4 ms·

This is outrageous and, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. Americans and American businesses are entitled to equal protection under the law, and handing out c

This is outrageous and, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. Americans and American businesses are entitled to equal protection under the law, and handing out customized tax breaks to a couple neighborhoods in order to benefit a specific company is shameful and corrupt.

jessedhillon 16y ago
First off, the payroll tax applies only to companies with payrolls > $250k; does your demand for 'equal protection' mean that you insist on companies of all sizes paying this tax? Second, the tax break is not Twitter-specific (although even if it were, that would not be unconstitutional). It applies to businesses located in a certain part of SF, and it exempts a company from the first six years of payroll taxes. Third, city supervisors have the authority to adjust tax structures with a level of geographic-granularity. Why shouldn't they be allowed to make a dumpy part of town more attractive to businesses? Do you complain when cities and states make themselves more attractive to outside businesses by giving exemptions to certain classes of companies? Do you complain when cities block big-box stores like Walmart from opening in their limits? (Since those are as targeted as this exemption.)
- hugh3 16y ago
  Do you complain when cities and states make themselves more attractive to outside businesses by giving exemptions to certain classes of companies? Do you complain when cities block big-box stores like Walmart from opening in their limits? (Since those are as targeted as this exemption.) Personally, yes, I complain about both of these. As for this specific deal... I'm not too concerned about it, but I think it's the kind of special deal that cities shouldn't be allowed to make. There's just too much potential for corruption when city hall can say "OK, businesses inside this particular neighbourhood don't have to pay taxes". (Gee, Mr Mayor, I've been so good to you with campaign donations over the years, how about you declare my block to be dumpy too?)
- OstiaAntica 16y ago
  All of this company-specific state and local tax policy, which has proliferated in recent years, is highly irregular, prone to corruption, and violates the spirit of the constitution and American capitalism. Governments should strive to treat everyone equally in the business world, and not use tax policy to play favorites and pick winners and losers. If the underlying policy is bad for the city it should be repealed city-wide. Local zoning is different from tax policy, it is the customized, company-specific tax handouts that are objectionable.
doyoulikeworms 16y ago
How is it corrupt? And isn't that a net gain for the city, since Twitter was going to up and move a few miles south?
- jeffreymcmanus 16y ago
  They were threatening to move to Brisbane, as a way to avoid a 1% city tax on payrolls (which, importantly, includes proceeds from stock options). But it's questionable as to whether a company that moves from San Francisco to Brisbane (which, let's face it, is a dump) would be better off moving. How excited would you be to commute down there if you had a similar job opportunity somewhere else? Would it be worth the 1% in payroll they'll end up saving? I have a hard time envisioning it. It's great that the mid-Market Street area will (presumably) improve after this happens, whenever it happens. I just wish that in a world in which San Francisco is cutting back on the number of days in the school year that they could find a way to balance the books other than issuing big corporate welfare packages.
  - usaar333 16y ago
    1) If Brisbane is a dump, the Civic Center area where Twitter wants to move is a toxic waste storage area. 2) The tax is a huge amount of money per employee. 1% (current value - strike). That can be in the thousands for earlier employees. 3) Commute all depends where you are coming from. If you live in SF or the northern East Bay, it might get a bit worse. If you live in San Mateo, Santa Clara County, hell even southern San Francisco, it's a huge improvement. Furthermore, as you get older you are more likely to move south, so the workers most affected by the tax might also actually find their commute better. 3a) I can hardly fathom someone quitting a job that moved a mere 8 miles away. The company should excite you far more than chilling out every day in the Tenderloin. Finally, a useful link for all: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1255 http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1255
    - jeffreymcmanus 16y ago
      > the Civic Center area where Twitter wants to move is a toxic waste storage area Maybe, but I thought this corporate welfare is supposed to instantly turn it into a paradise for young urban professionals, right? Or did I miss something? Nobody ever woke up in the morning and said "you know where I'd really like to get a job today? Brisbane!" Anyway, mid-Market sucks far less than Brisbane on a number of axes. You can walk or bike to work if you worked in mid-Market and lived in SOMA (as many Twitter employees do); have fun doing that in Brisbane. On Market Street, you can walk to lunch; in Brisbane lunch would be a 10 minute car ride away. Mid-Market also has excellent public transit to get to and from work and other places in the city. In other words, SF is a real city, with real city amenities. Real city amenities cost money. Taxes are how those things get paid for. If you don't see that, then you (and the rest of the tea party) have some growing up to do. A 1% tax that amounts to "thousands of dollars" means your annual income is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Congratulations on that, but let's get real for a minute -- someone with an income in that range is going to have a bigger problem with an extra 15-30 minute commute each day than the few dollars they never see in their paycheck. And anyway, if the absolute dollar amount were really an issue, market forces would easily compensate for this (that is to say, people who work in San Francisco would be paid more as they flee the city in droves).
tptacek 16y ago
Simple, fair, effective. Pick 1.
- bgentry 16y ago
  Is that the legislative version of the CAP theorem? the SFE theorem?

jessedhillon 16y ago

First off, the payroll tax applies only to companies with payrolls > $250k; does your demand for 'equal protection' mean that you insist on companies of all sizes paying this tax? Second, the tax break is not Twitter-specific (although even if it were, that would not be unconstitutional). It applies to businesses located in a certain part of SF, and it exempts a company from the first six years of payroll taxes. Third, city supervisors have the authority to adjust tax structures with a level of geographic-granularity. Why shouldn't they be allowed to make a dumpy part of town more attractive to businesses? Do you complain when cities and states make themselves more attractive to outside businesses by giving exemptions to certain classes of companies? Do you complain when cities block big-box stores like Walmart from opening in their limits? (Since those are as targeted as this exemption.)

hugh3 16y ago
Do you complain when cities and states make themselves more attractive to outside businesses by giving exemptions to certain classes of companies? Do you complain when cities block big-box stores like Walmart from opening in their limits? (Since those are as targeted as this exemption.) Personally, yes, I complain about both of these. As for this specific deal... I'm not too concerned about it, but I think it's the kind of special deal that cities shouldn't be allowed to make. There's just too much potential for corruption when city hall can say "OK, businesses inside this particular neighbourhood don't have to pay taxes". (Gee, Mr Mayor, I've been so good to you with campaign donations over the years, how about you declare my block to be dumpy too?)
OstiaAntica 16y ago
All of this company-specific state and local tax policy, which has proliferated in recent years, is highly irregular, prone to corruption, and violates the spirit of the constitution and American capitalism. Governments should strive to treat everyone equally in the business world, and not use tax policy to play favorites and pick winners and losers. If the underlying policy is bad for the city it should be repealed city-wide. Local zoning is different from tax policy, it is the customized, company-specific tax handouts that are objectionable.

doyoulikeworms 16y ago

How is it corrupt? And isn't that a net gain for the city, since Twitter was going to up and move a few miles south?

jeffreymcmanus 16y ago
They were threatening to move to Brisbane, as a way to avoid a 1% city tax on payrolls (which, importantly, includes proceeds from stock options). But it's questionable as to whether a company that moves from San Francisco to Brisbane (which, let's face it, is a dump) would be better off moving. How excited would you be to commute down there if you had a similar job opportunity somewhere else? Would it be worth the 1% in payroll they'll end up saving? I have a hard time envisioning it. It's great that the mid-Market Street area will (presumably) improve after this happens, whenever it happens. I just wish that in a world in which San Francisco is cutting back on the number of days in the school year that they could find a way to balance the books other than issuing big corporate welfare packages.
- usaar333 16y ago
  1) If Brisbane is a dump, the Civic Center area where Twitter wants to move is a toxic waste storage area. 2) The tax is a huge amount of money per employee. 1% (current value - strike). That can be in the thousands for earlier employees. 3) Commute all depends where you are coming from. If you live in SF or the northern East Bay, it might get a bit worse. If you live in San Mateo, Santa Clara County, hell even southern San Francisco, it's a huge improvement. Furthermore, as you get older you are more likely to move south, so the workers most affected by the tax might also actually find their commute better. 3a) I can hardly fathom someone quitting a job that moved a mere 8 miles away. The company should excite you far more than chilling out every day in the Tenderloin. Finally, a useful link for all: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1255 http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=1255
  - jeffreymcmanus 16y ago
    > the Civic Center area where Twitter wants to move is a toxic waste storage area Maybe, but I thought this corporate welfare is supposed to instantly turn it into a paradise for young urban professionals, right? Or did I miss something? Nobody ever woke up in the morning and said "you know where I'd really like to get a job today? Brisbane!" Anyway, mid-Market sucks far less than Brisbane on a number of axes. You can walk or bike to work if you worked in mid-Market and lived in SOMA (as many Twitter employees do); have fun doing that in Brisbane. On Market Street, you can walk to lunch; in Brisbane lunch would be a 10 minute car ride away. Mid-Market also has excellent public transit to get to and from work and other places in the city. In other words, SF is a real city, with real city amenities. Real city amenities cost money. Taxes are how those things get paid for. If you don't see that, then you (and the rest of the tea party) have some growing up to do. A 1% tax that amounts to "thousands of dollars" means your annual income is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Congratulations on that, but let's get real for a minute -- someone with an income in that range is going to have a bigger problem with an extra 15-30 minute commute each day than the few dollars they never see in their paycheck. And anyway, if the absolute dollar amount were really an issue, market forces would easily compensate for this (that is to say, people who work in San Francisco would be paid more as they flee the city in droves).

tptacek 16y ago

Simple, fair, effective. Pick 1.

bgentry 16y ago
Is that the legislative version of the CAP theorem? the SFE theorem?