Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#61

Post by AmericanChopper »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #58
AmericanChopper wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of living is less in Vancouver than Seattle, and by extension salaries are lower. This is what has been moving tech companies further up the west coast, so yes it does make perfect business sense. You also have things perfectly backwards. These companies are what is driving growth in Seattle, not the other way around. These companies are responsible for more than doubling local government revenue in the past…

except housing is about the same as seattle, with much much lower salaries. moving to vancouver doesn't make sense in terms of finances.

Renting is about 30% more expensive in Seattle, and just about every other metric that you can measure costs of living by also favour Vancouver. The fact that Vancouver is on the west coast, and the fact that salaries are lower there than there are in the US is what is currently attracting more technology companies to open offices there. This isn't a theory, Vancouver has Canadas fastest growing tech sector. These are the same conditions that attracted companies to open offices further up the west coast to begin with, only now Seattle doesn't offer the same advantages that it used to.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#62

Post by seanmcdirmid »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #53
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The east side is the San Jose of the Seattle area. It isn't hip and happening like the city is. Ya, the rent is cheaper (though not much anymore), houses are bigger, it has a very nice clean suburban feel, you don't trip over needles or homeless people, but many young people find the east side to be too boring. Course, Microsoft has a bunch of buses they use to move engineers from Seattle to Redmond, but like Google…

Yeah, that's a fair point. It is certainly less edgy than downtown Seattle. That said, living in Seattle and commuting east is far more doable than the other way around (although that could be subject to change). I also imagine that the east side is more desirable to employees with families, though I have no idea how much of the workforce that actually makes up. Preferences aside though, the one thing the east has th…

These days, the traffic into Seattle is very well balanced with out from Seattle, the reverse commute is kind of dead.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#63

Post by whb07 »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #54
mc32 wrote: post #47

So let me see if I understand this. Companies hire people, they become successful and make their employeees successful (at least their non warehouse, non call center employees) making the city and population at large successful; growing the economy. For that good they get taxed more? It’s no wonder AMZ for one is looking for an HQ2 location. I know it makes people feel good, but honestly, the only answer to homelessn…

There's not a good way to get more revenue to cover the infrastructure needed as companies hire more employees. We don't have income taxes here. If we did, as you hire an employee you'd get more revenue to cover the fractional cost of bus service, etc. A head tax is a way to do that. Are you against income taxes? They could accomplish the same thing.

Florida and Texas do not have income tax and yet they appear to not suffer from the same ailments that the city of Seattle and SF are suffering from.

In a couple of years the city council will move to raise the head tax, stating that their new record tax receipts are not enough to implement their working solution. It is easy to spend money that isn't yours.

The city of Seattle has had record tax receipts for the past couple of years and yet they somehow are always "short" on money.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#64

Post by seanmcdirmid »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #56
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The north and east side are the worst places to live in the Seattle area, however, if you are young and without a family. It is very much like comparing San Jose to San Francisco (I say this living in Bellevue and having grown up in Bothell).

i think the east side is the best place to live, the worst place is sodo.

I don't know many young people that agree with that. Families, sure, east and north side is better for schools and such, since it is basically suburbia.

Most of Sodo still isn't zoned for residential.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#65

Post by stuntkite »

lovich wrote: post #45
seibelj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boston has a very active night life scene, as does Austin and SF... not sure why you think these are ghost towns at night

Eh, Boston is pretty dead by midnight, but there's not much open other than bars. I lived out in the country and had a 24 hour pharmacy and supermarket right next to each other but I never something like that in Boston proper

Not quite what I meant. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean places that price out culture for the tech scenes have some complicated issues with growth right now.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#66

Post by jorblumesea »

darkengine wrote: post #19
akhilcacharya wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where exactly do you expect business to go?

In the case of Seattle, Kirkland and Bellevue are host to quite a few small and large tech companies already. The office space is plentiful and cheap on this side of Lake Washington, and there is less of a worry of being hit with poorly planned taxes and regulations that Seattle is, at this point, infamous for enacting. With the way the housing market is going, and the upcoming King County property tax hike, I wouldn…

East side is far more expensive, and so is office space, head tax notwithstanding. Does the over/under on that work out? My guess is no. Seattle has far better transit, still cheaper housing and office space.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#67

Post by loeg »

bsder wrote: post #41
pteredactyl wrote: post #6

Sad to watch SF and SEA be the cause of their own slow-motion downfall.

Your whining rings hollow. In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out. And, do those areas really care about the kind of jobs that actually could move?

> In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out.

The truth is the direct opposite[0]:

> California continues to see more folks moving elsewhere in the nation rather than relocating here

> Last year, California had 142,932 more residents exit to live in other states than arrive

> California’s net outmigration has been ongoing for two-decades-plus.

[0]: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/16/census-142932-more-peo...

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#68

Post by mrep »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #57
mrep wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% agree (homes don't look to cheap on the east side). I was recently team matching with google for the seattle area and my girlfriend and I were more interested in the kirkland office over fremont/soon to be SLU because of this.

you don't want to work in downtown seattle for google because of a 275 dollar tax? that's ridiculous. google probably doesn't even have any software engineers working for less than a 100k, and you think about $25 / month?

Not at all. I'm against taxes that cost me more money on the homeless problem while disproportionally effect me more than others. Spending more money locally on the homeless giving them handouts is only going to attract more worsening the problem.

My girlfriend was recently assaulted downtown by a homeless person which is why we liked kirkland when we checked it out because there seemed to be less of them in kirkland.

I think the homeless problem should be tackled on a federal level since it is easy for them to move states but not countries. Thus, any non-federal government that spends tax revenue to help the homeless will likely just attract more homeless people from other areas worsening the local populations lives through the negative externalities and the costs which only reduce other local areas homeless externalities/expenses.

Seattle seems to be growing strong with this methodology which is why I am against taxes like this that incentivize the homeless to move here.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#69

Post by taurath »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #42
taurath wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to Vancouver with its far higher taxes to protest a $20m tax on a $xxxbillion company seems like a poor idea to me. Local government need not grovel to those that take advantage of its amenities to attract talent.

The cost of living is less in Vancouver than Seattle, and by extension salaries are lower. This is what has been moving tech companies further up the west coast, so yes it does make perfect business sense. You also have things perfectly backwards. These companies are what is driving growth in Seattle, not the other way around. These companies are responsible for more than doubling local government revenue in the past…

> You also have things perfectly backwards. These companies are what is driving growth in Seattle, not the other way around. These companies are responsible for more than doubling local government revenue in the past decade. The companies create the growth, not the ‘amenities’ of Seattle city.

Why in the world would companies insist on staying in the bay area when they could pay people half in Ohio? This is HN, and story after story talks about how VCs /demand/ you locate yourself in the bay for the talent pool.

Seattle is in no danger of becoming Detroit, or an entire industry leaving, not when software skills are as in demand as they are right now. Its in no danger of Amazon picking up and leaving. Reminder, we're talking about $20 million dollars here, which is less than the budget for benches outside their brand new buildings.

I honestly think it would be a great thing for companies to go set up somewhere else and not over-inflate the 4-5 "chosen" tech areas. Maybe then housing prices can get reasonable, and some town that desperately needs any jobs can get started again.

Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

loeg wrote: post #67
bsder wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your whining rings hollow. In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out. And, do those areas really care about the kind of jobs that actually could move?

> In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out. The truth is the direct opposite[0]: > California continues to see more folks moving elsewhere in the nation rather than relocating here > Last year, California had 142,932 more residents exit to live in other states than arrive > California’s net outmigration has been ongoing for two-decades-plus. [0]: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/1…

> > In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out.

This is correct.

> The truth is the direct opposite[0]:

No, even your source doesn't support this. You have confused what your source says about domestic migration with total migration. More people are coming in to California than leaving (the state has positive net total migration) even though more people are leaving California for other states than are coming from other states (negative net domestic migration.)

Post reply on HN