3 ms·

Tax avoidance "scam". Moving to Texas to reduce taxes, especially SF taxes which are basically useless to the payer [1], [2] is a "scam"? What's the legal frame

Tax avoidance "scam". Moving to Texas to reduce taxes, especially SF taxes which are basically useless to the payer [1], [2] is a "scam"? What's the legal framework preventing moves out of SF? Is it indentured slavery to the city council if you ever open an office in SF? [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-district-attorney-public-urination-prostitution-not-prosecute-1471475 https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-district-attorney-pub... [2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/04/15/mapping-san-franciscos-human-waste-challenge-132562-case-reports-since-2008/#1abf7a985ea5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/04/15/map...

jdavis703 7y ago
The problem is perception. If a company seems to only move their headquarters in name only (IOW most of the staff still stays in SF), then that seems sketchy. If they make a clean separation and shutdown their SF presence, that doesn't appear as dodgy. And these companies are not just moving to Texas. I live in Oakland, CA and many of these companies are relocating here. I don't care if they leave SF, but if they're cheating on their taxes, that's just not right.
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  How are they "cheating"? It appears like the city is the one cheating, refusing to enforce criminal law, which taxes are paying for. The city is cheating so much that they make some of the highest per capita tax revenue disappear without providing commensurate services Maybe you can mention the statute relevant to HQs? I'm not aware of any
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    This was one of the most contentious ballot initiatives for 2018. The text called headquarters "adminstrative offices" FWIW: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_C,_Gross_Receipts_Tax_for_Homelessness_Services_(November_2018) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Propositi... This measure was pretty well known. It was one of the most controversial local measures in 2018 (even gaining substantial regional coverage: I'm in Oakland not SF and heard a lot about it).
- garmaine 7y ago
  No one cares. Have you ever made a decision as a customer based on the company’s tax resident status?
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    It's not the only decision point, but I try to avoid companies that exhibit a pattern of scummy behavior such as Wal-Mart, Nestle or Uber. Further I'm not only a consumer. I'm also a potential (small time) investor and employee of these companies. The bar for acceptable behavior is even higher if I'm going to work or invest with them.
- philwelch 7y ago
  I see this (like a lot of things) as a negotiation tactic: 1. SF levies taxes on companies headquartered in SF. The message: “Pay us for the privilege of being in SF”. 2. SF companies move their headquarters but promise not to cut jobs in SF. The message: “We already provide lots of middle-class jobs in your city, providing tax revenues. It is not in your interest for those jobs to go away.”

jdavis703 7y ago

The problem is perception. If a company seems to only move their headquarters in name only (IOW most of the staff still stays in SF), then that seems sketchy. If they make a clean separation and shutdown their SF presence, that doesn't appear as dodgy. And these companies are not just moving to Texas. I live in Oakland, CA and many of these companies are relocating here. I don't care if they leave SF, but if they're cheating on their taxes, that's just not right.

throwGuardian 7y ago
How are they "cheating"? It appears like the city is the one cheating, refusing to enforce criminal law, which taxes are paying for. The city is cheating so much that they make some of the highest per capita tax revenue disappear without providing commensurate services Maybe you can mention the statute relevant to HQs? I'm not aware of any
- jdavis703 7y ago
  This was one of the most contentious ballot initiatives for 2018. The text called headquarters "adminstrative offices" FWIW: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_C,_Gross_Receipts_Tax_for_Homelessness_Services_(November_2018) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Propositi... This measure was pretty well known. It was one of the most controversial local measures in 2018 (even gaining substantial regional coverage: I'm in Oakland not SF and heard a lot about it).
garmaine 7y ago
No one cares. Have you ever made a decision as a customer based on the company’s tax resident status?
- jdavis703 7y ago
  It's not the only decision point, but I try to avoid companies that exhibit a pattern of scummy behavior such as Wal-Mart, Nestle or Uber. Further I'm not only a consumer. I'm also a potential (small time) investor and employee of these companies. The bar for acceptable behavior is even higher if I'm going to work or invest with them.
philwelch 7y ago
I see this (like a lot of things) as a negotiation tactic: 1. SF levies taxes on companies headquartered in SF. The message: “Pay us for the privilege of being in SF”. 2. SF companies move their headquarters but promise not to cut jobs in SF. The message: “We already provide lots of middle-class jobs in your city, providing tax revenues. It is not in your interest for those jobs to go away.”