Elessar78

Cities Race for Amazon's second "head quarters"

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LLandryistheshiz said:

Virginia Tech is opening a new Engineering Grad school in that area now, and they’ve partnered with Amazon to make it happen. 

 

I’ve heard Amazon thinks VT is in line to be next MIT; think very highly of the talent there. Makes sense for them to build a direct pipeline 

 

Right and that by itself is worth it to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others have said it, but these incentives are very thoughtful and intentional and should have been done regardless, but Amazon is the easy impetus that allows/justifies the high-spend, because it's mutually beneficial for all parties and Amazon locating to NoVa will generate loads and loads of tax revenue.

 

Just from a first blush, 25,000 jobs at $150,000 per year at 5.8% personal income tax (Top Virginia rate) is $220 million per year at full build-out. And that's just from the taxes the employees will pay directly, not what Amazon would pay in employer income tax ... or any of the ancillary and ripple effects (spending, food tax, etc.) that comes from the existence of 25,000 employees in Nova, or the commercial tax revenues the County will collect through new apartments, office buildings, etc.

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LLandryistheshiz said:

Virginia Tech is opening a new Engineering Grad school in that area now, and they’ve partnered with Amazon to make it happen. 

 

I’ve heard Amazon thinks VT is in line to be next MIT; think very highly of the talent there. Makes sense for them to build a direct pipeline 


VT as a state school is never going to be MIT.   Although it could be the next Cal-Berkeley 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a company says "average salary is...." as opposed to "median....."

 

If 150,000k is the average salary does that mean it is the average salary for the entire work force or does it mean more that the building managing partner is making 250k, and the workers are making 50k and then they factor the average from that raw number instead of how many people there are making each individual salary?

 

Because I thought the term median as opposed to average, was a more accurate look at what most workers would be making.


Am I wrong? Maybe I am just understanding things wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NoCalMike it’s referring to the total sum of salaries divided by number of workers. From my experience with companies in this area, particularly in tech, I think most entry level will be around 75-90 with mid level being 120-150 and management and higher skilled tech workers making 250k+ Fairly easily. Executives will be in the millions of dollars. Which def skews the number up, but you’d be shocked by what the average tech worker makes in Arlington. I know guys in their mid to late 20’s cracking 140k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon has cancelled HQ2 plans in NYC, citing resistance from local politicians. 

 

Still moving forward with Arlington, VA.

Edited by No Excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 2:30 PM, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I'm sure it's more than that...

 

Cornell - https://www.sce.cornell.edu/ss/courses/off/ciw.php

 

Plus you are correct, there are even more that are not top tier, e.g. OU - https://pacs.ou.edu/military/military-student-services/ou-north-america/ou-north-america-washington-dc/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

Amazon has cancelled HQ2 plans in NYC, citing resistance from local politicians. 

 

Still moving forward with Arlington, VA.

I consider myself liberal (mainly socially). But AOC and the NY politicians on the ground that rallied against this are idiots. I have worked in this field in NY and now here. NYC and NYS were due to get $27 billion in net new tax revenue over th course of the next 15 years. At a cost of $3 billion in offsets.

 

these politicians are literally now talking about what they can spend the $3 billion on now. No... guys ... that isn’t $3b that you spent. It was offsets for a $27 billion revenue stream you are now no longer going to receive. Good lord.

 

We are gonna be reaping the benefits of this for a generation. Now we can at least say we won HQ2 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

I consider myself liberal (mainly socially). But AOC and the NY politicians on the ground that rallied against this are idiots. I have worked in this field in NY and now here. NYC and NYS were due to get $27 billion in net new tax revenue over th course of the next 15 years. At a cost of $3 billion in offsets.

 

these politicians are literally now talking about what they can spend the $3 billion on now. No... guys ... that isn’t $3b that you spent. It was offsets for a $27 billion revenue stream you are now no longer going to receive. Good lord.

 

We are gonna be reaping the benefits of this for a generation. Now we can at least say we won HQ2 

 

I see both sides of the argument on this. But at the end of the day, it’s flat out ridiculous to give such a massive tax break to a company owned by the wealthiest man in the world. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@No Excuses

 

It’s a publicly traded company that would be doing its shareholders a disservice by not going for incentives. But I understand your issue with it. But the fact remains that amazon is going to generate billions upon billions in direct (and many more indirec) over the next 15+ years for Virginia. Giving $750 million of that back over time is peanuts. 

 

Until congress eve passes legislation to make economic incentives illegal, it’ll continue to happen. And I’ll bang the drum for the NoVa package being one of the most innovative incentives when it comes to community/education and infrastructure investments for the good of the entire region

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I see both sides of the argument on this. But at the end of the day, it’s flat out ridiculous to give such a massive tax break to a company owned by the wealthiest man in the world. 

 

Does whether you profit not matter?

I get hating the rich, but they are gonna be rich with or w/o you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article in Washingtonian about how VA "won" the race for HQ2.

 

Was it really an open race? Bezos owns the Post, he's in the area a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 10:37 PM, twa said:

 

Does whether you profit not matter?

I get hating the rich, but they are gonna be rich with or w/o you 

 

This isnt about hating the rich, this is about Amazon paying zero dollar in federal taxes and even getting a rebate while the federal government is running a deficit.  Its rediculous and unsubstainable.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 10:37 PM, twa said:

 

Does whether you profit not matter?

I get hating the rich, but they are gonna be rich with or w/o you 

Localities give away too much tax revenue to attract these companies. 

It increases local jobs (or maybe no locals get those jobs as opposed to transplants). 

The tax break then is offloaded to the new employees to pay for the infrastructure and services they need. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

Localities give away too much tax revenue to attract these companies. 

It increases local jobs (or maybe no locals get those jobs as opposed to transplants). 

The tax break then is offloaded to the new employees to pay for the infrastructure and services they need. 

 

Some do, some don't.

 

it increases tax base and income in the area IF done right.....of course if that is not a need then incentives are a mistake.

 

37 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This isnt about hating the rich, this is about Amazon paying zero dollar in federal taxes and even getting a rebate while the federal government is running a deficit.  Its rediculous and unsubstainable.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html

 

Are the feds or the state the one offering incentives?

 

Is this different than some areas deducting high state taxes from the federal returns? :pint:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Are the feds or the state the one offering incentives?

 

I get that your shtick is to ask questions for the sake of asking questions, but it really doesnt matter.  Technically they are both offering "incentives " and they are both wrong for doing, we cant afford it.

 

4 minutes ago, twa said:

Is this different than some areas deducting high state taxes from the federal returns? :pint:

 

 

 

That's off topic, your question was about these incentives being worth it.  The answer is no because Bezos likely would've came here anyway and we should have a more reasonable tax code affecting his company to get the benefits of him being here plus what we need to take care of other things via the tax revenue. 

 

The idea of economic development making up for little to no taxes has been proven wrong over and over again, ask Kansas.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I get that your shtick is to ask questions for the sake of asking questions, but it really doesnt matter.  Technically they are both offering "incentives " and they are both wrong for doing, we cant afford it.

 

 

That's off topic, your question was about these incentives being worth it.  The answer is no because Bezos likely would've came here anyway and we should have a more reasonable tax code affecting his company to get the benefits of him being here plus what we need to take care of other things via the tax revenue. 

 

The idea of economic development making up for little to no taxes has been proven wrong over and over again, ask Kansas.

 

We depends .

The state benefiting at the feds expense still benefits the state in most cases.

 

If they would locate and invest w/o incentives then they surely are a waste/cost.

 

If it didn't help Kansas then Kansas was doing it wrong. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

We depends .

The state benefiting at the feds expense still benefits the state in most cases.

 

If they would locate and invest w/o incentives then they surely are a waste/cost.

 

Theres always some incentive when a company wants to move, they dont move for no reason. The question is if they should get help from the government to do it.  Amazon didnt need help, why give it to them?

 

12 minutes ago, twa said:

If it didn't help Kansas then Kansas was doing it wrong. 

 

The whole philosophy is wrong because when you have tax cuts like that, the next thing to make up for it is cuts in spending.  That's taking money that would be going into the economy and just giving it to corporations that arent going to make the same type of investments, if any at all.  

 

The Kansas experiment failed because the investments into the state like infrastructure and education slowed so much that companies still didnt want to move their despite the low tax code.  

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/418768-kansas-voters-render-final-verdict-on-failed-tax-cut-experiment

 

Quote

This is reminiscent of Kansas, where the extensive cuts in everything from education, health care and transportation to agriculture and higher education dragged down the state's economy while the money that was accruing to the rich wasn't being used to ramp up investment. 

 

The reason for the failure of the Brownback experiment, and the likely failure of the Trump tax cuts, is that they didn't account for the ways that economic inequality today obstructs, distorts and subverts the pathways to economic growth that is strong, stable and broadly shared.

 

They ignore extensive evidence of what - in fact - drives economic growth and stability and can deliver improvements in living standards.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting the area they’re moving into has a lot of vacancies as list of people had moved out. I forget it was government agencies or defense contractors but I recall reading the commercial real estate vacancies were bad and trending worse in the city when they were deciding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.