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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
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).
Have you been to the Apple campuses? They are huge, take over a very large portion of the city and are still growing and taking over more space.
Additionally, there's a constant stream of double-decker buses flowing through and onto 280/85. Local businesses aren't doing so well because few employees leave campus and few people go to the area now who aren't going to the campus. The Eichler models homes and low end apartments have skyrocketed in price just in the past decade, forcing out anyone who is a renter.
It's all extraordinarily disruptive, but besides the fact that $275 per employee is trivial for companies like Apple, it's not like as if Cupertino has a problem with not enough jobs in the city. The issue is that there are too many employees working in places in the city isolated from everything else.
If that's the problem, then why didn't they reject Apple's plan for the new campus? Or make it contingent on this head tax. To spring a new tax on companies after they commit to the area is unsporting. The next employer looking for a place to set up shot will take that under consideration (the tax and the way it was implemented--if it passes).
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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
You correctly highlight the US problem. It's one extreme or the other, polarization has gone nuclear. As a Brit originally but here for 30 years I continuously find I am stuck in the middle seeing sense on both sides and some amazingly bad stuff on both sides. There is literally zero middle ground here with both sides always turning a blind eye to what they don't really like from their own side. Compromise is now a dirty word and it seems most would rather see chaos than ever agree to disagree. It is very depressing but one can only hold out hope .
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?
This was reported in 2013 when the Cupertino city council gave the "spaceship" a green-light for construction:
'Back in 1997, when Apple was on the verge of collapse, the city agreed to return 50 percent of the taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales as a way to help maintain the company’s health and, more importantly, its Cupertino address.
Under the new agreement, that rebate has been reduced to 35 percent, which based on 2012 tax revenues would mean the residents of Cupertino will pay Apple — which recorded net sales of $156.5 billion during the last fiscal year, and has a cash hoard estimated at $100 billion — only $4.4 million to stick around. It would have been $6.2 million under the old agreement. That’s an extra $1.8 million for Cupertino, a city with only $51.4 million in projected general fund revenues this year, according to figures reported in the Los Angeles Times.'
So Apple is being paid with tax dollars to begin with, millions per year. @tallest skil must be pleased. I seem to remember a demand of his for any companies receiving government funding.
First off I don't know what "taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales" means exactly, but it's certainly just a fraction of the taxes Apple pays. Presumably the property taxes they pay are much higher than this portion of their sales tax for example.
Second, getting charged a lower tax rate is not "being paid with tax dollars" and it's not "government funding." Unless you consider yourself a government employee because you take various tax deductions on your 1040.
Third, it's more than a little underhanded to offer a lower rate on one tax to encourage a company to stay and then after they are committed create a new tax that cancels out that benefit. Seems like something a cable company would do.
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.
What does a bong have to do with the OP original post? So the only people that have a different way of thinking or seeing a situation must be high and need a meeting ? Interesting 🧐
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?
This was reported in 2013 when the Cupertino city council gave the "spaceship" a green-light for construction:
'Back in 1997, when Apple was on the verge of collapse, the city agreed to return 50 percent of the taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales as a way to help maintain the company’s health and, more importantly, its Cupertino address.
Under the new agreement, that rebate has been reduced to 35 percent, which based on 2012 tax revenues would mean the residents of Cupertino will pay Apple — which recorded net sales of $156.5 billion during the last fiscal year, and has a cash hoard estimated at $100 billion — only $4.4 million to stick around. It would have been $6.2 million under the old agreement. That’s an extra $1.8 million for Cupertino, a city with only $51.4 million in projected general fund revenues this year, according to figures reported in the Los Angeles Times.'
So Apple is being paid with tax dollars to begin with, millions per year. @tallest skil must be pleased. I seem to remember a demand of his for any companies receiving government funding.
First off I don't know what "taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales" means exactly, but it's certainly just a fraction of the taxes Apple pays. Presumably the property taxes they pay are much higher than this portion of their sales tax for example.
Second, getting charged a lower tax rate is not "being paid with tax dollars" and it's not "government funding." Unless you consider yourself a government employee because you take various tax deductions on your 1040.
Third, it's more than a little underhanded to offer a lower rate on one tax to encourage a company to stay and then after they are committed create a new tax that cancels out that benefit. Seems like something a cable company would do.
That's a very well reasoned comment. It occurs to me Ireland basically did the same thing for Apple and others to attract businesses, as do may other places.
I found some (5 year old) tax figures that are relevant for this discussion:
"As for property taxes, Apple claims it contributed $9.2 million of annual tax revenue to Cupertino in the 2012-2013 financial year, accounting for about 18 percent of the city’s general fund.
In 2012, properties occupied by Apple in Cupertino generated approximately $25 million in local property tax revenue. “Campus 2” is expected to annually generate an additional $32 million of property tax revenue to local public agencies. Total recurring property tax revenues to fund local community services are expected to exceed $50 million each year.
Building the new campus will also create 9,200 construction jobs over the next three years and the new headquarters will generate a "one-time” revenue of approximately $38.1 million to the City of Cupertino in the form of construction taxes and fees."
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.
Because its actually chilling the extent government reaches with its uneven hand... then again, its California, which will self-implode with the number of spastics running things...
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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
You correctly highlight the US problem. It's one extreme or the other, polarization has gone nuclear. As a Brit originally but here for 30 years I continuously find I am stuck in the middle seeing sense on both sides and some amazingly bad stuff on both sides. There is literally zero middle ground here with both sides always turning a blind eye to what they don't really like from their own side. Compromise is now a dirty word and it seems most would rather see chaos than ever agree to disagree. It is very depressing but one can only hold out hope .
Yes, people want a one liner rather than actually thinking about what's really happening. "Government just takes and wastes your hard earned money" or "Corporate greed is the cause of <insert problem here>".
I have no doubt that there are inefficiencies in government (as there are in any large organization, be it government or corporate), but there's still a reason why government exists. And the fact that many corporations can get away with paying little to no tax while benefitting tremendously from the infrastructure paid for by the government (past and present) is truly shameful. But that doesn't mean they're to blame for societal problems like homelessness which have complex and varied root causes.
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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
Our health system needs change, but the LAST thing required is systemic/singular government control. They cannot manage much of anything well/efficiently. Its horrifying actually...just look around at how poorly so many things here are run via government entities.
Given the enormous profits made then $275 per yer per employee sounds CHEAP when it's used to improve the area for people who live and work there including the companies and organisations.
Organisations which don't make a profit or are non-profit cannot be expected to pay, that makes sense.
Seriously, less than a dollar a day per employee for companies that make billions is cheap and they know it.
A tax on a person just to work. This is beyond silly. Apple already pays a lot of taxes. I don't care if it's a penny a day, it's a penny too much. Here's an idea, cut some of the waste. Always easier for Government to just steal away more money. Where does it end?
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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
Our health system needs change, but the LAST thing required is systemic/singular government control. They cannot manage much of anything well/efficiently. Its horrifying actually...just look around at how poorly so many things here are run via government entities.
I keep hearing that mantra over and over again, yet no one really seems to dig into things and try to find real solutions. It just becomes a call to privatize everything and assume that corporations will magically take care of everything because competition will sort everything out. Even if one assumes that government isn't as efficient as corporations, the fact that you have a number of different organizations, each of which need to have their own management infrastructure and profit margin, certainly adds a lot more overhead.
And honestly, I don't want things like health care and education to be "you get what you pay for". That's part of the myopic self interest I'm talking about. People who are currently healthy and don't have kids saying, "I don't want to pay for anyone else". Then when they get sick and/or have kids who need an education, wondering why it costs them a fortune to get decent quality care/schooling.
At the very least, even if you absolutely don't care about others and only care about economics (the overall sentiment I get from the US), giving everyone an equal shot with a decent education will benefit the overall economy tremendously because you'll have a much larger skilled workforce. Just because someone is rich enough to get a good education doesn't necessarily mean they'll generate more for the economy in the long run than someone who can't afford that education. Talent and skill should be cultivated no matter where it comes from.
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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
Our health system needs change, but the LAST thing required is systemic/singular government control. They cannot manage much of anything well/efficiently. Its horrifying actually...just look around at how poorly so many things here are run via government entities.
I keep hearing that mantra over and over again, yet no one really seems to dig into things and try to find real solutions. It just becomes a call to privatize everything and assume that corporations will magically take care of everything because competition will sort everything out. Even if one assumes that government isn't as efficient as corporations, the fact that you have a number of different organizations, each of which need to have their own management infrastructure and profit margin, certainly adds a lot more overhead.
And honestly, I don't want things like health care and education to be "you get what you pay for". That's part of the myopic self interest I'm talking about. People who are currently healthy and don't have kids saying, "I don't want to pay for anyone else". Then when they get sick and/or have kids who need an education, wondering why it costs them a fortune to get decent quality care/schooling.
At the very least, even if you absolutely don't care about others, giving everyone an equal shot with a decent education will benefit the overall economy tremendously because you'll have a much larger skilled workforce.
You kind of have this all, and very, wrong.
A vast majority of people don't have a "myopic" view of things. They understand the need to make appropriate contributions through taxation to the overall benefit of society. The huge problem is that government is an insatiable beast that keeps looking to take more and more, which no sense of limits or fiscal and moral responsibility. They only really know how to add add or grow programs that need funding, not really how to eliminate or cut very often.
So the concept of local governments adding an additional head tax is wrong on multiple levels. Companies already pay taxes; their location in a region vastly improves employment, wages, and generates a ton of income, property, local, and sales taxes (through economic activity). But now, once again, that's not enough.
I already pay way too much when you calculate a total tax burden, so I have no interest in specifically or conceptually supporting government efforts to continue to collect every increasing amounts without cost containment. People already pay for all the things that apparently the government says it always needs more money for... It's an impossible end game...
And glad you brought up education...how's the government controlled/unionized education system doing here? So well there are countless private schools for which one does not even get a tax credit/voucher to utilize, so one can raise a child to be well-educated and hopefully self-sufficient later in life.
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?
This was reported in 2013 when the Cupertino city council gave the "spaceship" a green-light for construction:
'Back in 1997, when Apple was on the verge of collapse, the city agreed to return 50 percent of the taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales as a way to help maintain the company’s health and, more importantly, its Cupertino address.
Under the new agreement, that rebate has been reduced to 35 percent, which based on 2012 tax revenues would mean the residents of Cupertino will pay Apple — which recorded net sales of $156.5 billion during the last fiscal year, and has a cash hoard estimated at $100 billion — only $4.4 million to stick around. It would have been $6.2 million under the old agreement. That’s an extra $1.8 million for Cupertino, a city with only $51.4 million in projected general fund revenues this year, according to figures reported in the Los Angeles Times.'
So Apple is being paid with tax dollars to begin with, millions per year. @tallest skil must be pleased. I seem to remember a demand of his for any companies receiving government funding.
Any rational city would beg Apple to locate there. Paying them to be there makes perfect sense.
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?
This was reported in 2013 when the Cupertino city council gave the "spaceship" a green-light for construction:
'Back in 1997, when Apple was on the verge of collapse, the city agreed to return 50 percent of the taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales as a way to help maintain the company’s health and, more importantly, its Cupertino address.
Under the new agreement, that rebate has been reduced to 35 percent, which based on 2012 tax revenues would mean the residents of Cupertino will pay Apple — which recorded net sales of $156.5 billion during the last fiscal year, and has a cash hoard estimated at $100 billion — only $4.4 million to stick around. It would have been $6.2 million under the old agreement. That’s an extra $1.8 million for Cupertino, a city with only $51.4 million in projected general fund revenues this year, according to figures reported in the Los Angeles Times.'
So Apple is being paid with tax dollars to begin with, millions per year. @tallest skil must be pleased. I seem to remember a demand of his for any companies receiving government funding.
First off I don't know what "taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales" means exactly, but it's certainly just a fraction of the taxes Apple pays. Presumably the property taxes they pay are much higher than this portion of their sales tax for example.
Second, getting charged a lower tax rate is not "being paid with tax dollars" and it's not "government funding." Unless you consider yourself a government employee because you take various tax deductions on your 1040.
Third, it's more than a little underhanded to offer a lower rate on one tax to encourage a company to stay and then after they are committed create a new tax that cancels out that benefit. Seems like something a cable company would do.
It was not a lower rate offered for taxes according to the local reporting. They are giving Apple a percentage of it post payment.
All these references to "the government" imposing its will over citizens is rather strange, at least if you live in the USA. If you live in the USA you are "the government." Unlike some countries with kings and dictators, in the USA the people who are coming up with laws around taxation are either your democratically elected officials or appointees of democratically elected officials that you have empowered to work on such matters on your behalf. If you really wanted to, you could run for or volunteer to take a direct role in these types of decisions. But if you're like most of us you have purposely decided to place these matters into someone else's hands. It's not a perfect system mostly because it involves people who are inherently imperfect, oftentimes corruptible, prone to acting in their own self interests, weak kneed in the face of lobbying and campaign money from special interest groups, and physically unable to represent the needs of the massively divergent collection of opinions from their constituency. Complaining about it won't make it any better and does little more than to acknowledge once again that it's not a perfect system and nobody likes imperfection. Politicizing the discord induced by the inherent imperfection or taking sides based on ideological arguments that only tie out in a fantasy space that's orthoganal to the messy existence and experiment-in-progress social structures where humans actually live doesn't solve any problem whatsoever, it just increases the noise level.
Transparency, mutual respect, and compromise are only way that these issues can move forward to a constructive, but still guaranteed to be imperfect, solution. Each side camping out at the extremities of their positions guarantees failure. Sadly we've reached a point where guaranteed failure and basking in bitterness is seen as more preferable than imperfect and compromise solutions. We can only blame ourselves, not some universal abstract pincushion and scapegoat we call "the government."
This article is missing the key context of “why” this tax is being proposed.
Ultimately, on the whole weath generation is a very good thing, but it has negative consequences.
The idea behind the tax, is to provide measure of relief, to long term average earnings residents, who have been mostly harmed by the massive and relatively sudden influx of highly paid tech employees.
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?
You do realize that there's a middle ground between Communism and no government, everyone pays for everything themselves right?
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
Our health system needs change, but the LAST thing required is systemic/singular government control. They cannot manage much of anything well/efficiently. Its horrifying actually...just look around at how poorly so many things here are run via government entities.
I keep hearing that mantra over and over again, yet no one really seems to dig into things and try to find real solutions. It just becomes a call to privatize everything and assume that corporations will magically take care of everything because competition will sort everything out. Even if one assumes that government isn't as efficient as corporations, the fact that you have a number of different organizations, each of which need to have their own management infrastructure and profit margin, certainly adds a lot more overhead.
And honestly, I don't want things like health care and education to be "you get what you pay for". That's part of the myopic self interest I'm talking about. People who are currently healthy and don't have kids saying, "I don't want to pay for anyone else". Then when they get sick and/or have kids who need an education, wondering why it costs them a fortune to get decent quality care/schooling.
At the very least, even if you absolutely don't care about others, giving everyone an equal shot with a decent education will benefit the overall economy tremendously because you'll have a much larger skilled workforce.
A vast majority of people don't have a "myopic" view of things. They understand the need to make appropriate contributions through taxation to the overall benefit of society. The huge problem is that government is an insatiable beast that keeps looking to take more and more, which no sense of limits or fiscal and moral responsibility. They only really know how to add add or grow programs that need funding, not really how to eliminate or cut very often.
And again, this is all just a mantra. Can you give specific examples? If so, and you have ideas, why not go to relevant community meetings and/or talk to your local politicians and discuss it with them? Maybe you'll influence people or maybe they'll explain the complexities of the situation in a way you hadn't considered.
And glad you brought up education...how's the government controlled/unionized education system doing here? So well there are countless private schools for which one does not even get a tax credit/voucher to utilize, so one can raise a child to be well-educated and hopefully self-sufficient later in life.
I received a wonderful public education here in Canada which my parents would never have been able to afford in the US because they were blue collar workers. Classrooms were sufficiently staffed with well-trained teachers, schools were stocked with all the books and technology we needed, and all because everyone contributed to it rather than believing in the self-fulfilling prophecy that government is wasteful and privatization is the only solution.
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.
Comments
I'm so glad I didn't move down to the US for work when I graduated. The level of myopic self interest reaches new heights year after year. For example, the fact that people who shop at Costco to save money can't see that mass purchase of medicine (by the government) for distribution leads to a far cheaper/more efficient system than having dozens of small health insurance companies (with profit motives) buying it is sad. But... but... communism.
First off I don't know what "taxes generated each year from Apple’s business-to-business sales" means exactly, but it's certainly just a fraction of the taxes Apple pays. Presumably the property taxes they pay are much higher than this portion of their sales tax for example.
Second, getting charged a lower tax rate is not "being paid with tax dollars" and it's not "government funding." Unless you consider yourself a government employee because you take various tax deductions on your 1040.
Third, it's more than a little underhanded to offer a lower rate on one tax to encourage a company to stay and then after they are committed create a new tax that cancels out that benefit. Seems like something a cable company would do.
"As for property taxes, Apple claims it contributed $9.2 million of annual tax revenue to Cupertino in the 2012-2013 financial year, accounting for about 18 percent of the city’s general fund.
In 2012, properties occupied by Apple in Cupertino generated approximately $25 million in local property tax revenue. “Campus 2” is expected to annually generate an additional $32 million of property tax revenue to local public agencies. Total recurring property tax revenues to fund local community services are expected to exceed $50 million each year.
Building the new campus will also create 9,200 construction jobs over the next three years and the new headquarters will generate a "one-time” revenue of approximately $38.1 million to the City of Cupertino in the form of construction taxes and fees."
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-create-7400-jobs-new-campus-2-headquarters-cupertino-2016-promotes-economic-1291811
I have no doubt that there are inefficiencies in government (as there are in any large organization, be it government or corporate), but there's still a reason why government exists. And the fact that many corporations can get away with paying little to no tax while benefitting tremendously from the infrastructure paid for by the government (past and present) is truly shameful. But that doesn't mean they're to blame for societal problems like homelessness which have complex and varied root causes.
Government greed knows no limits!
And honestly, I don't want things like health care and education to be "you get what you pay for". That's part of the myopic self interest I'm talking about. People who are currently healthy and don't have kids saying, "I don't want to pay for anyone else". Then when they get sick and/or have kids who need an education, wondering why it costs them a fortune to get decent quality care/schooling.
At the very least, even if you absolutely don't care about others and only care about economics (the overall sentiment I get from the US), giving everyone an equal shot with a decent education will benefit the overall economy tremendously because you'll have a much larger skilled workforce. Just because someone is rich enough to get a good education doesn't necessarily mean they'll generate more for the economy in the long run than someone who can't afford that education. Talent and skill should be cultivated no matter where it comes from.
A vast majority of people don't have a "myopic" view of things. They understand the need to make appropriate contributions through taxation to the overall benefit of society. The huge problem is that government is an insatiable beast that keeps looking to take more and more, which no sense of limits or fiscal and moral responsibility. They only really know how to add add or grow programs that need funding, not really how to eliminate or cut very often.
So the concept of local governments adding an additional head tax is wrong on multiple levels. Companies already pay taxes; their location in a region vastly improves employment, wages, and generates a ton of income, property, local, and sales taxes (through economic activity). But now, once again, that's not enough.
I already pay way too much when you calculate a total tax burden, so I have no interest in specifically or conceptually supporting government efforts to continue to collect every increasing amounts without cost containment. People already pay for all the things that apparently the government says it always needs more money for... It's an impossible end game...
And glad you brought up education...how's the government controlled/unionized education system doing here? So well there are countless private schools for which one does not even get a tax credit/voucher to utilize, so one can raise a child to be well-educated and hopefully self-sufficient later in life.
Transparency, mutual respect, and compromise are only way that these issues can move forward to a constructive, but still guaranteed to be imperfect, solution. Each side camping out at the extremities of their positions guarantees failure. Sadly we've reached a point where guaranteed failure and basking in bitterness is seen as more preferable than imperfect and compromise solutions. We can only blame ourselves, not some universal abstract pincushion and scapegoat we call "the government."