......she thinks the tax breaks NY was going to give Amazon is actual money that can now be spent LMAO! She's dumber than anyone I've ever known or heard of.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de-blasio-ocasio-cortex-claim-spending-amazon-tax-break-money

She’s from Mexico so no surprise.

I believe what she's implying is the investment potential of not handing out the incentives to Amazon. I'm certain, as an economics major, she wouldn't have confused a tax break with a literal exchange of funds.

Brown Onion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She’s from Mexico so no surprise.

This make come as a surprise you but New York is not Mexico, neither is Puerto Rico.

AOC is pretty far out there, but the mere mention of her makes Trumptard heads melt. Anybody with that particular talent can't be all bad.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brown Onion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > She’s from Mexico so no surprise.
>
> This make come as a surprise you but New York is
> not Mexico, neither is Puerto Rico.


Same thing shit holes.

She cost NY thousands of jobs and billions in revenue

LOL!

LIBTARDS!

Yet when one subjects the deal to the cost-benefit analysis, the Amazon deal was a loss for NYC.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe what she's implying is the investment
> potential of not handing out the incentives to
> Amazon. I'm certain, as an economics major, she
> wouldn't have confused a tax break with a literal
> exchange of funds.

Nothing was handed out. Can you explain what this investment potential is? Now that Amazon isn't coming, I see anyone lining up to take their place.

She has value Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AOC is pretty far out there, but the mere mention
> of her makes Trumptard heads melt. Anybody with
> that particular talent can't be all bad.


But it IS impressive. She really does trigger trumptardz. I just hope the Dems replace her before her shtick gets too old.....

She has value Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AOC is pretty far out there, but the mere mention
> of her makes Trumptard heads melt. Anybody with
> that particular talent can't be all bad.

The Governor of New York and the Mayor of NYC's heads are melting down. Google it.

phpky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AllyOfNone Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I believe what she's implying is the investment
> > potential of not handing out the incentives to
> > Amazon. I'm certain, as an economics major,
> she
> > wouldn't have confused a tax break with a
> literal
> > exchange of funds.
>
> Nothing was handed out. Can you explain what this
> investment potential is? Now that Amazon isn't
> coming, I see anyone lining up to take their
> place.

Granting tax breaks to a multi-billion dollar company to build a "campus" in your city is a handout. Amazon is an obscenely wealthy company more than capable of paying its way, which it doesn't do. There are far too many corporations weaseling their way into public funds to build what business should be investing in itself. This is socialized cost and privatized profit.

When I say "investment potential" what I'm referring to is potential return on investment. De Blasio speculated that the deal could yield a return of $12.5 billion, however I have yet to read an article in which he states how long it would take see returns of that amount. Nevermind the fact that NYC has an unemployment rate of 4%, so it would likely be a struggle to source high-skilled labour locally, and the low-skilled labour that Amazon requires to operate pays a poverty wage, which means the taxpayer would be subsidizing Amazon's labour.

What many don't factor into these deals are the externalities.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe what she's implying is the
> investment
> > > potential of not handing out the incentives
> to
> > > Amazon. I'm certain, as an economics major,
> > she
> > > wouldn't have confused a tax break with a
> > literal
> > > exchange of funds.
> >
> > Nothing was handed out. Can you explain what
> this
> > investment potential is? Now that Amazon isn't
> > coming, I see anyone lining up to take their
> > place.
>
> Granting tax breaks to a multi-billion dollar
> company to build a "campus" in your city is a
> handout. Amazon is an obscenely wealthy company
> more than capable of paying its way, which it
> doesn't do. There are far too many corporations
> weaseling their way into public funds to build
> what business should be investing in itself. This
> is socialized cost and privatized profit.
>
> When I say "investment potential" what I'm
> referring to is potential return on investment.
> De Blasio speculated that the deal could yield a
> return of $12.5 billion, however I have yet to
> read an article in which he states how long it
> would take see returns of that amount. Nevermind
> the fact that NYC has an unemployment rate of 4%,
> so it would likely be a struggle to source
> high-skilled labour locally, and the low-skilled
> labour that Amazon requires to operate pays a
> poverty wage, which means the taxpayer would be
> subsidizing Amazon's labour.
>
> What many don't factor into these deals are the
> externalities.


This is Bizzaro World Liberal economics. No business would open anywhere if it were so.
Liberals do it on purpose so the only option is have the government do everything.

She has value Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AOC is pretty far out there, but the mere mention
> of her makes Trumptard heads melt. Anybody with
> that particular talent can't be all bad.



...says the guy who's head has been exploding every day for 2 1/2 years now LoL

just an observation Wrote:

>
> This is Bizzaro World Liberal economics. No
> business would open anywhere if it were so.
> Liberals do it on purpose so the only option is
> have the government do everything.

It's business basics. If you wish to expand your business, you accumulate the funds and expand as demand increases. This tactic of squeezing the funds out of the public, while allowing them to incur the externalities, is a result of business and politics becoming bedfellows. Politicians need to get reelected, business doesn't want to pay its way, the politicians open the coffers and some of those funds bounce back to the politician in the way of campaign donations, the public loses.

Brown Onion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AllyOfNone Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Brown Onion Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > She’s from Mexico so no surprise.
> >
> > This make come as a surprise you but New York
> is
> > not Mexico, neither is Puerto Rico.
>
>
> Same thing shit holes.

Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Mexico is its own country. Not the same thing...

Geography. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brown Onion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > AllyOfNone Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Brown Onion Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > She’s from Mexico so no surprise.
> > >
> > > This make come as a surprise you but New York
> > is
> > > not Mexico, neither is Puerto Rico.
> >
> >
> > Same thing shit holes.
>
> Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Mexico
> is its own country. Not the same thing...

Iguana and plantain for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> It's business basics. If you wish to expand your
> business, you accumulate the funds and expand as
> demand increases. This tactic of squeezing the
> funds out of the public, while allowing them to
> incur the externalities, is a result of business
> and politics becoming bedfellows. Politicians
> need to get reelected, business doesn't want to
> pay its way, the politicians open the coffers and
> some of those funds bounce back to the politician
> in the way of campaign donations, the public
> loses.

It's not "squeezing the funds out of the public" lol that's your basic mistaken premise. Local government everywhere gives tax breaks so businesses will locate there. It's a win-win; or else neither business nor government would do it.
To ignore that reality is, like I said, Bizzaro Economics.

just an observation Wrote:

> It's not "squeezing the funds out of the public"
> lol that's your basic mistaken premise. Local
> government everywhere gives tax breaks so
> businesses will locate there. It's a win-win; or
> else neither business nor government would do it.
> To ignore that reality is, like I said, Bizzaro
> Economics.


It is exactly squeezing funds from the public because these corporations pit counties, cities, states into bidding wars for their relocation or expansion. A corporation often wields immense power over the health of an economy. A corporation threatens to relocate if they don't receive the incentives and breaks they demand and a politician capitulates if they wish to remain in office. Because governments do it everywhere doesn't mean it's right, justified or fair to the taxpayers who dollars are swindled in exchange for hollow promises.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is exactly squeezing funds from the public
> because these corporations pit counties, cities,
> states into bidding wars for their relocation or
> expansion. A corporation often wields immense
> power over the health of an economy. A
> corporation threatens to relocate if they don't
> receive the incentives and breaks they demand and
> a politician capitulates if they wish to remain in
> office. Because governments do it everywhere
> doesn't mean it's right, justified or fair to the
> taxpayers who dollars are swindled in exchange for
> hollow promises.


LoL you've now made a career of being laughably wrong. "Swindled" heehee.

Where are you getting your talking points? Cultural Marxism class?

just an observation Wrote:

> LoL you've now made a career of being laughably
> wrong. "Swindled" heehee.
>
> Where are you getting your talking points?
> Cultural Marxism class?

Corporate Tactics 101. Why invest capital when you can leverage your market power to force the public to do so?

It's always amused me how conservatives/Republicans throw bitchfits about the state granting a few hundred in SNAP benefits to a single mother but clamber over one another to lick the ass of billionaires who are granted millions or billions in handouts and/or incentives.

Dumb for sure but would love to bone.

Pretty indicative of what a shitty education these little soyflake retards go deeply into debt for. She has a minor in economics and she thinks she saved New York $3 billion? WTF!

The people who let this dumb little cunt graduate should be in fucking prison.

While appearing on the premiere of Showtime's new talk show "Desus & Mero," Ocasio-Cortez was asked what she would have done if she hadn't decided to run for Congress, joining a large pool of women who ran in the midterms in direct response to Trump winning the 2016 election.

Mero asked if Trump hadn't become president, "would you have run for Congress?"

"I don’t know!" Ocasio-Cortez told the pair. "I could just be like teaching in high school right now."


Yes AOC, you could be "like teaching" or maybe you could be "teaching".

I doubt any of them would have run if they hadn't had Trump's disparaging remarks pertaining to women to motivate a movement based on sex.

The only thing this woman is capable of teaching is poll dancing. She got bitchslapped here after trying to sound smart, this is from a recient hearing where she attempted to vilify things that aren't true...


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-BHqzXKsY&persist_app=1&app=m

CDJTX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing this woman is capable of teaching
> is poll dancing. She got bitchslapped here after
> trying to sound smart, this is from a recient
> hearing where she attempted to vilify things that
> aren't true...
>
>
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-BHqzXKsY&persist_
> app=1&app=m


She is certainly a skilled poll dancer because she won her seat.

You just got bitchslapped here, trying to sound smart.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CDJTX Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The only thing this woman is capable of
> teaching
> > is poll dancing. She got bitchslapped here
> after
> > trying to sound smart, this is from a recient
> > hearing where she attempted to vilify things
> that
> > aren't true...
> >
> >
> >
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-BHqzXKsY&persist_
>
> > app=1&app=m
>
>
> She is certainly a skilled poll dancer because she
> won her seat.
>
> You just got bitchslapped here, trying to sound
> smart.


Who did she run against to win her seat? Did you watch the video?

Crowley, then the Republican. Crowley was a cash-flush, entrenched, corporate Democrat.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowley, then the Republican. Crowley was a
> cash-flush, entrenched, corporate Democrat.


In a district that had just been redrawn, making him a white guy in a largely non white district. This area of NYC also historically votes democrat to such an extent that it's almost pointless running a republican. If Mickey Mouse was a Puerto Rican he could have beat Crowley.

So Crowley, who had a history of winning in a diverse district, lost to Ocasio-Cortez because they redraw the district with a few more minorities in it? There's also the fact that Republicans did win other seats in the 14th.

She is indeed stupid.
Losing Amazon and its thousands of jobs did more damage to NY than is readily apparent. Finance has made NYC a one industry town and with the advent of the internet, a physical presence is no longer required to transact business. The oppressive tax structure of NY has made places like Florida and North Carolina far more attractive to do this type of business.

As more captains of finance and their back office operations flee to less costly and more welcoming locals, you can expect further decline of a once great city.

NCHNN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AllyOfNone Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > CDJTX Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The only thing this woman is capable of
> > teaching
> > > is poll dancing. She got bitchslapped here
> > after
> > > trying to sound smart, this is from a recient
> > > hearing where she attempted to vilify things
> > that
> > > aren't true...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-BHqzXKsY&persist_
>
> >
> > > app=1&app=m
> >
> >
> > She is certainly a skilled poll dancer because
> she
> > won her seat.
> >
> > You just got bitchslapped here, trying to sound
> > smart.
>
>
> Who did she run against to win her seat? Did you
> watch the video?


This would be a no. The libtard did not watch the video of AOC trying to sound smart in a committee hearing

4 billion annually lost for NYC and 25,000 jobs.

That's progressive.

Next on her list is to eliminate cattle ranches.

Sparks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She is indeed stupid.
> Losing Amazon and its thousands of jobs did more
> damage to NY than is readily apparent. Finance has
> made NYC a one industry town and with the advent
> of the internet, a physical presence is no longer
> required to transact business. The oppressive tax
> structure of NY has made places like Florida and
> North Carolina far more attractive to do this type
> of business.
>
> As more captains of finance and their back office
> operations flee to less costly and more welcoming
> locals, you can expect further decline of a once
> great city.

Amazon had far more to gain out the deal than NYC did. Amazon bailed because what the city was asking for was for Amazon to remain neutral in the case that employees wished to unionize, Amazon was unwilling to grant that tiny concession. This wasn't a protest of Amazon by the public, it was a protest of the public by capital.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's always amused me how
> conservatives/Republicans throw bitchfits about
> the state granting a few hundred in SNAP benefits
> to a single mother but clamber over one another to
> lick the ass of billionaires who are granted
> millions or billions in handouts and/or
> incentives.


Once again your bankrupt Liberal talking points crap don't fly, Zippy.
SNAP benefits is money down the drain.
Tax incentives reap much greater rewards than the tax breaks given, by orders of magnitude. Employed people contribute to the economy and PAY taxes instead of being an economic burden.

Your statement boils down to being against employment. How stupid is that?

just an observation Wrote:


> Once again your bankrupt Liberal talking points
> crap don't fly, Zippy.
> SNAP benefits is money down the drain.
> Tax incentives reap much greater rewards than the
> tax breaks given, by orders of magnitude. Employed
> people contribute to the economy and PAY taxes
> instead of being an economic burden.
>
> Your statement boils down to being against
> employment. How stupid is that?

No, they don't reap greater rewards. If they ever do, it's projected to be reaped decades or centuries in the future, well enough into the future render the projection worthless. People on welfare of any kind are paid for by the public eventually. If they work, and most do, they're paid a poverty wage by an obscenely wealthy company and the public pays the difference, it's subsidization of low corporate wages.

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio Cortez cost New York 25,000 job averaging $150,000 a year


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a10vZ6a_ucA

She has a shaved Twat or hairy Bush?
Attachments:

Any pics of her wearing a strap-on?

I don't know if she owns a strap-on but I do know that she had no authority over the Amazon deal and her district doesn't include Long Island City, which is where the Amazon "campus" was going to be.

..
Attachments:

The only dumb one is the individual that A. Believed that Amazon was going to employ 25k workers, with a median salary of $150k and B. If those positions were going to have a median of $150k, that they were going to create work for people, as opposed to simply shift established workers from one occupation and/or employer to another.

The NYC tech sector is the nation’s second biggest after Silicon Valley. A 2017 report by the New York State Comptroller found that employment in the city’s tech sector grew three times faster than the rest of the city’s private sector between 2010 and 2016.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe what she's implying is the investment
> potential of not handing out the incentives to
> Amazon. I'm certain, as an economics major, she
> wouldn't have confused a tax break with a literal
> exchange of funds.

And yet it sounds like that is exactly what she did. I believe she actually thought that the city had a $3 billion pot of money just laying around, and Blasio and company decided to hand all that money over to Bezos et al. rather than improve the subway, or the schook system, etc. Either she actually believed that, or she is being incredibly disingenuous - and I mean like on a Bill Clinton level.

I believe she minored in econ and majored in international relations. Regardless, her econ education was so impressive that upon graduation . . . she tended bars and waited tables for a living. Which she could have done before ever darkening a door at BU.

Now I think the OP is engaging in hyperbole. But so far I'm not exactly bowled over by the power of her intellect. YMMV.

We will have to agree to disagree. I will concede that she is not the most eloquent in her deliverance of policy.

I also take her employment in relation to her education with a pinch of salt. I have met my fair share of well educated individuals who are working shit jobs due to extraneous circumstances. I'm in the same boat. Meanwhile I've met my fair share of well-paid, quality-employed individuals who were poorly educated, couldn't form a coherent sentence, and weren't fit to run a bath.

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that they were going to create work for
> people, as opposed to simply shift established
> workers from one occupation and/or employer to
> another.

So "established worker A" is working for Employer A at some job ("job A") today, and then Amazon comes along and "established worker A" is "simply shifted" to Amazon.

Question: how is Employer A going to get job A done now that ""established worker A" is gone? Isn't Employer A going to have to hire someone to replace "established worker A?" You act like a large new business can move into an area, employ thousands of people, but create no new jobs.


Anyway, taxing businesses is a dishonest shell game and should be abolished. A business is a fictional legal entity and can't pay a tax. Only human beings can pay a tax. When a government taxes a business, the tax is ALWAYS paid by some combination of customers in higher prices, owners/stockholders in lower returns, and employees in lower salaries. People. Except these people never really see how much they are paying because they are being taxed indirectly. Which is why governments love to tax businesses. But it is dishonest and immoral. Tax people. Tax wealthier people more because they have more and can more easily afford it. But tax people. Period.

And when we stop taxing businesses, there will be no tax breaks on the nonexistent taxes for corrupt politicians to offer as part of a corrupt deal (almost ALL these deals are corrupt).

.
Attachments:

Yes, he is going to have to replace "established worker A" however the likelihood that the vacant position is filled by a new addition to the labour force is low. The replacement will be from the same level elsewhere. It's kicking the vacancy down he road. In a city like NYC, the plug to fill the hole will likely come from beyond the borders.

Precisely, the shareholders can absorb the taxes. The shareholders have been the ones reaping all the benefits of increased productivity and profitability. The profit-motive demands increasing returns that can only be garnered from sales for so long before they have to be sourced from elsewhere, typically wages, benefits, etc.

Income: " A gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. "

Wages and salaries do not fall within the definition of income as they are not gains but trades for labour or labour-hours.

I'll include the definition of "benefit" as well.

Benefit: An advantage or profit gained from something. "

.
Attachments:

_
Attachments:

AllyOfNone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, he is going to have to replace "established
> worker A" however the likelihood that the vacant
> position is filled by a new addition to the labour
> force is low. The replacement will be from the
> same level elsewhere. It's kicking the vacancy
> down he road. In a city like NYC, the plug to
> fill the hole will likely come from beyond the
> borders.
>
> Precisely, the shareholders can absorb the taxes.
> The shareholders have been the ones reaping all
> the benefits of increased productivity and
> profitability. The profit-motive demands
> increasing returns that can only be garnered from
> sales for so long before they have to be sourced
> from elsewhere, typically wages, benefits, etc.
>
> Income: " A gain or recurrent benefit usually
> measured in money that derives from capital or
> labor. "
>
> Wages and salaries do not fall within the
> definition of income as they are not gains but
> trades for labour or labour-hours.

Not sure what all of that is even supposed to mean. I'm pretty sure I know what income is. Cutting and pasting from Dictionary.Com is usually not helpful to a discussion.

I'm not sure you ever worked for a private company, but I have for more than 40 years, so let me explain how it really works.

When a company loses someone at Level A, they typically try first to promote someone at Level B below Level A, Which increases the income of the person who was at level B and creates a vacancy at Level B. This pushup occurs to a certain lower level where the company then seeks to hire a NEW employee who is either entering the workforce from college or maybe currently underemployed (and underpaid) somewhere else - say, maybe someone with an education in economics who is currently serving beers and happy hour appetizers for a living.

If you want to increase the taxes on shareholders for dividends or capital gains they receive to offset revenue lost from elimination of corporate taxes, I'm all for that. It's an honest, direct, tax. And IMO, those taxes are too low now anyway.

Finally, although what you are trying to say about salaries is unclear to me, let ME be clear. When shareholder returns decline - for ANY reason including increased taxes - wages are suppressed and/or people lose jobs. So, yeah, employees eat a healthy share of any corporate taxes. Been there; done that. But it is a hidden, indirect, tax on their income so they don't even really see how much it is.

Taxes need to be visible to the people actually bearing the burden of those taxes, so they can participate effectively in the political process to set those taxes. Which is exactly why politicians like corporate and other hidden taxes. No accountability to voters for their decisions. It's a very bad thing for representative government.

You stated that only human beings should pay taxes. The vast majority of human beings trade their labour for a wage or salary, which, by definition, can not be taxed as it is not an income/profit.

You state that someone is promoted, subsequently vacating a position below them and so on. Amazon has stated that they do not intend to relocate or promote from within but to hire new employees. That statement, by Amazon, renders your point moot.

The fact of the matter is when it comes to shareholder return the profit is privatized and the losses socialized. The shareholder is the last person to feel the impact of a downturn.

I don't disagree with your statement regarding transparency.