Will never vote for Progressives

Sorry, but this center left Democratic voter will never vote for progressive candidates.  I will, however, vote against Republican offerings until such a time as the Republican Party rejoins reality.  And I won't vote for lunatic fringe candidates like Jill Stein.

I can't quite abide  the apparent hatred of capitalism and embrace of ideals with the sophistication of high school social justice warriors.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/amazon-drops-york-city-project-progressives-claim-major-230121748--finance.html

You think companies holding cities hostage for tax breaks is capitalism?

They offered a lousy 30 jobs for local residents; refused to agree to build using union labor; "negotiated" for $3B worth of concessions. They don't pay their employees well - a modern day Walmart in that they help their employees sign up for welfare benefits.  They don't pay income tax. 

Without being for or against this, I have a serious question.  Do Google, Facebook, Boeing, or Monsanto actually pay taxes?  Or do all big corporations manage to dodge it?  I remember Exxon used to have very profitable tax division that got them millions in subsidies every year as opposed to actually paying anything.

tjohn said:
I can't quite abide  the apparent hatred of capitalism and embrace of ideals with the sophistication of high school social justice warriors.

 the guy who was truly responsible for Amazon backing out was Michael Gianaris.  And he has no problem with capitalism -- he was initially strongly in favor of Amazon moving to LIC.  But he was bothered by the fact that the deal was done in secret with no input from the local community.

It's not radical to want a big corporation to be a good neighbor if they move to your backyard.  For him it wasn't about "social justice" or a hatred of capitalism. 

ml1 said:
 the guy who was truly responsible for Amazon backing out was Michael Gianaris.  And he has no problem with capitalism -- he was initially strongly in favor of Amazon moving to LIC.  But he was bothered by the fact that the deal was done in secret with no input from the local community.

Poor thing was left out of the "where's mine?"

BG9 said:

ml1 said:
 the guy who was truly responsible for Amazon backing out was Michael Gianaris.  And he has no problem with capitalism -- he was initially strongly in favor of Amazon moving to LIC.  But he was bothered by the fact that the deal was done in secret with no input from the local community.

Poor thing was left out of the "where's mine?"

if that's all it was, they probably could have had him with Prime for life.

FilmCarp said:
Without being for or against this, I have a serious question.  Do Google, Facebook, Boeing, or Monsanto actually pay taxes?  Or do all big corporations manage to dodge it?  I remember Exxon used to have very profitable tax division that got them millions in subsidies every year as opposed to actually paying anything.

 Exxon doesn't get "subsidies."  Exxon is a worldwide corporation with income from many foreign countries. US taxpayers are allowed to take a credit for foreign taxes paid on foreign source . income. (The US is one of the few countries that taxes foreign-earned income of US taxpayer.)  

The Internal Revenue Code permits an immediate deduction for "intangible drilling and development costs."  Exxon files a consolidated US income tax return which consolidates all of the income and revenue of all of its subsidiaries. Exxon operates its exploration and production operations abroad through US incorporated subsidiaries so as to be allowed to take the deduction for intangible drilling costs in its consolidated US income tax return. 

FilmCarp said:
Without being for or against this, I have a serious question.  Do Google, Facebook, Boeing, or Monsanto actually pay taxes?  Or do all big corporations manage to dodge it?  I remember Exxon used to have very profitable tax division that got them millions in subsidies every year as opposed to actually paying anything.

 Google and Apple didn't get these kind of tax breaks because they were in Manhattan, prime real estate.

I believe any big corporation with the same or similar plan as Amazon would have received the same tax incentives if they were to build in LIC. 

cramer said:

FilmCarp said:
Without being for or against this, I have a serious question.  Do Google, Facebook, Boeing, or Monsanto actually pay taxes?  Or do all big corporations manage to dodge it?  I remember Exxon used to have very profitable tax division that got them millions in subsidies every year as opposed to actually paying anything.

 Exxon doesn't get "subsidies."  Exxon is a worldwide corporation with income from many foreign countries. US taxpayers are allowed to take a credit for foreign taxes paid on foreign source . income. (The US is one of the few countries that taxes foreign-earned income of US taxpayer.)  
The Internal Revenue Code permits an immediate deduction for "intangible drilling and development costs."  Exxon files a consolidated US income tax return which consolidates all of the income and revenue of all of its subsidiaries. Exxon operates its exploration and production operations abroad through US incorporated subsidiaries so as to be allowed to take the deduction for intangible drilling costs in its consolidated US income tax return. 

Petroleum industry is significantly subsidized.  

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

"There are dozens and dozens of fossil fuel production subsidies — OCI’s report has a whole appendix devoted to listing them — but here they are broken down by the biggest offenders:

You probably can’t read that text, so here are the top six:

• Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion)
• Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion)
• Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion)
• Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion)
• Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2 billion)
• Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin ($963 million)

(I listed six because that sixth one is the biggie for coal.)

These kinds of obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks are not widely known or debated, partially because you have to be a tax lawyer to understand them, and partially because they are simply old. The single biggest one, the intangible drilling deduction, has been around for over a century!

As subsidies age, they start to look less like subsidies. They start looking like fixed features of the landscape, like mountains or rivers, rather than choices we are making. They just look like the status quo.

How does this compare to renewable energy subsidies? In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:

(The primary federal tax supports for renewable energy — the investment and production tax credits, respectively — are not permanent. They are set to phase out over the next five years, and are politically vulnerable in the meantime. But if you include them, Stephen Kretzmann of OCI confirmed for me over email, permanent fossil tax breaks still win, at $7.4 billion to $5.6 billion.)"

tjohn said:
Sorry, but this center left Democratic voter will never vote for progressive candidates. 

 I certainly will never vote for another centrist (which is to say conservative) candidate in a primary.  I look forward to my vote cancelling yours out as long as we both shall live.  

Salud!

Klinker said:

tjohn said:
Sorry, but this center left Democratic voter will never vote for progressive candidates. 

 I certainly will never vote for another centrist (which is to say conservative) candidate in a primary.  I look forward to my vote cancelling yours out as long as we both shall live.  
Salud!

 I like the progressive strategy for winning elections - pray that the Republican alternative is unacceptable to enough voters.  What could possibly go wrong. 

We are of like mind tjohn, although I'll never say never.  

My primary issue with the Progressives is that they lay out pie-in-the-sky plans at great expense with no detailed analysis as to how to pay for them other that "tax the rich."  

The problem with this strategy is that the rich are quite adept at avoiding taxes, as the discussion above illustrates.

FilmCarp said:
Without being for or against this, I have a serious question.  Do Google, Facebook, Boeing, or Monsanto actually pay taxes?  Or do all big corporations manage to dodge it?  I remember Exxon used to have very profitable tax division that got them millions in subsidies every year as opposed to actually paying anything.

 Taxes? I think people are supposed to be honored to "host" these corps, bidding for them to grace their communities. 

Newark could offer all advantages LIC could have - NYC talent, acres of redevelopment potential, transportation hub. 

GL2 said:
Newark could offer all advantages LIC could have - NYC talent, acres of redevelopment potential, transportation hub. 

I found it interesting that Walter Fields wrote an op ed in support of Amazon coming to Newark.  Of course, the "progressives" would attempt to scuttle the deal.

I'm with you. Socialism (whether Democratic or otherwise) might win you a congressional seat or even a senatorial slot from  Vermont, but it's going to lead to a crushing national defeat. The Bernie crew that's so convinced he would have defeated Trump seem incapable of imagining the impact of him being called "Comrade Bernie" for months on end. America as a whole is a moderate nation of people who believe in the rewards of hard work; when you start pushing against that value, you're going to have some real problems. 

I'll absolutely vote for whatever Democratic nominee we have in 2020, but until and unless it becomes too late to matter (i.e., quite some time before Bernie dropped out in 2016), I'll be supporting candidates who I think can win a Presidential election, not a primary in the Bronx.  

tjohn said:

GL2 said:
Newark could offer all advantages LIC could have - NYC talent, acres of redevelopment potential, transportation hub. 

I found it interesting that Walter Fields wrote an op ed in support of Amazon coming to Newark.  Of course, the "progressives" would attempt to scuttle the deal.

Not likely.  Your idea of "progressives" is perhaps something of a caricature.  I know a lot of progressives, myself included, who thought the Newark deal made more sense than the LIC deal for Amazon.  Thus Mr. Fields coming out in favor.

Wanting living wages and decent working conditions for people, health coverage for everyone, affordable college and a plan to address climate change aren't radical things.  It only seems so in the U.S., where entrenched interests have convinced the population that all of these things are impossible to achieve.

in fact, "social responsibility" was one of the arguments being made in favor of Newark as a site for HQ2:

The report notes that the impact could be greatest in Newark because the needs are greater. According to JUST, Newark has the highest unemployment rate among people of color in any of the finalist cities, at 19.4 percent; a poverty rate of 29 percent, and median income of $33,000. By picking Newark and applying its existing socially responsible practices, Amazon "could have long-standing and far-reaching benefits," the report said.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/money/2018/10/02/newark-amazon-we-socially-responsible-choice-hq-2/1492969002/

The notion that there is any sort of radical progressive movement in the U.S. that hates capitalism and wants to tear it down is absurd. 

ml1 said:
in fact, "social responsibility" was one of the arguments being made in favor of Newark as a site for HQ2:

The report notes that the impact could be greatest in Newark because the needs are greater. According to JUST, Newark has the highest unemployment rate among people of color in any of the finalist cities, at 19.4 percent; a poverty rate of 29 percent, and median income of $33,000. By picking Newark and applying its existing socially responsible practices, Amazon "could have long-standing and far-reaching benefits," the report said.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/money/2018/10/02/newark-amazon-we-socially-responsible-choice-hq-2/1492969002/
The notion that there is any sort of radical progressive movement in the U.S. that hates capitalism and wants to tear it down is absurd. 

 There were very "capitalist" concerns about Amazon's deal with NYC, such as with land use.  Also, as to whether there was enough "bang for the buck", considering the other companies which are developing tech in NYC without that kind of a deal.

tjohn said:

 I like the progressive strategy for winning elections - pray that the Republican alternative is unacceptable to enough voters.  

I don't know, that certainly was the strategy that HRC used to court Progressives and we got four years of Twitler.

How about a strategy that (crazy idea here) involves actually doing the right thing?

How does putting a facility in a certain place necessarily create jobs for people who live there? How many people walk to work?

To put it differently, what % of people who work in Newark live in Newark?

meanwhile:

http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00.

According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won’t have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row.

This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018.

To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%.

drummerboy said:
meanwhile:
http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00.
According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won’t have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row.
This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018.
To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%.

Don't blame Amazon.  Blame tax law.  If I am earning a ton of money and can legally pay little or no taxes, I'm going to do just that.

tjohn saidon't blame Amazon.  Blame tax law.  If I am earning a ton of money and can legally pay little or no taxes, I'm going to do just that.

 Why do you think the tax laws are like that?  While, after my experience on other threads, I hesitate to attribute any  policy changes to lobbying money I will go ahead and say that I suspect it has something to do with the billions of lobbying dollars that are spent by companies like Amazon.

But hey.... unbridled capitalism is super awesome!

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:
meanwhile:
http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00.
According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won’t have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row.
This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018.
To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%.

Don't blame Amazon.  Blame tax law.  If I am earning a ton of money and can legally pay little or no taxes, I'm going to do just that.

 I didn't blame anyone. But it's still absurd that Amazon has to go begging for preferences in order to expand. And that people think that's how capitalism should work.

Think of the freaking good will Amazon could build if they went into a city like Newark, without the incentives.

drummerboy said:

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:
meanwhile:
http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00.
According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won’t have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row.
This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018.
To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%.

Don't blame Amazon.  Blame tax law.  If I am earning a ton of money and can legally pay little or no taxes, I'm going to do just that.

 I didn't blame anyone. But it's still absurd that Amazon has to go begging for preferences in order to expand. And that people think that's how capitalism should work.
Think of the freaking good will Amazon could build if they went into a city like Newark, without the incentives.

 I don't think companies really make major expenditures for good will.  Having said that, there is no question that Amazon lost good will for no gain.  Certainly Newark would have been a good choice - close to everything but less pressure on the local housing market. 

I was mildly supportive of Amazon going to LIC. I thought it could be a win for both Amazon and the City, and the location made sense. The fact that Amazon was so surprised at the pushback they received, though, in turn surprised me. You can't tear down a derelict building in NYC without stirring up a decent-sized protest; the fact they they though trying to push through a massive build up like this without working through the local community (and in NYC, local means neighborhood level -- City Hall's a long subway ride from Queens) tells me Amazon really didn't understand the culture of the city they picked for HQ2, and didn't care to learn it. Given that, I think Amazon not going forward was for the best.

PVW said:
I was mildly supportive of Amazon going to LIC. I thought it could be a win for both Amazon and the City, and the location made sense. The fact that Amazon was so surprised at the pushback they received, though, in turn surprised me. You can't tear down a derelict building in NYC without stirring up a decent-sized protest; the fact they they though trying to push through a massive build up like this without working through the local community (and in NYC, local means neighborhood level -- City Hall's a long subway ride from Queens) tells me Amazon really didn't understand the culture of the city they picked for HQ2, and didn't care to learn it. Given that, I think Amazon not going forward was for the best.

Actually the local community was in favor. It was the local politicians who were not, looking for more.

Many of the jobs lost by NY can be shifted to the VA headquarters. Considering Amazon is a global company I can see jobs created in the UK, EU or China.

BG9 said:

PVW said:
I was mildly supportive of Amazon going to LIC. I thought it could be a win for both Amazon and the City, and the location made sense. The fact that Amazon was so surprised at the pushback they received, though, in turn surprised me. You can't tear down a derelict building in NYC without stirring up a decent-sized protest; the fact they they though trying to push through a massive build up like this without working through the local community (and in NYC, local means neighborhood level -- City Hall's a long subway ride from Queens) tells me Amazon really didn't understand the culture of the city they picked for HQ2, and didn't care to learn it. Given that, I think Amazon not going forward was for the best.

Actually the local community was in favor. It was the local politicians who were not, looking for more.
Many of the jobs lost by NY can be shifted to the VA headquarters. Considering Amazon is a global company I can see jobs created in the UK, EU or China.

 Clearly not all the local community. And why so dismissive of the politicians who represent LIC? Are they not a legitimate voice for their constituents? If the local community was as in favor as you say, then surely if Amazon put in the effort they would have been able to demonstrate they had strong local support. What does it say about Amazon that they were unable or unwilling to do so?