Amazon and FAMGAN in general's take is far, far more than is recognized.<p>Example: datacenters that cost more than $xxx million to build received special tax breaks, which means that only the largest, big tech companies received them.<p><a href="https://www.crn.com/news/data-center/sweeping-data-center-tax-exemptions-passed-in-illinois" rel="nofollow">https://www.crn.com/news/data-center/sweeping-data-center-ta...</a><p>No sales taxes.... but you must spend a minimum of 50 million a year for 5 years.<p>Company that wants to build a mid size, 30 million dollar datacenter? No tax breaks. This is a barrier to entry for smaller would-be competitors and those that would prefer to have their own machines.
I wonder how much of these "subsidies" are actually tax abatements as opposed to a handout? I am familiar with the Kansas City area: the chart shows Amazon getting $20M for their distribution center in WYCO/KCK whereas they only got $1.8M for their distribution center in Edgerton. Property taxes alone could explain such a massive difference (WYCO property tax rates are ridiculous) and the distribution center is in a commercial/freight zone whereas the one in Edgerton used to be open farmland (though close to an intermodal hub).<p>And yes, in an ideal world, businesses would pay for things themselves without handouts or tax breaks but pretty much every state and many localities pour millions and billions into public sector financing of private businesses in the name of bringing good jobs to the area. Can't really blame the politicians: if they didn't give these handouts on the Kansas side of the state line I'm sure Missouri would have been willing to lure Amazon over to that side. Amazon is just taking what they can get, same as every other company. The only way to reform this is to ban the practice nationwide -- buy getting politicians who pull down millions in lobbyist and corporate donations to bite the hands that are feeding them.
Those subdidies are almost all for distribution centers. Of course local & state subsidies are given for large businesses. There is a net positive for the community with jobs and for the company with lower tax.
This looks like direct subsidies only. The big dollars are in the subsidies paid directly to <i>employees</i> (i.e. welfare) so that Amazon can pay them low wages.<p>Walmart, McDonalds etc are also major indirect recipients of this subsidy.
We do this kind of weird dance in which we create subsidies to incentivize desirable behavior and then when it works and we get more of the desirable behavior we complain about the handouts.<p>I understand that democracy implies multiple constituencies, not all of which agree on the need for any particular policy (and so arguments about the necessity of specific subsidies are reasonable and inevitable), but it's always worth remembering that we offer these subsidies because we want to encourage the behavior that's tied to the them. It's not an accident or a secret handout.<p>It's quid pro quo.
Why do people act like governments are some benevolent entity that corporations must do favors for?<p>It's like any other market. You create jobs, tax revenues and opportunities and different governments create incentives to lure them in. If anything the complaints should be levied at the governments who citizens think are doing a bad P/L analysis on these subsidies. Alas, only Amazon in mentioned in this title.
The irony. The bride of capitalism basks in welfare benefits. All the while paying minimal taxes and working tirelessly to turn workers basically into machines ;)<p>A smarter move by politicians would be use these same dollars to support worker owned co-ops in a greater way. They have proven to be more efficient as a businesses model and better at shifting money to more hands. Plus, good jobs for the workers :)
So the racket in US, as far as I can tell, is basically this: Bezos and friends (e.g Bill Gates) push for higher taxes and other policies that are supposed to balance the power between business and "the people", this results in more taxes for businesses who would be their competitors, but Bezos and friends get waivers and don't have to pay the taxes or comply with policies.<p>I think US should pass a specific bill to tax Bezos and friends, take at least 90% of their net worth, and then start taxing "the rich". Anything else is just bullshit.<p>I mean, taxing the rich has nothing to do with deficit anyway, there are not enough rich people in the world to even make a dent in the massive hole US dug for themselves with their "money printer goes brrrr" clown act.