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…
Read more@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes
If a company cannot break even or make a profit, their business model has failed and they don't need to stay in business.
@9FSBHC88mos8MO
While it is a corporation's responsibility to ensure financial stability of their corporation the loss of jobs from said corporation would be too severe and have a negative impact on the national economy.
Very good point, but if the job losses from a single corporation are going to have a negative impact on the entire national economy, there are bigger issues that need to be worked out. I supported the takeover of the major automakers in 2010, because it was a restructuring that took your point into account and made sure that the automobile manufacturing industry did not collapse. That wasn't a subsidy, really, it was more of an industry rescue package.
This was very different from putting tax breaks to corporations into the law just because the company gives a contribution to a political candidate.
@9FS6TV38MO
Some companies are doing fundamental research or are too niche to be profitable yet their products can be vital for the respective fields they conduct business in.
Yes, and those companies deserve a chance to prove their thesis and get the initial R&D turned into real products and services. This is why the BDC markets exist, and I have no concerns with the government providing R&D funding through the NSF and other channels. But a city giving economic incentives at the expense of their own tax base is doing their citizens a disservice. I'd prefer that the market be allowed to pick the winners rather than a city council doing it on the backs of their taxpayers.
@9F92YNC 8mos8MO
For example: in the state of KY, eastern KY and the Appalachian region drastically needs many kinds of businesses to serve the people but few corporations are willing to invest in the region due to low numbers of people and economic distress. If the government would assist in bringing in businesses, many problems might be eased and in time the region could be a profitable place for a business to locate..
Any coastal community a hurricane has devastated serves as an example of the need for government investment and assistance (subsidy) in businesses for recovery and survival.
@CockatooPeteRepublican8mos8MO
Absolutely, areas such as eastern KY and the Appalachian region, which are often overlooked due to less favorable economic conditions, could definitely benefit from such incentives. It's a win-win situation where businesses get a boost to establish and the local community gets job opportunities and economic upliftment. Similarly, for coastal communities hit by natural disasters, these incentives can stimulate recovery and resilience. But how do we ensure that these incentives lead to long-term commitment from businesses rather than short-term gain?
@9FZQ84R7mos7MO
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1172301798/workers-affordable-housing-companies-building
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/08/us-affordable-housing-corporations-amazon-low-interest-rates
https://ripplematch.com/career-advice/awesome-companies-located-in-affordable-cities-53a99824/
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-cheaper-to-buy-houses-than-to-build-them-and-refine-them-as-a-company
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, the government should never subsidize private businesses
@9F92YNC 8mos8MO
The government should subsidize some private businesses: to help some get started, to help some open new locations in needy areas, to help in recovery from natural disasters. The government should be allowed to subsidize for specific reasons and with maximum and minimum money levels.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No
@9FP2KHQ8mos8MO
Corporations being corporations can already hold their own most of the time, and hold a fair share of the market and social power in general. Saying "NO" would help perpetuate economic disparities and inequalities in America and keep money in the hands of possible corrupt leaders. Giving people the opportunity to acquire employment and climb up the economic ladder is what we want.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies
@9FZQ84R7mos7MO
Companies build more on burnt down places because it's cheaper, a place being more expensive not necessarily attracts companies, that argument is insufficient, mainly because companies take advantage of this to make their own housing restrictions, i.e. 'if you work for us we will give you housing ourselves'
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, but punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@9GBVFHR7mos7MO
Yes, because if they do move jobs out of the country, it could open up job positions for other people in the world who might be more qualified.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised
@9FP2KHQ8mos8MO
If the local government were compromised that would be infringing on the civil liberties of the individuals in the area since it is their community. So the corporations would have to find a way to work WITH the community to provide new jobs.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Deleted2yrs2Y
Yes, cities should do whatever they choose
@98PJRK41yr1Y
Yes, cities should do as they choose
Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised, the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents, and the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives
@8G5T7884yrs4Y
Yes, but every state should have their own incentive program if they choose to have one at all. This is not a federal level issue.
Yes, provided that tax revenue will exceed tax incentives, the company promises to hire mostly local residents, and local citizens vote to approve it.
@8S49BGV3yrs3Y
private companies should not exist
@6R6HBQ3Constitution2yrs2Y
Yes, but they should choose not to
@8TPZGDY3yrs3Y
Yes, and punish them for moving jobs out of the country
@95XXZXF2yrs2Y
@8N4277C4yrs4Y
@8LVXT2N4yrs4Y
@9M7X92J2wks2W
Why?
Unless there is a situation like a natural disaster or war or something extreme where it is an important civic matter for a company to relocate, I can't see why the government and therefore we US citizens should be paying for this stuff.
I can see something in the infrastructure part, but not much else.
Right now we should work to bring back independent domestic production of basic needed goods for national security reasons.
We can't depend exclusively on other nations to produce goods for us.
We need to bring back our US production economy ASAP!
That said if the company isn… Read more
@9LLHW751mo1MO
Yes, but the dealings are be made public and the company moving there promises to create more value for the area than the incentive given or repay the difference.
@9L4WH4L 2mos2MO
Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised, if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer, and if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents
@9L4R9YCRepublican2mos2MO
Yes, but only if local citizens can vote on the incentives (and amount) and the creation of new jobs that hire local residents without hurting the local environment.
@9L4G5CY2mos2MO
No, spend money on improving infrastructure and economy and the comunity to attract companies and punish them for moving jobs out of country.
@9L3T7492mos2MO
Yes, as long as the tax revenue would outpace the tax incentives and would create jobs for locals rather than individuals moving in to fill the jobs.
@9L3KKMY2mos2MO
No, spend that money on improving ingrastructure and comunity to attract companies and decrease taxes.
@9L2WPZM2mos2MO
No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and the comunity to attract companies , decrese taxes and panish them if move jobs out of country...
@9KYF8QF2mos2MO
Yes, but I would prefer that money be used to encourage entrepeneurship within the community instead.
@9KVMCZH2mos2MO
Yes, as long as the incentives apply to a wide range of companies and not just specific companies that make specific deals
@9KQTXBGIndependent2mos2MO
Yes as long as the local environment isn’t compromised AND as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed tax incentives
@9KNPCWJ2mos2MO
yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised and promise to create new jobs by hiring local residents
@9KLP5XC2mos2MO
No, the government should make their tax system inviting to all companies and not create different rules for different companies.
@9KH7ZYH3mos3MO
No, punish companies for moving out of country and more to attract companies by improving the infrastructure.
@9KGSD9S3mos3MO
yes, but it should be at the decision of the company whether or not to accept. and if it creates more jobs by hiring local residents
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...