42 ms·

Well Twitter did get a large tax subsidy as a trade-off for keeping their office in downtown San Francisco. Those are tax dollars that could've added more beds

by mojowen 13y ago

Well Twitter did get a large tax subsidy as a trade-off for keeping their office in downtown San Francisco. Those are tax dollars that could've added more beds to shelters or case workers to help out our troubled punching guy. Now one could argue it's Twitter's "job" to try and extract as many tax breaks as possible and the blame really lies on the Mayor and other city officials for making that deal. Or really blame REALLY lies on voters for electing those people in the first place or not prioritizing higher taxes or higher social service funding. But I think the point the article is making is that technology companies, like Twitter/Google et al, don't present themselves as monolithic profit machines of the same breed as Exxon Mobile. They're changing the world, right?

aeorgnoieang 13y ago
Huh? Twitter got a tax break to keep their office in downtown San Francisco. You're implying that they wouldn't have kept their office there without the tax break. Are you saying they would have moved their office somewhere else in San Francisco, but not downtown? If not, how would San Francisco have been able to tax any money from Twitter? [Presumably they're taxing something related to Twitter maintaining an office in San Francisco. If that's not the case, eh.]
- mojowen 13y ago
  Twitter did get a tax break to keep their office in SF. [See here](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/twitter-gets-6-year-payroll-tax-break-from-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/twitter-g...) >> The payroll-tax break could lead to Twitter saving about $22 million in taxes over six years, the Chronicle said. I think the gamble was the city would make this back thanks to revitalization or new workers moving into the city. In the near term, there's certainly going to be a reduction in the city coffers for taking care of punchy-guys.
  - wutbrodo 13y ago
    I think you're missing his point. With Twitter's tax break, they're paying less taxes to the city, and without Twitter's tax break, they'd likely be paying NO taxes to the city (because they were planning to move out of the city). In the near-term, there's no reduction in the city coffers.

by mojowen 13y ago

aeorgnoieang 13y ago

Huh? Twitter got a tax break to keep their office in downtown San Francisco. You're implying that they wouldn't have kept their office there without the tax break. Are you saying they would have moved their office somewhere else in San Francisco, but not downtown? If not, how would San Francisco have been able to tax any money from Twitter? [Presumably they're taxing something related to Twitter maintaining an office in San Francisco. If that's not the case, eh.]

mojowen 13y ago
Twitter did get a tax break to keep their office in SF. [See here](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/twitter-gets-6-year-payroll-tax-break-from-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/twitter-g...) >> The payroll-tax break could lead to Twitter saving about $22 million in taxes over six years, the Chronicle said. I think the gamble was the city would make this back thanks to revitalization or new workers moving into the city. In the near term, there's certainly going to be a reduction in the city coffers for taking care of punchy-guys.
- wutbrodo 13y ago
  I think you're missing his point. With Twitter's tax break, they're paying less taxes to the city, and without Twitter's tax break, they'd likely be paying NO taxes to the city (because they were planning to move out of the city). In the near-term, there's no reduction in the city coffers.