7 ms·
You merely mentioned fairness, but you didn't mention which aspect. Jack has been vocal about wanting to pay tax by revenue (or whatever way) to the city. The
by ergocoder 7y ago
You merely mentioned fairness, but you didn't mention which aspect.
Jack has been vocal about wanting to pay tax by revenue (or whatever way) to the city. The point that he objects is that Square pays tax more than Saleforce, when Saleforce's revenue is way way more than Square's.
This is an example of US political debate.
Everyone immediately accuses the person of being evil (i.e. not wanting to pay tax and of hating homeless). But nobody actually answers why it makes sense for Square to pay more tax than Saleforce.
- gamblor956 7y agoIt makes perfect sense. Square has the one office in SF, so essentially all of its gross proceeds arise from that office and are subject to the tax. Salesforce has offices everywhere and a substantial amount of its revenues come from the work of employees outside of San Francisco. This revenue should not be subject to the SF gross revenues tax (and it would be illegal for SF to tax such income). The question boils down to this: is the disparity in taxes reasonable given the SF-based gross proceeds generated by Square and Salesforce?
- matahwoosh 7y agoYou're incorrect, Square has non-SF offices, too. I think @nrp has put it well in his comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21342101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21342101. Square is categorized differently than Salesforce by SF tax law and pays a different proportion of taxes than Salesforce. EDIT: corrected username