I think calling tax incentives subsidies is really confusing and leads to that misunderstanding. Maybe that's the purpose of using that language?

Good point. Was it the media who started using the word subsidies for this?

"Subsidy" generally implies a third party transferring cash or cash equivalents to reduce or offset an expenditure. "Discount" or "break" generally implies that the party issuing the bill is voluntarily reducing the charge. The boundary between these is fuzzy, but I don't think it's right to call both "subsidies" and I do think there is a tendency for people to refer to discounts they don't like as "subsidies".

I think it's more coming from the perspective that taxation is the cost of doing business in an area. It pays for the training, infrastructure, security, etc that businesses rely on. Schools, roads, and police aren't free. Its coming from the perspective that governments pay the bill for companies operational expenses, and a company which is not pitching enough in to pay for these costs is getting subsidized by those that are.

I don't think "subsidy" is precise language but talking about "tax breaks" doesn't really communicate what a truly cushy deal Amazon is getting at the expense of others.

True. But it also annoys me that people assume it’s 25k jobs no matter what. I don’t doubt Amazon could double it’s executive workforce in the next 10 years, revenues, etc. It still is not a certainty though given we have already had a 10 year bull market run.

The amount of people who think #1 at all excuses this sort of deal really frustrates me.

Why? Tax rebates are incredibly common. $2.5B of that $3B was going to come from existing programs, like NY State's Excelsior program.