Apple staring down possibility of new per-employee tax in Cupertino

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple's home city of Cupertino is considering a per-employee tax to generate funds for city infrastructure, and the tech giant might be among those companies impacted by the regulations.

Apple Park and trees


Cupertino's town manager David Brandt said to the San Francisco Chronicle that the city is modeling its new effort on one in Google's Mountain View and another that was just imposed in Seattle. In the latter, businesses that make $20 million or more a year are charged $275 per employee.

The Mountain View proposal which would be levied on Google isn't a linear increase per head. Google's share would be around $10 million with deductions applied to companies that invest in the city's facilities and mass transportation systems.

The effort isn't a done deal, though. In both Mountain View and Cupertino, the city councils would need to approve the measure before it goes to the voters -- who could shoot it down as well.

Increased taxation in the form of a per-person tax has its opponents.

"While it might feel good for some to take a whack at big job creators," Bay Area Council CEO Jim Wunderman wrote, "Such taxes will only undermine our region's long-term economic health and competitiveness."

Proponents include Councilman Barry Chang. He pushed for a headcount tax when he was mayor of Cupertino in 2017, angling for a $1,000 per head tax on large companies. The effort was staunchly opposed and ultimately failed.

Apple has not responded to requests for comment on the matter.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 87
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,374member
    How about local government limit itself to overseeing roads,sewerage and water? Then it might suddenly find it lives within its means.  

    Bet Apple wishes it didn’t build its spaceship there now.
    racerhomie3georgie01tallest skilrazorpitbrian greenjbdragonmike1designredredh2p
  • Reply 2 of 87
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,374member
    Or wishes it really was a spaceship.  
    razorpitwlymmike1edredSpamSandwichjony0viclauyycnetmageradster360airnerd
  • Reply 3 of 87
    tdknoxtdknox Posts: 64member
    entropys said:
    How about local government limit itself to overseeing roads,sewerage and water? Then it might suddenly find it lives within its means.  

    Bet Apple wishes it didn’t build its spaceship there now.
    Leslie Knope would take issue with your lack of parks.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 4 of 87
    jaywordjayword Posts: 11member
    How do such mentally challenged people ever get elected.... it's infuriating the ignorance. Cupertino is nothing without Apple.
    macseekerrazorpith2pSpamSandwichbshankviclauyycnetmage
  • Reply 5 of 87
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,909member
    Unbelievable idiocy on the Left coast, as usual. Punish the biggest job creators instead of working with them to give back to the community voluntarily (which many are happy to do).  
    racerhomie3georgie01macseekertallest skilnetroxrazorpitjbdragonh2pJonInAtlnetmage
  • Reply 6 of 87
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,530member
    Government is a voracious beast seeking to devour all it comes in contact with. For decades now the Federal government has been the number one employer in the country. It is entirely possible that at sometime in the future government will be the ONLY employer in the country. It’s like a star that has run out of fuel and is expanding to consume all the planets that orbit it.
    tallest skilchristophbrazorpit2old4fundesignrh2pjony0
  • Reply 7 of 87
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 249member
    entropys said:
    How about local government limit itself to overseeing roads,sewerage and water? Then it might suddenly find it lives within its means.  

    Bet Apple wishes it didn’t build its spaceship there now.
    Did you miss the part where it said funds for infrastructure? I guess you did.
    dysamoriaronnMacsplosionStrangeDaysjony0
  • Reply 8 of 87
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 249member
    lkrupp said:
    Government is a voracious beast seeking to devour all it comes in contact with. For decades now the Federal government has been the number one employer in the country. It is entirely possible that at sometime in the future government will be the ONLY employer in the country. It’s like a star that has run out of fuel and is expanding to consume all the planets that orbit it.
    Wow, far out man ... That's exactly what you "sound like". Time for you to put the bong down and go to a meeting.
    dysamoriaronnStrangeDays
  • Reply 9 of 87
    It's funny how stunned people act when the government makes even small demands of the corporate world during a time of record profits and endless rounds of stock buybacks.
    blastdoorstourquedysamoriaMisterKitronnmuthuk_vanalingamgatorguyMacsplosionStrangeDaysjony0
  • Reply 10 of 87
     If this applies equally to govt and universities as well then I could support it but if it only applies to for profit companies then no way.  But this begs the question of why not just pass a flat city income tax like other places have done for decades.   The income tax would apply to 100% of all the employees working within the city limit.  Oh that’s right that is way to fair and thus will be opposed by the left wing nuts running the place.  Too simple too logical and too fair to be the answer.  
    razorpitjbdragonholysmokesh2pnetmage
  • Reply 11 of 87
    georgie01georgie01 Posts: 199member
    entropys said:
    How about local government limit itself ... Then it might suddenly find it lives within its means.  
    This is such an essential point. Many years ago the government functioned just as well or better than today and we had relatively little debt and far lower taxes than we have now. Our government has overextended itself and the inevitable bloat and waste comes in the form of unnecessarily high taxes and completely insane ways of taxing the people.

    We as citizens need to stop relying on the government to fix problems that our communities can and should deal with—for instance caring for the poor (among many other things).
    macseekertallest skiljbdragonholysmokesmike1designrbuzdotsnetmage
  • Reply 12 of 87
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    tommikele said:
    Wow, far out man ... That's exactly what you "sound like". Time for you to put the bong down and go to a meeting.
    Not an argument. Where is he wrong? Do you know what communism is?

    christophbrazorpitdesignrh2pSpamSandwichbshank
  • Reply 13 of 87
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,310member
    I only hope the taxpayers are not stupid-enough to believe that any of that money that is generated by that tax is going to be used for anything related to roads or "infrastructure".

    It's going to go into a pork-barrel black hole.  Government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
    JWSCjbdragonholysmokesdesignrviclauyycbuzdotsnetmage
  • Reply 14 of 87
    netroxnetrox Posts: 681member
    The homelessness issue is complex but imposing tax head is not a solution. You cannot blame businesses for homeless people. I hope that tax head will be declared unconstitutional. Seattle is now gathering a lot of petitions to repeal the head tax.
    holysmokesmike1h2pnetmage
  • Reply 15 of 87
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,802member
     If this applies equally to govt and universities as well then I could support it but if it only applies to for profit companies then no way.  But this begs the question of why not just pass a flat city income tax like other places have done for decades.   The income tax would apply to 100% of all the employees working within the city limit.  Oh that’s right that is way to fair and thus will be opposed by the left wing nuts running the place.  Too simple too logical and too fair to be the answer.  
    This is not workable. If you live in SF and work in Cupertino, you will pay two local income taxes. You are a taxation people. 
  • Reply 16 of 87
    dewmedewme Posts: 1,810member
    In the spirit of full transparency it only seems fair that companies who are rallying against these increased taxes should divulge the financial incentives, real estate,  tax abatements, tax deferrals, value of infrastructure upgrades, value of additional municipal services, and other financial concessions the companies are receiving from the municipalities that are proposing per-employee fees.

    I distain additional taxes as much as anyone but I’ve also been impacted by company local relocations that crossed city boundaries that ended up costing me out of pocket nearly 10x the $275 per year amount that’s being thrown out in this case. Unlike a company, I couldn’t pass along additional fees to anyone or roll it into my cost of doing business. 

    This is all part and parcel to the negotiations that are always occurring between companies and municipalities. If the companies want to garner public sympathy then let’s get all the sleazy cards out on the table and see what’s really going on with these public-private relationships. My pessimist perspective is that no matter who “wins” this fight it will be the regular folk, employees, and taxpayers who ultimately end up footing the bill.

    Anyone want to have a new NFL stadium or Amazon HQ2 in their town? 

    dysamoriaronnmuthuk_vanalingamgatorguydesignrStrangeDaysh2p
  • Reply 17 of 87
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,884member
    $275 per employee per year is pretty small. For 20k employees, that's just $5.5 million. 

    That's enough money to pay for a year of school for a few hundred students. 
    dysamoriaronnStrangeDaysh2p
  • Reply 18 of 87
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 851member
    It's funny how stunned people act when the government makes even small demands of the corporate world during a time of record profits and endless rounds of stock buybacks.
    Do you think this new proposal is the only tax that companies pay in that area?
    netmage
  • Reply 19 of 87
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,860member
    It's funny how stunned people act when the government makes even small demands of the corporate world during a time of record profits and endless rounds of stock buybacks.
    Thank you. Thank you for voicing a rational viewpoint, and noticing the facts. It's really quite frustrating to constantly see all the knee-jerk libertarian anti-government, anti-consumer, anti-people commentary in threads on articles of this nature.
    singularityronn
  • Reply 20 of 87
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,860member
     If this applies equally to govt and universities as well then I could support it but if it only applies to for profit companies then no way.  But this begs the question of why not just pass a flat city income tax like other places have done for decades.   The income tax would apply to 100% of all the employees working within the city limit.  Oh that’s right that is way to fair and thus will be opposed by the left wing nuts running the place.  Too simple too logical and too fair to be the answer.  
    "Way to fair?"

    How would it be fair to demand, from a tiny business that makes a small profit, the same amount of tax as is demanded from a huge 20-MILLION dollar business?
Sign In or Register to comment.