Seattle approves ‘head tax’ on large businesses despite Amazon’s opposition

[mhays]

You're missing the point on several levels.

It's a tax on jobs, not a tax on the guy or even the one company.

Of course big companies mostly "can" afford it (not all, some don't make a profit). The point is they'd probably grow elsewhere over time, and damage our golden goose that we rely on for much of our job base, economy, tax dollars, etc. Do we want our major employers -- the ones who locate in the urban core to our benefit -- to look elsewhere? Do we want groceries to cost more?

A fair method would be more like our low-income housing levy, which every private, non-exempt property within the city pays. It's fair because we all pay, directly or indirectly, and because we voted for it. Maybe the levy could expand again. The head tax was passed because the council didn't want to ask voters to sacrifice.

But really Seattle shouldn't take the burden alone. The King County Executive has been a real leader here. He says the whole county, which is 3x Seattle's population, should share the burden. That's not as fair as the state or country spreading the cost around, but it's far more fair than Seattle alone. And we'll probably do a smarter plan, that's not a disincentive to jobs.

[Via Chicago]

What up bootlickers

• Video Link

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

What up bootlickers

• Video Link

So wait, which side of this issue is he on?

[Via Chicago]

hes quoting marx, what do you think

[Steely Dan]

anarchism and marxism seem incompatible with each other.

at least on the surface, but i'm no expert on all of these isms.

[Via Chicago]

serving the military seems pretty anti-anarcho too, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

still adopting "What up bootlickers" as my default salutation

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mhays

Of course big companies mostly "can" afford it (not all, some don't make a profit). The point is they'd probably grow elsewhere over time, and damage our golden goose that we rely on for much of our job base, economy, tax dollars, etc. Do we want our major employers -- the ones who locate in the urban core to our benefit -- to look elsewhere? Do we want groceries to cost more?

The point is that the idea you're discussing whereby we give low taxes to big corporations and billionaires in order to entice them to spend more money here is known as, "trickle down economics" and is generally seen as a right-wing belief which makes it seem hypocritical when very liberal Seattle does the same.

[mhays]

We should tax incomes, not jobs -- personal incomes and corporate profits. Both rates should be increased, and Washington needs an income tax.

[mSeattle]

The income tax effort was either shot down by business/state legislature or not supported by business and then shot down by state legislature. This is part of the context of the city head tax.

The other part is entrenched segregation-era exclusionary zoning.

[InlandEmpire]

Just a quick example of the negative effects this would have had on citizens of the city, Kroger was preparing to lobby against this measure. Grocers run on extremely tight margins, so even though a tax of $275 per person may not seem like much - many of those stores don't net any more than that per employee over the course of a year. Direct result of the head tax would have meant lower starting wages for employees, fewer/lower raises and bonus structure for existing employees, AND higher grocery prices for the rest of us. The corporations would find a way to recoup this cost at the price of normal citizens, not their bottom line. Not ideal. This is just one piece of a very complicated puzzle obviously but would have been tangible almost right away.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by InlandEmpire

Just a quick example of the negative effects this would have had on citizens of the city, Kroger was preparing to lobby against this measure. Grocers run on extremely tight margins, so even though a tax of $275 per person may not seem like much - many of those stores don't net any more than that per employee over the course of a year. Direct result of the head tax would have meant lower starting wages for employees, fewer/lower raises and bonus structure for existing employees, AND higher grocery prices for the rest of us. The corporations would find a way to recoup this cost at the price of normal citizens, not their bottom line. Not ideal. This is just one piece of a very complicated puzzle obviously but would have been tangible almost right away.

You say that as if it were somehow different than all the other taxes and raising the minimum wage to $15/hr. They will just have to raise prices a bit to compensate for it. That's no different than every single other high cost of living city.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

You say that as if it were somehow different than all the other taxes and raising the minimum wage to $15/hr. They will just have to raise prices a bit to compensate for it. That's no different than every single other high cost of living city.

Big difference is that the costs of a higher minimum wage are at least slightly offset by the ability to substitute toward higher-skill workers as a result and better worker retention. In the case of the head tax, there are no such benefits, so the cost is much higher.

Also, the tax nor minimum wage are not entirely passed on to consumers without effects on labor demand. It depends on the industry and the products.

[InlandEmpire]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

You say that as if it were somehow different than all the other taxes and raising the minimum wage to $15/hr. They will just have to raise prices a bit to compensate for it. That's no different than every single other high cost of living city.

Definitely see what you're saying here. I think one big difference between the two in this case is public perception locally. When the minimum wage increase was proposed, I think all of us that live here have an understanding of just what it takes to afford to keep a roof over your head and food in the house, so there was support for the initiative. Not everyone is a tech worker with disposable income, but we still need the people that provide invaluable services to the rest of us to be able to afford to live somewhat close in.

The head tax on the other hand.....there was no clear explanation of where that money was going to go and how it would help. It was seen as throwing millions more at a process that doesn't seem to be working currently. Show us your game plan, base it on some case studies from other cities where your plan has worked before, and be transparent in its application. That wasn't really the case, and we can't afford to throw (any more) money into a black hole of government dysfunction. I believe if we look at the issue from a county or region wide perspective and can get everyone on board with a solution and not just slap Seattle with dealing with this, we'll be better off.