Koya
Footballguy
As some know, I'm involved in real estate development / place-based economic development, so have been following the Amazing HQ2 "competition" and debate closely. There are a number of significant political implications of this huge undertaking, which I figured might be worth discussing here - both as they pertain to the HQ2 search and decision proper, or future efforts to attract/grow a corporate workforce and economy, innovation and traditionally oriented.
I thought this might be interesting, because we are watching folks from each side of the aisle act in some ways either contradictory to their past stated platforms, and/or even perhaps against their own long term benefit regarding the power Politics angle (something you almost NEVER see). As such, a few issues come to mind, and we can get to others later, but let's start with the whole issue of tax incentives for economic development, using North Carolina in this case, but can pertain to other states be it Amazon or general economic development related. I think similarities arise in a number of red states that are wooing a dyed in blue company and culture (Texas, which as a strong rural vs. city divide as well with many similarities, and is more and more purple each year... Florida as well in a somewhat different way, but a lot of similarities)
Tax incentives: If Amazon brings tens of thousands of new jobs, it's own mini-economy with ancillary and support businesses along with the services needed for this new workforce, can that be enough fiscal benefit to overcome the promise of upwards of 5-7 BILLION in tax incentives? We talk about corporate welfare, what would be more an example of that than giving billions to the world's wealthiest man and a company with one of the if not the largest market cap in the world?
Amazon specific: Is the juice worth the squeeze here, ESPECIALLY if a region will need to likely invest MORE billions on ongoing infrastructure, especially transportation related, not to mention schools etc for this new population and economic activity.
In General: Should the nation begin to eschew these tax giveaways, which are used to essentially bribe (legally, mind you) a company to move to or stay in an area - again, when you consider the need to provide supportive infrastructure for residents and businesses, especially in high cost-low efficiency areas (i.e. many established suburbs), how many times does a region/locality actually end up paying out more to get business between tax breaks and supportive infrastructure and other municipal costs than it generates in new tax revenues?
I thought this might be interesting, because we are watching folks from each side of the aisle act in some ways either contradictory to their past stated platforms, and/or even perhaps against their own long term benefit regarding the power Politics angle (something you almost NEVER see). As such, a few issues come to mind, and we can get to others later, but let's start with the whole issue of tax incentives for economic development, using North Carolina in this case, but can pertain to other states be it Amazon or general economic development related. I think similarities arise in a number of red states that are wooing a dyed in blue company and culture (Texas, which as a strong rural vs. city divide as well with many similarities, and is more and more purple each year... Florida as well in a somewhat different way, but a lot of similarities)
Tax incentives: If Amazon brings tens of thousands of new jobs, it's own mini-economy with ancillary and support businesses along with the services needed for this new workforce, can that be enough fiscal benefit to overcome the promise of upwards of 5-7 BILLION in tax incentives? We talk about corporate welfare, what would be more an example of that than giving billions to the world's wealthiest man and a company with one of the if not the largest market cap in the world?
Amazon specific: Is the juice worth the squeeze here, ESPECIALLY if a region will need to likely invest MORE billions on ongoing infrastructure, especially transportation related, not to mention schools etc for this new population and economic activity.
In General: Should the nation begin to eschew these tax giveaways, which are used to essentially bribe (legally, mind you) a company to move to or stay in an area - again, when you consider the need to provide supportive infrastructure for residents and businesses, especially in high cost-low efficiency areas (i.e. many established suburbs), how many times does a region/locality actually end up paying out more to get business between tax breaks and supportive infrastructure and other municipal costs than it generates in new tax revenues?
Last edited by a moderator: