4 ms·

The idea that Apple isn't the best thing that ever happened to Cupertino, California is hilarious.

by nihonde 10y ago

jefurii 10y ago
No, the idea that the city should have to provide roads, utilities, etc to a huge, rich corporation and get nothing back for their trouble is terrible.
- Mvandenbergh 10y ago
  Of course that would be absurd and unfair. That's why property taxes exist, to pay for local infrastructure. Apple pays a lot of property taxes in Cupertino. Property taxes are based on the value of (and in some cases the type of use of) local property, that's reasonable because the costs incurred by the local government to build and maintain infrastructure is related to their use of land. His argument seems to be that because Apple makes a lot of money they should also pay more taxes, luckily for him that's the way the system works! Apple also pays corporation tax on their income. Unfortunately for him that tax is federal and not local so he doesn't get any more than any other local government does in federal contributions.
- nihonde 10y ago
  Creating the world's most successful company in your backyard, attracting high-value talent from all over the world, making Cupertino a household name...is "giving nothing back"?
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    How do any of those things improve the lives of non-Apple citizens living in Cupertino?
    - oarsinsync 10y ago
      The other industry that comes to the town off the back of it. The extra demand for goods and services.
    - evan_ 10y ago
      Some of the people coming to Cupertino to work for Apple will buy houses in Cupertino, send their kids to school in Cupertino, spend the money they make in Cupertino, etc... Not to mention all of the extra jobs that need to be filled taking care of the buildings and the spoiled engineers, the hotel rooms for visiting emissaries and WWDC attendees, the construction jobs building those new houses and schools... Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm saying "the town should be grateful for these scraps and nothing more", these are benefits to the town on top of the taxes that it pays.
    - nihonde 10y ago
      That's a fair question. A massively successful technology company can locate itself just about anywhere it wants to. In fact, there are plenty of places that will offer very compelling incentives to a company like Apple to move into their locality. Why would they do that if it's of no benefit to the people? I guess you could argue that corrupt politicians will offer those incentives to secure bribes, etc., but here you have the mayor of Cupertino complaining.
- icebraining 10y ago
  According to the article, Apple pays for 18% of the city budget. Is that nothing?
dragontamer 10y ago
I don't like this idea. Corporations should pay taxes and whatever, and not be treated specially just because they're the largest entity in the town. A huge number of towns in America are basically run by one or two corporations. Cupertino is not unique in the slightest, aside from the fact that Apple is just a larger company. But it really doesn't matter if you "only" have a $1 Billion market cap company headquartered in your small 30,000 town, or a $600 Billion behemoth like Apple. Its all basically the same: all your taxes are basically going to come from only one source. ------------ In either cases, you can run the town independently of the corporation. True: a lot of the corporation's workers will be your citizens, but keep the issues separate and keep things fair... and you ought to get what you need done.
- kuschku 10y ago
  There is a solution how you can get both. The German city of Wolfsburg, and the state of Niedersachsen have done it with VW. The solution: You just buy a large amount of shares of the companies that are started in your city. Municipalities get a far larger share of the profits directly, politicians have an incentive to ensure companies are profitable, and companies can’t avoid paying for the infrastructure they use.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    That's an excellent point——can you imagine if the government of Cupertino bought AAPL shares in the 1980s? They sure wouldn't be complaining about tax revenues today!
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    This municipal capture you describe sounds brilliant.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      And it means the municipal government provides funding for smaller companies, which gives those an advantage, and they don’t even take large risks either. It’s a win-win-win-win situation.

The idea that Apple isn't the best thing that ever happened to Cupertino, California is hilarious.

by nihonde 10y ago

The idea that Apple isn't the best thing that ever happened to Cupertino, California is hilarious.

No, the idea that the city should have to provide roads, utilities, etc to a huge, rich corporation and get nothing back for their trouble is terrible.

Mvandenbergh 10y ago
Of course that would be absurd and unfair. That's why property taxes exist, to pay for local infrastructure. Apple pays a lot of property taxes in Cupertino. Property taxes are based on the value of (and in some cases the type of use of) local property, that's reasonable because the costs incurred by the local government to build and maintain infrastructure is related to their use of land. His argument seems to be that because Apple makes a lot of money they should also pay more taxes, luckily for him that's the way the system works! Apple also pays corporation tax on their income. Unfortunately for him that tax is federal and not local so he doesn't get any more than any other local government does in federal contributions.
nihonde 10y ago
Creating the world's most successful company in your backyard, attracting high-value talent from all over the world, making Cupertino a household name...is "giving nothing back"?
- fit2rule 10y ago
  How do any of those things improve the lives of non-Apple citizens living in Cupertino?
  - oarsinsync 10y ago
    The other industry that comes to the town off the back of it. The extra demand for goods and services.
  - evan_ 10y ago
    Some of the people coming to Cupertino to work for Apple will buy houses in Cupertino, send their kids to school in Cupertino, spend the money they make in Cupertino, etc... Not to mention all of the extra jobs that need to be filled taking care of the buildings and the spoiled engineers, the hotel rooms for visiting emissaries and WWDC attendees, the construction jobs building those new houses and schools... Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm saying "the town should be grateful for these scraps and nothing more", these are benefits to the town on top of the taxes that it pays.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    That's a fair question. A massively successful technology company can locate itself just about anywhere it wants to. In fact, there are plenty of places that will offer very compelling incentives to a company like Apple to move into their locality. Why would they do that if it's of no benefit to the people? I guess you could argue that corrupt politicians will offer those incentives to secure bribes, etc., but here you have the mayor of Cupertino complaining.
icebraining 10y ago
According to the article, Apple pays for 18% of the city budget. Is that nothing?

dragontamer 10y ago

I don't like this idea. Corporations should pay taxes and whatever, and not be treated specially just because they're the largest entity in the town. A huge number of towns in America are basically run by one or two corporations. Cupertino is not unique in the slightest, aside from the fact that Apple is just a larger company. But it really doesn't matter if you "only" have a $1 Billion market cap company headquartered in your small 30,000 town, or a $600 Billion behemoth like Apple. Its all basically the same: all your taxes are basically going to come from only one source. ------------ In either cases, you can run the town independently of the corporation. True: a lot of the corporation's workers will be your citizens, but keep the issues separate and keep things fair... and you ought to get what you need done.

kuschku 10y ago
There is a solution how you can get both. The German city of Wolfsburg, and the state of Niedersachsen have done it with VW. The solution: You just buy a large amount of shares of the companies that are started in your city. Municipalities get a far larger share of the profits directly, politicians have an incentive to ensure companies are profitable, and companies can’t avoid paying for the infrastructure they use.
- nihonde 10y ago
  That's an excellent point——can you imagine if the government of Cupertino bought AAPL shares in the 1980s? They sure wouldn't be complaining about tax revenues today!
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  This municipal capture you describe sounds brilliant.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    And it means the municipal government provides funding for smaller companies, which gives those an advantage, and they don’t even take large risks either. It’s a win-win-win-win situation.