Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by taurath » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:38 AM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #77

taurath wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of empathy for those being displaced by huge tech companies moving in and eclipsing everyone else's salary in this thread is incredibly stunning. Not to say that homelessness is entirely caused by this, but its definitely a factor. 91% of the homeless in Seattle are from the greater Seattle region. Home prices have doubled in 10 years, and tripled if you count the bottom of the great recession. Renters have…

I agree that it does feel like a terrible self-centered choice to be so against this. I'm actually working in Seattle at a smaller software company where I will have to pay that tax. I used to work at Google in Seattle, so I would have had to pay it there too. There's a tremendous problem here with homeless people. I can believe that rich techies coming in and raising prices by increasing demand must have helped push…

I agree with all of this as well. I am saddened that most of the time it is the rich techies (along with existing landed wealthy people) that come in and prevent any additional housing from being built - I live in an area well known for its NIMBYism.

If they raised everyone's taxes on my pay scale and above by 2%, and un-restricted building in much of the city, it would go a million times further to make it a more livable city for everyone than this tax.

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

#82

Post by NotSammyHagar » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:41 AM UTC

propman wrote: post #11

I'm fiscally conservative and I don't mind the tax, it's just very poorly planned. $20M in revenue for businesses is not much. It's a regressive tax, and it is appropriated to homelessness which the city has done a very poor job of dealing with. Money will no doubt be wasted. I do support a more fair tax in Bay Area that goes directly to transportation and infrastructure improvement

Since we can't do income taxes in washington state, we can't make it a perfect tax, which would be to tax rich software engineers more, and say construction workers and baristas not at all. this tax would be better that way. They try to limit it to people working at big companies. I think they should do something like make it only for people making 100k or something. But would that tip it over into an income based tax, probably?

So what's your idea for how to raise money to deal with homeless people. My idea is copy what worked in Utah, which is start with building tons of housing, enough for all the homeless people.

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

#83

Post by NotSammyHagar » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

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…

Saying it should be federal problem means nothing will happen. First, half the nation hates anything to do with us evil left coasters. Second, the govt is not that functional, nationally right now.

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

#84

Post by gremlinsinc » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:43 AM UTC

Why not tie this to CEO pay... whatever multiplier the CEO earns (including bonuses) above average workers is what they pay, so say it's 400x they'd pay 400 per head, if it's 200 they'd pay 200... Then the company just needs to pay 1 worker less money to keep more for the business itself and shareholders/etc... Or the business could pay workers more to lower that 400:1 ratio.

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

#85

Post by NotSammyHagar » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:45 AM UTC

whb07 wrote: post #63

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Saying Seattle has record revenue is just a completely misleading thing to say, without enough information. Your comment doesn't clarify anything about whether Seattle is spending money poorly or wisely. Seattle's costs have been going up, partly because lots more people have been moving here, and we don't have income taxes, and businesses can hire more people without that leading to increased tax revenue. The city has to build more infrastructure to handle us (roads, transit, bike lanes, tunnels). There's no clear match between infrastructure needs and revenue.

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

#86

Post by NotSammyHagar » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:46 AM UTC

mrep wrote: post #43

I'm not really against the tax but its use. Spending more money on the homeless giving them handouts is only going to attract more worsening the problem. 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…

If that were true that we are making it too easy to live here in Seattle, then consider Utah, which basically has provided housing for all homeless people. They have not been swarmed with everyone moving there. I have noticed this has not happened in Seattle :-)

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

#87

Post by NotSammyHagar » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

ryanmarsh wrote: post #32

Shame on Amazon for hiring so many people in the Seattle area with good paying jobs. How dare people blame the poor and beleaguered city government for not solving the city’s mental health problem. Record tax revenues? It’s still not enough. Seriously though, isn’t this the deal? Business brings in good paying jobs and pays taxes, city lays down the infrastructure to support commerce. With record tax revenues the cit…

Just noting that Seattle has record revenues, is notenough information to understand if Seattle is doing a good job with it's tax revenue. There are more people moving here all the time, so revenue will just go up (like for say sales taxes). It's like saying the government always does a bad job, so the govt. shouldn't do anything - that's just a general statement that doesn't clarify anything. In this case, let's look at the costs and infrastructure the city is facing and the number of people it has to deal with and try to understand if the city's doing a good job or not. I haven't actually read anything that did a good analysis of that.

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

#88

Post by AmericanChopper » Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

taurath wrote: post #72

AmericanChopper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

Average price of a detached house in Vancouver is $1.5 million and avg software salary is C$72,945 per year (completely unaffordable). Average price of a detached house in Seattle is $772,729 and avg software salary is $110,907 a year. Still unaffordable and getting moreso, but doable with dual income.

The cost of buying a house and the cost of living are not the same thing. For instance the price to rent ratio in Vancouver is about twice as much as it is in Seattle. In any case all of this is completely irrelevant. The cost of living and the salaries are lower in Vancouver than Seattle, a fact that isn't up for debate. One of the core factors that have driven technology companies to expand beyond the valley is the cost of salaries, this is one of the reasons that the sector expanded so much in WA, and it's one of the key reasons that it is _currently_ expanding so much in B.C. None of this is theory, or me arguing for what I think will happen, it is what's happening right now.

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

#89

Post by AmericanChopper » Tue, May 15, 2018, 6:05 AM UTC

taurath wrote: post #69

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…

> 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 s…

I don't think the industry is going to pick up and leave Seattle, but it undoubtably puts more pressure on businesses that are already finding better places to operate elsewhere. It's these companies that have generated the revenue boom that the Seattle City Council has experienced over the past decade. If it wants more revenue and more jobs in the city, then it shouldn't make it harder for businesses to operate nor should it tax jobs. Especially when there are so many desirable areas to operate directly next door, and especially when all of those areas are already experiencing enormous growth.

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

#90

Post by taurath » Tue, May 15, 2018, 6:19 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #89

taurath wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

I don't think the industry is going to pick up and leave Seattle, but it undoubtably puts more pressure on businesses that are already finding better places to operate elsewhere. It's these companies that have generated the revenue boom that the Seattle City Council has experienced over the past decade. If it wants more revenue and more jobs in the city, then it shouldn't make it harder for businesses to operate nor…

I honesty don’t think the city should be concerned with revenue and jobs at this point. The unemployment rate is incredibly low. It should be focused on housing affordability and amenities to make it more livable for everyone who lives there, not just the new upper class who are experiencing all of the benefits already. A place where more people can have security and opportunity. And guess what, that makes for a much better city even for the upper class.