7 ms·

I have gone through similar feelings and you raise a great point: The buses from Google, Facebook, etc. are far better than those same companies quietly doing n

by mapgrep 13y ago

I have gone through similar feelings and you raise a great point: The buses from Google, Facebook, etc. are far better than those same companies quietly doing nothing as their employees clog the freeways, which is very common among other companies but basically invisible. So they get crap for doing a good thing. Here's the flipside, although I've never heard anyone actually make the first argument: -Google the company actively dodges taxes, albeit through tactics common in the corporate world. So while it is pampering its own employees, it is undermining public transit by not paying nearly its fair share into the federal (and likely state) pools that help fund the transit for everyone else. Thus, Google is actively exacerbating inequality. -Google's buses use public land intended for public transit to provide "stops" for its employees. Google can clearly afford to compensate for this, but, as far as I know, does not do so. This at a time when Muni and other transit agencies could really use the money. Free rent for large corporations is never going to be popular. -Although there are environmental benefits to the buses, Google, Facebook, etc. are almost certainly not motivated primarily by the environmental benefits but by self interest. In other words, the freeways are full, and getting to South Bay each morning is a nightmare. And yet many desirable engineers etc prefer to live in SF vs South Bay. Hence, the buses, which make it easier for these companies to recruit. This competitive element then puts pressures on other smaller internet companies to run their own buses, even if those buses are not particularly full or if they are driving large distances within SF to pick up only a small number of people or single person at a given stop.

jswinghammer 13y ago
Companies don't pay taxes it's the shareholders and the employees who pay taxes. So if Google "avoids" taxes on its' income it will end up being paid (at probably a much higher rate) by the shareholders and employees of the company. That their intentions aren't pure enough for some is not a reason to not celebrate what they're doing for their employees.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  >Companies don't pay taxes it's the shareholders and the employees who pay taxes. This is false. What do you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_Sta... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/google-joins-apple-avoiding-taxes-with-stateless-income.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/google-joins-apple-... >if Google "avoids" taxes on its' income it will end up being paid (at probably a much higher rate) by the shareholders and employees Also not true. Long term capital gains tax is 15%. Dividends are taxed at the same rate, unless you make over $400k per year, at which point you pay 20%. Corporate taxes, in contrast, are 35% at the federal level. Taken with state taxes the effective rate is close to 40% (http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-res...). So it's a net loss when Google dodges taxes. (And I didn't even get into shares held abroad or in retirement accounts.) (Edits with slightly less confrontational language.)
  - jswinghammer 13y ago
    Ultimately everyone pays. Since corporations aren't humans they aren't paying anything. Everyone else in the corporation has to take fewer profits and less compensation as a result of those taxes. They aren't free.
- riggins 13y ago
  Companies don't pay taxes it's the shareholders and the employees who pay taxes. You're dead wrong. The corporate tax is 35% at the federal level and anywhere from 1-12% at the state level. Reductions in corporate taxes increase the net income available to shareholders. One easy way for under-levered companies to increase profits for shareholders is to go borrow a bunch of debt (interest expense is deductible). As a sidenote, Minsky thought eliminating corporate taxes might increase economic stability because it would remove the incentive for corps to increase leverage in order to minimize taxes. You might be thinking of a REIT or a MLP where taxable income is passed through to the partners.
  - vasilipupkin 13y ago
    I think what he/she means is that companies paying taxes means less money going to shareholders and employees, which means that those two groups are effectively the ones paying those taxes
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
dlitwak 13y ago
At the same time everyone of those google employees who lives in SF pays SF taxes, quite high taxes as a matter of fact, and that contributes to the community, 2-3x more than any of these hippy touchy-feely types who claim that SF is theirs and theirs alone. I agree though that they should pay for the use of public land for their bus stops, as they are solving a problem they largely created by making it possible for their employees to live there in the first place. SF already has pretty high taxes, so the creation of a lot of wealth is not google or anyone elses fault. If SF can't do anything to alleviate poverty with the vast amount of funds it collects then that is the problem. And if it't not possible anymore because SF is just overall too expensive, then that's life, some cities are wealthier than others, you don't see people moving into Montecito, Bel Air or other rich neighborhoods and demanding affordable housing? Perhaps if the city has become that desirable it just isn't possible anymore.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  >everyone of those google employees who lives in SF pays SF taxes, quite high taxes as a matter of fact Not sure what this refers to but San Francisco funds come mainly from payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, and real estate transfer tax. Payroll tax is levied on companies not people, and even then it's not being levied on the people using these buses as they work down in Mountain View (excepting the small number of SF Googlers who also use the bus, if they do). Sales tax is going to impact Googlers roughly the same as others in SF. Maybe even less since days are spent in South Bay (if you use the bus and don't work in SF office) and you're likely doing a disproportionate amount of online shopping :) Property tax is relaively low in San Francisco due to Prop 13, so if you're renting it's not hitting you hard as the property has been held likely for a long time and is held basically steady under prop 13. If you're buying a home in SF you may pay some higher than average property tax but this is held in check by the fact that a 2/3rds popular vote is required for any property tax hike under prop 13. So they're not that bad. >2-3x more than any of these hippy touchy-feely types who claim that SF is theirs and theirs alone. Citation needed. This sounds pretty out of wack.
  - _dps 13y ago
    > Payroll tax is levied on companies not people As a purely practical matter, payroll tax is levied on both sides of the employment transaction in the US [0]. Beyond that, diverse economic research in and out of the US suggests that the bulk of the tax incidence [1] of payroll taxes is on employees [2]. >> 2-3x more than any of these hippy touchy-feely types who claim that SF is theirs and theirs alone. > Citation needed. This sounds pretty out of wack. Here's some napkin analysis. [3] claims Google's average salary for a software engineer is 113k, and [4] claims that San Francisco / San Mateo's average salary is 64k. Since the 64k is dragged upward by the Google salaries, let's speculate that the Googlers on average make twice as much as the "touchy-feely" residents. It seems totally reasonable to think that someone making twice as much money will pay twice as much across the suite of payroll tax (they earn more), sales tax (they spend more), property tax (they own more property), and transfer tax (they exchange property more often). One would want to empirically corroborate this, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence [2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w5053 http://www.nber.org/papers/w5053 [3] http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm [4] http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/01/san-jose-san-francisco-lead-the.html http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thom...
robk 13y ago
The buses use public land because they are entitled to - they pay road tax just like every other commercial operator. It makes me chuckle seeing the SF gov't complaining about this when it really makes SF richer through property and income tax paid by city residents who would likely live on the peninsula were it not for these corporate buses. Anecdotally I saw LOTS more engineers choosing to live in SF once the shuttles started at Google.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  If paying "road tax" (DMV fees, in California parlance) entitled me to park or idle wherever I wanted — like in bus zones — I'd be a much happier driver :) Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, SF has no income tax (per state law), and the property taxes are held quite low by Prop 13, so saying Googlers make the city richer (compared to other residents) isn't really correct. They certainly do pay some nice sales tax, I'm sure, but it's not like a Googler who makes 2x median income is going to benefit SF 2x a median citizen.
themckman 13y ago
With regards to your first point, I'm honestly surprised the city/county/state doesn't just pass laws that require these companies to register such programs with the government and pay fees to operate the bus routes. Those fees would then go directly to the public transit authorities at the various levels.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  This is true. Isn't that California's governmental motto: "When in doubt, tax"? (Half kidding).
tolmasky 13y ago
1. Google does not "dodge" taxes. They follow the incredibly complex web of rules the system specifically designed for this sort of use (or abuse). Its absurd to expect any corporation or person to go out of their way to pay more than they need to. (Milton Friedman Why Tax Reform is Impossible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8 ) 2. Muni does not need more money. SF does not need more money. SF's budget is twice that of Idaho's, and we have far fewer people and far less space than Idaho ( http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/ http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci... ). Look no further than the ridiculous extension of muni from China town to downtown to see a clear indication of how funds are being completely misused. No one wants to fix the budget problems in SF and its so much easier to just blame whoever happens to be successful at the moment. 3. I'm not sure I disagree with your third point at all but also don't understand how its a negative thing. You are describing normal competition between companies. I can at least provide one piece of information: I used to work in the South Bay and hated the commute and would do everything in my power not to ever do it again, bus or not. So there's plenty of incentive to stay and work in a small company here, I assure you. Do you see lots of small companies running buses (honest question, I'm simply not familiar)? I seem to just see the flipside happening: more small companies simply being in SF.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  I was framing the argument more than taking a side, I can see both sides of this. Not sure what you mean about Google not dodging taxes though. Like I said, it's common among large corporations, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact that it's happening. Google's tax avoidance schemes are well documented, whatever your opinion of them is morally there's no use denying they exist. The broader point I was making isn't Google Is Evil For Not Paying Taxes. The point was, if you're going to not pay taxes, you don't get to play the "I'm a benevolent corporation helping make society a better place" card when you run enormous luxury coaches all over town and use sketchy pick up locations. People will assume the worst intentions. I actually lean Google on this one. But that doesn't mean I have to buy the argument they are doing this out of the kindess of their Googler hearts. I say make them pay through the teeth for these stops like any red blooded capitalist would. (Like, say, Milton Friedman.)
jcdavis 13y ago
> The buses from Google, Facebook, etc. are far better than those same companies quietly doing nothing as their employees clog the freeways, which is very common among other companies but basically invisible. So they get crap for doing a good thing. This is a false dichotomy. You are assuming they would drive instead, when in fact most would not live in SF in the first place. I know plenty of people who bus down to Google/FB/etc and I'm fairly confident in saying the vast majority would not live in SF if the buses didn't exist - its a long grueling commute that is expensive to boot, regardless if you drive or take Caltrain.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  I know plenty of people who work at Oracle and other South Bay companies who don't get buses and still work in the city. Anecodotes != confidence
newnewnew 13y ago
SF and California should raise income taxes. There's no way for Google employees in California to dodge them. The best part is that the bill falls on those people who need city resources. I doubt that SF will get its act together regardless of how high it raises taxes. But we can run the experiment to try.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  San Francisco cannot have an income tax. This is forbidden at the state level. (http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/States-Prohibiting-City-Income-Taxes.htm http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/States-Prohibiting-Ci...) San Francisco CAN have a payroll tax, levied on companies based on pay to employees, a sort of shadow income tax. And indeed it does have a payroll tax. But you'll notice Twitter, Zynga and various other tech companies have gotten themselves exempted (for new hires, after moving to certain downtrod locations, at least in Twitter's case). (There was a brief political battle between the left and unions like SEIU who opposed these tax breaks and a tech coalition involving Ed Lee, Ron Conway, Twitter and many others who support the payroll tax breaks. Obviously the latter group won.)
7Figures2Commas 13y ago
> So while it is pampering its own employees... I always chuckle when I read comments buying into this notion that all of the "perks" offered by Google et. al. are pure employee luxuries. From the plush buses with WiFi to the cafeterias with restaurant-quality food (whatever that means), the vast majority of these "perks" are designed to maximize the amount of time employees spend at work (or working) and/or increase employee dependence on the employer. Most of the folks promoting these nonsensical arguments that portray the Bay Area's legions of high-paid tech employees as a pampered, care-free gilded class apparently fail to recognize just how subservient most of these individuals actually are to their employers. They may not be wage slaves, but when your employer picks you up in the morning, takes you home at night and seeks to provide literally everything you need in between...
- pigscantfly 13y ago
  Right, it's a cost-benefit analysis for the company. Why does Google have a dentist on its campus? So employees don't need to take the day off to visit the dentist; they can just take a break from the normal workday and then come right back.

by mapgrep 13y ago

jswinghammer 13y ago

Companies don't pay taxes it's the shareholders and the employees who pay taxes. So if Google "avoids" taxes on its' income it will end up being paid (at probably a much higher rate) by the shareholders and employees of the company. That their intentions aren't pure enough for some is not a reason to not celebrate what they're doing for their employees.

mapgrep 13y ago
>Companies don't pay taxes it's the shareholders and the employees who pay taxes. This is false. What do you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_Sta... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/google-joins-apple-avoiding-taxes-with-stateless-income.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/google-joins-apple-... >if Google "avoids" taxes on its' income it will end up being paid (at probably a much higher rate) by the shareholders and employees Also not true. Long term capital gains tax is 15%. Dividends are taxed at the same rate, unless you make over $400k per year, at which point you pay 20%. Corporate taxes, in contrast, are 35% at the federal level. Taken with state taxes the effective rate is close to 40% (http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-res...). So it's a net loss when Google dodges taxes. (And I didn't even get into shares held abroad or in retirement accounts.) (Edits with slightly less confrontational language.)
- jswinghammer 13y ago
  Ultimately everyone pays. Since corporations aren't humans they aren't paying anything. Everyone else in the corporation has to take fewer profits and less compensation as a result of those taxes. They aren't free.
riggins 13y ago
Companies don't pay taxes it's the shareholders and the employees who pay taxes. You're dead wrong. The corporate tax is 35% at the federal level and anywhere from 1-12% at the state level. Reductions in corporate taxes increase the net income available to shareholders. One easy way for under-levered companies to increase profits for shareholders is to go borrow a bunch of debt (interest expense is deductible). As a sidenote, Minsky thought eliminating corporate taxes might increase economic stability because it would remove the incentive for corps to increase leverage in order to minimize taxes. You might be thinking of a REIT or a MLP where taxable income is passed through to the partners.
- vasilipupkin 13y ago
  I think what he/she means is that companies paying taxes means less money going to shareholders and employees, which means that those two groups are effectively the ones paying those taxes
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

dlitwak 13y ago

At the same time everyone of those google employees who lives in SF pays SF taxes, quite high taxes as a matter of fact, and that contributes to the community, 2-3x more than any of these hippy touchy-feely types who claim that SF is theirs and theirs alone. I agree though that they should pay for the use of public land for their bus stops, as they are solving a problem they largely created by making it possible for their employees to live there in the first place. SF already has pretty high taxes, so the creation of a lot of wealth is not google or anyone elses fault. If SF can't do anything to alleviate poverty with the vast amount of funds it collects then that is the problem. And if it't not possible anymore because SF is just overall too expensive, then that's life, some cities are wealthier than others, you don't see people moving into Montecito, Bel Air or other rich neighborhoods and demanding affordable housing? Perhaps if the city has become that desirable it just isn't possible anymore.

mapgrep 13y ago
>everyone of those google employees who lives in SF pays SF taxes, quite high taxes as a matter of fact Not sure what this refers to but San Francisco funds come mainly from payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, and real estate transfer tax. Payroll tax is levied on companies not people, and even then it's not being levied on the people using these buses as they work down in Mountain View (excepting the small number of SF Googlers who also use the bus, if they do). Sales tax is going to impact Googlers roughly the same as others in SF. Maybe even less since days are spent in South Bay (if you use the bus and don't work in SF office) and you're likely doing a disproportionate amount of online shopping :) Property tax is relaively low in San Francisco due to Prop 13, so if you're renting it's not hitting you hard as the property has been held likely for a long time and is held basically steady under prop 13. If you're buying a home in SF you may pay some higher than average property tax but this is held in check by the fact that a 2/3rds popular vote is required for any property tax hike under prop 13. So they're not that bad. >2-3x more than any of these hippy touchy-feely types who claim that SF is theirs and theirs alone. Citation needed. This sounds pretty out of wack.
- _dps 13y ago
  > Payroll tax is levied on companies not people As a purely practical matter, payroll tax is levied on both sides of the employment transaction in the US [0]. Beyond that, diverse economic research in and out of the US suggests that the bulk of the tax incidence [1] of payroll taxes is on employees [2]. >> 2-3x more than any of these hippy touchy-feely types who claim that SF is theirs and theirs alone. > Citation needed. This sounds pretty out of wack. Here's some napkin analysis. [3] claims Google's average salary for a software engineer is 113k, and [4] claims that San Francisco / San Mateo's average salary is 64k. Since the 64k is dragged upward by the Google salaries, let's speculate that the Googlers on average make twice as much as the "touchy-feely" residents. It seems totally reasonable to think that someone making twice as much money will pay twice as much across the suite of payroll tax (they earn more), sales tax (they spend more), property tax (they own more property), and transfer tax (they exchange property more often). One would want to empirically corroborate this, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence [2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w5053 http://www.nber.org/papers/w5053 [3] http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm [4] http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/01/san-jose-san-francisco-lead-the.html http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thom...

robk 13y ago

The buses use public land because they are entitled to - they pay road tax just like every other commercial operator. It makes me chuckle seeing the SF gov't complaining about this when it really makes SF richer through property and income tax paid by city residents who would likely live on the peninsula were it not for these corporate buses. Anecdotally I saw LOTS more engineers choosing to live in SF once the shuttles started at Google.

mapgrep 13y ago
If paying "road tax" (DMV fees, in California parlance) entitled me to park or idle wherever I wanted — like in bus zones — I'd be a much happier driver :) Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, SF has no income tax (per state law), and the property taxes are held quite low by Prop 13, so saying Googlers make the city richer (compared to other residents) isn't really correct. They certainly do pay some nice sales tax, I'm sure, but it's not like a Googler who makes 2x median income is going to benefit SF 2x a median citizen.

themckman 13y ago

With regards to your first point, I'm honestly surprised the city/county/state doesn't just pass laws that require these companies to register such programs with the government and pay fees to operate the bus routes. Those fees would then go directly to the public transit authorities at the various levels.

JonFish85 13y ago
This is true. Isn't that California's governmental motto: "When in doubt, tax"? (Half kidding).

tolmasky 13y ago

1. Google does not "dodge" taxes. They follow the incredibly complex web of rules the system specifically designed for this sort of use (or abuse). Its absurd to expect any corporation or person to go out of their way to pay more than they need to. (Milton Friedman Why Tax Reform is Impossible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8 ) 2. Muni does not need more money. SF does not need more money. SF's budget is twice that of Idaho's, and we have far fewer people and far less space than Idaho ( http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/ http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci... ). Look no further than the ridiculous extension of muni from China town to downtown to see a clear indication of how funds are being completely misused. No one wants to fix the budget problems in SF and its so much easier to just blame whoever happens to be successful at the moment. 3. I'm not sure I disagree with your third point at all but also don't understand how its a negative thing. You are describing normal competition between companies. I can at least provide one piece of information: I used to work in the South Bay and hated the commute and would do everything in my power not to ever do it again, bus or not. So there's plenty of incentive to stay and work in a small company here, I assure you. Do you see lots of small companies running buses (honest question, I'm simply not familiar)? I seem to just see the flipside happening: more small companies simply being in SF.

mapgrep 13y ago
I was framing the argument more than taking a side, I can see both sides of this. Not sure what you mean about Google not dodging taxes though. Like I said, it's common among large corporations, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact that it's happening. Google's tax avoidance schemes are well documented, whatever your opinion of them is morally there's no use denying they exist. The broader point I was making isn't Google Is Evil For Not Paying Taxes. The point was, if you're going to not pay taxes, you don't get to play the "I'm a benevolent corporation helping make society a better place" card when you run enormous luxury coaches all over town and use sketchy pick up locations. People will assume the worst intentions. I actually lean Google on this one. But that doesn't mean I have to buy the argument they are doing this out of the kindess of their Googler hearts. I say make them pay through the teeth for these stops like any red blooded capitalist would. (Like, say, Milton Friedman.)

jcdavis 13y ago

> The buses from Google, Facebook, etc. are far better than those same companies quietly doing nothing as their employees clog the freeways, which is very common among other companies but basically invisible. So they get crap for doing a good thing. This is a false dichotomy. You are assuming they would drive instead, when in fact most would not live in SF in the first place. I know plenty of people who bus down to Google/FB/etc and I'm fairly confident in saying the vast majority would not live in SF if the buses didn't exist - its a long grueling commute that is expensive to boot, regardless if you drive or take Caltrain.

the_watcher 13y ago
I know plenty of people who work at Oracle and other South Bay companies who don't get buses and still work in the city. Anecodotes != confidence

newnewnew 13y ago

SF and California should raise income taxes. There's no way for Google employees in California to dodge them. The best part is that the bill falls on those people who need city resources. I doubt that SF will get its act together regardless of how high it raises taxes. But we can run the experiment to try.

mapgrep 13y ago
San Francisco cannot have an income tax. This is forbidden at the state level. (http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/States-Prohibiting-City-Income-Taxes.htm http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/States-Prohibiting-Ci...) San Francisco CAN have a payroll tax, levied on companies based on pay to employees, a sort of shadow income tax. And indeed it does have a payroll tax. But you'll notice Twitter, Zynga and various other tech companies have gotten themselves exempted (for new hires, after moving to certain downtrod locations, at least in Twitter's case). (There was a brief political battle between the left and unions like SEIU who opposed these tax breaks and a tech coalition involving Ed Lee, Ron Conway, Twitter and many others who support the payroll tax breaks. Obviously the latter group won.)

7Figures2Commas 13y ago

> So while it is pampering its own employees... I always chuckle when I read comments buying into this notion that all of the "perks" offered by Google et. al. are pure employee luxuries. From the plush buses with WiFi to the cafeterias with restaurant-quality food (whatever that means), the vast majority of these "perks" are designed to maximize the amount of time employees spend at work (or working) and/or increase employee dependence on the employer. Most of the folks promoting these nonsensical arguments that portray the Bay Area's legions of high-paid tech employees as a pampered, care-free gilded class apparently fail to recognize just how subservient most of these individuals actually are to their employers. They may not be wage slaves, but when your employer picks you up in the morning, takes you home at night and seeks to provide literally everything you need in between...

pigscantfly 13y ago
Right, it's a cost-benefit analysis for the company. Why does Google have a dentist on its campus? So employees don't need to take the day off to visit the dentist; they can just take a break from the normal workday and then come right back.