobs with them and you STILL bitch about it. And good point about tilting the playing field even further, like that's what Amazon needs.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:She has no larger point, because she is a moron.

The bigger picture here is that entire shit show is run by democrats. They have to incentivize like that because the taxes are way too high to begin with.

So now, you have a situation where a company with leverage pays a much smaller rate than all their smaller local competitors, tilting the playing field even further. It is why liberal policy is as stupid as a submarine with screen doors. They can't get out of their own way.

This. Their stupid policies make it so you have to incentivize out the ass to get the biggest company in the world to even look at your liberal dumpster fire, they do and bring thousands of jobs with them and you STILL bitch about it. And good point about tilting the playing field even further, like that's what Amazon needs.

They don't see it. The town where our take out shop is located is run by liberals. Before we leased the building, I asked the mayor and one of the town commissioners to explain why they had such a bad reputation for being difficult to do business with. The look on their faces was priceless.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:She has no larger point, because she is a moron.

The bigger picture here is that entire shit show is run by democrats. They have to incentivize like that because the taxes are way too high to begin with.

So now, you have a situation where a company with leverage pays a much smaller rate than all their smaller local competitors, tilting the playing field even further. It is why liberal policy is as stupid as a submarine with screen doors. They can't get out of their own way.

This. Their stupid policies make it so you have to incentivize out the ass to get the biggest company in the world to even look at your liberal dumpster fire, they do and bring thousands of jobs with them and you STILL bitch about it. And good point about tilting the playing field even further, like that's what Amazon needs.

Your points are valid

Tiggnutz wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:She has no larger point, because she is a moron.

The bigger picture here is that entire shit show is run by democrats. They have to incentivize like that because the taxes are way too high to begin with.

So now, you have a situation where a company with leverage pays a much smaller rate than all their smaller local competitors, tilting the playing field even further. It is why liberal policy is as stupid as a submarine with screen doors. They can't get out of their own way.

This. Their stupid policies make it so you have to incentivize out the ass to get the biggest company in the world to even look at your liberal dumpster fire, they do and bring thousands of jobs with them and you STILL bitch about it. And good point about tilting the playing field even further, like that's what Amazon needs.

Your points are valid

Are they though? Because I’m not seeing any great alternatives.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:She has no larger point, because she is a moron.

The bigger picture here is that entire shit show is run by democrats. They have to incentivize like that because the taxes are way too high to begin with.

So now, you have a situation where a company with leverage pays a much smaller rate than all their smaller local competitors, tilting the playing field even further. It is why liberal policy is as stupid as a submarine with screen doors. They can't get out of their own way.

This. Their stupid policies make it so you have to incentivize out the ass to get the biggest company in the world to even look at your liberal dumpster fire, they do and bring thousands of jobs with them and you STILL bitch about it. And good point about tilting the playing field even further, like that's what Amazon needs.

Because here's the thing, it's easy enough to say "stupid policies" and laugh at the idea that they have higher rates of taxation than your super-low (and super broke) Red states or towns. But the whole purpose of a lot of these taxation policies and choices arise not just from a whimsical idea that taking people's money is fun. Instead, it stems much more often from the more intricate and extensive public and private spheres it creates and the need to maintain and support and develop these. And sure, had they in 1869 decided on a different model and gone with that for 150 years you could probably argue that the evidence would be in and their super-low taxes might attract businesses without incentives, but that wasn't the choice they made. Where they are now is a sustained higher rate of tax on all businesses and citizens in exchange for significantly more funding available to the state and federal government and bureaucracy which in turn (in theory at least) then can put that money back into the system and improve the lives of people living in the state. So New York ends up in the upper echalons for Crime, Healthcare, and Infrastructure compared to many other states, but low on some things like opportunity, and indeed on quality of life indicators. And that is what speaks to Ocasio-Cortez's point.

Because New York as a state (and city) has problems which arguable are about the funds being used to fix those problems and improve the lives of the average citizen in the city and state, and on the surface giving away nearly $2bn of state funding when there are these problems suggests a wider issue of prioritizing spend and profiling it. Thus the big issue from her perspective of just being happy that Amazon gets what Amazon wants and NYC gets to have their city invaded by wealthy outsiders who get new jobs and new houses in a new housing complex on the waterfront. And she is arguably correct in that this does underscore a change in priorities and especially in the short term.

What that argument does miss is the mid-to-long term benefits that this could yield, with some estimates noting as much as a 9:1 return on "investment" for these breaks, so for every $1 it currently costs they could reap in the long run an additional £9, which by most metrics would be a benefit, and would ignore the likely tangential benefits it may have to some of the employmemnt opportunities even at lower and middle-income job creation associated with and supporting this new (and very shiny) endeavour. Without acknowledging that, it kind of misses the point.


Of equal importance, Foo appears to be right that it gives Amazon, a massive super-corporation, yet another leg up on the competition. But the competition isn't local stores. Although at least on some level, I'm not sure who is being envisioned as the competition in this case, given that the moving of a HQ and the jobs associated with it are not the competition for most smaller stores who would be under threat by the digital economy and the likes of delivery-to-door and same-day or next-day shipping. The HQ being in NYC doesn't suddenly make New Yorkers able to order Amazon stuff, they already had (and took advantage of) that option same as the rest of us. This idea that the answer is to make smaller players get a chance to keep their mom-and-pop stores is exactly the kind of bullshit peddled by Trump and the Republicans who assume that the progress for lower or middle-income families is to get more crumbs off the big table by doing what they always did and being rewarded for it. It's the same tired argument that suggests the key to saving jobs is tariffs and autarky rather than work-force training and innovation. So that is just as non-sensical as the SOcialist Democrats cry for more instant money to fix the subway belies a short-termist view of state economics.

Likewise, I get that Foo thinks lower taxes are the answer to everything, but the system wouldn't sustain itself with that as it stands and would become as big a problem as the new ultra-low-tax Red state whose government is failing and which has no money for anything. The system isn't designed to cope with that. And it again fails to deal with the need to meet the 21st century challenges of work and innovation by assuming keeping more money somehow works. If that had worked, the Trump tax cuts would be a huge hit and everyone would be voting Republican rather than the massive Democrat surge.


Just thought I'd share that thinking.

tl;dr

Taxation is basically the idea that the government can spend your money better than you can. In some cases, this is correct. For instance, fighting a war on foreign soil or protecting national borders, or building roads. That is why conservatives support such things.

When in doubt, the money should be left with the party who earned it. As an example, I would rather keep my money to fund my own healthcare choices, rather than giving it away to a 29 year old waitress to decide.

New York has a 200 year history of doing everything for money and power. That is why the skyscrapers are there and the population so dense. They have painted themselves into a corner.

Jason wrote:tl;dr

Well, back to just replying on my phone instead of the laptop. You collossal thunder-cunt.

Foo wrote:Taxation is basically the idea that the government can spend your money better than you can. In some cases, this is correct. For instance, fighting a war on foreign soil or protecting national borders, or building roads. That is why conservatives support such things.

When in doubt, the money should be left with the party who earned it. As an example, I would rather keep my money to fund my own healthcare choices, rather than giving it away to a 29 year old waitress to decide.

New York has a 200 year history of doing everything for money and power. That is why the skyscrapers are there and the population so dense. They have painted themselves into a corner.

Look forward to. Seeing your own hospital and medical research.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:tl;dr

Well, back to just replying on my phone instead of the laptop. You collossal thunder-cunt.

Well, I never!