4 ms·
To play devil's advocate: > This tax is an job-killing... > ... several hundred companies that are all going to have > to implement this tax in their sof
by biot 11y ago
To play devil's advocate:
> This tax is an job-killing...
> ... several hundred companies that are all going to have
> to implement this tax in their software...
Implementing the tax sounds like it's going to take a fair bit of effort. These several hundred companies may need to hire a bunch of engineers and accountants to implement the tax code. What jobs are being killed? Given that any change to the tax code involves many businesses having to implement support for the changes, can you detail exactly how you determine whether to support or oppose a specific tax change?
- yincrash 11y agoI suspect the jobs being 'killed' are the ones that will be moving away from Chicago to avoid paying the tax, such as any business that would use AWS. edit: Also the ones that sell the services can't be compelled to collect the tax and as such, moving offices away from Chicago saves the cost of tax collection implementation[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9822009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9822009
- ccleve 11y agoFor an answer, see the broken windows fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- biot 11y agoSure, making changes solely for the sake of creating jobs is the broken window fallacy. However, if there is an otherwise legitimate need for changes to the tax code, I don't see how this applies. I'm guessing you're not advocating that the tax code be set in stone, never to change ever again, lest someone have to do work. Back to my original question: how to you determine which tax changes to support and which to oppose?
- TrevorJ 11y agoAlmost none of those companies are IN Chicago though.