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



  • Reply 21 of 87
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    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?

    Who's talking about communism? Other than you, that is.
  • Reply 22 of 87
    dougddougd Posts: 292member
    Come on Apple can afford it.  Corporate greed knows no limits
  • Reply 23 of 87
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    sflocal said:
    ... Government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
    Hey, what a minute.  Are you really from San Francisco?  😁
  • Reply 24 of 87
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,482member
    Why would Apple care either way?  They’ll just pass on the costs to California customers and the other 49 states plus US territories.  Huge boon for California being able to pull in funds from the rest of the States.

    Won’t be long before corporations that can maintain 40% + gross profit margins as the only ones left in the state.
  • Reply 25 of 87
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    Apple pays plenty of taxes already. Tax money comes right out of the bottom line, reducing profits.
  • Reply 26 of 87
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    If government stop wasting money then there was no need to find new sources of taxes. As companies and individual incomes increase so does the tax income, somehow those who manage the government do not understand this and fall to understand they are only hurting this growth. Most people in government do not know how to maintain personal budget, how do anyone expect them to manage a government budget. These people keep finding new ways to spend money. 
    jbdragontallest skilnetmage
  • Reply 27 of 87
    If I were a Cupertino city councilman, I wouldn't poke the bear.

    I wonder how hard it would be to fund the successful election campaign for challengers.
  • Reply 28 of 87
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,234member
    netrox said:
    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.
    It's more than just gathering petitions, Seattle businesses are not happy at all with the head tax. Check out and you'll see a lot of complaining.
  • Reply 29 of 87
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,088member
    dysamoria said:
    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.
    Nonsense.  The "It's only a small demand" sob story got old decades ago.  That tax won't impact infrastructure really.  You think they're going to spend that extra revenue on fixing roads? Dream on.  How many billions of dollars has Apple alone payed to Cupertino over the years, and they still want more?  

    Absolutely not.  The government is really good at spending money as if it were a bottomless hole.  I would even say they are downright lying they say they will use that money for infrastructure.  No.  They'll blow it on useless pork projects.  Think it'll fix that pothole in your street?  Think again.

    Cupertino, like any other large city with budgets bigger than many countries have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  Instead of cutting the fat from their own government, it's just easier to raise taxes.  Heck no.  Just look at San Francisco.  Taxed to death and nothing improves.  It's bad for business and sends the wrong signal.  I hope the voters shut that down to send a message.
    jbdragontallest skilnetmage
  • Reply 30 of 87
    sdw2001 said:
    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.
  • Reply 31 of 87
    brian greenbrian green Posts: 662member
    Sadly, here in Seattle they are doing the same thing.  Amazing & Starbucks are livid.
  • Reply 32 of 87
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 930member
    georgie01 said:
    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).
    a per-employee tax to generate funds for city infrastructure”. Infrastructure, like roads. Something Dwight Eisenhower would approve of. (He initiated the Interstate System)
    edited May 2018 ronnStrangeDays
  • Reply 33 of 87
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,297member
    Look, another local government seeing yet another way to throw on yet another tax.  Yet it's these businesses creating jobs.  The huge amount of taxes these company's bring to the city.  Property prices all over go up which means even higher property taxes.  There is  new money coming in from taxes left and right and yet somehow still not enough?. 

    I said in the past that Apple was dumb to build their ship in California.  High taxes and dumb ideas.  It's being silly to throw a tax on a person having a job.  It's double taxation or worse.  How much is too much? 
  • Reply 34 of 87
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 87
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,132member
    tommikele said:
    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.
    Not at all. Of course they would say that. The problem is I have been around long enough to know that isnt all they have in mind.  Or even believe it themselves.  They only need enough of the people to fall for it.
  • Reply 36 of 87
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,132member
    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.
    There has been fifty years or so of adding just this small, cheap tax.  Believe it or not cumulative effect of small, cheap taxes adds up, and strangles business activity, and jobs. This doesn’t just target Apple anyway, but any business over a certain size.  It’s mypoic, greedy and counterproductive. The clear message is don’t build your business here.

    Btw we have it here too. It’s called payroll tax. An extra tax when you give someone a job. It discourages employment. If you are going to tax someone, for the love of god don’t do it because they gave someone a job!
    edited May 2018 randominternetpersonjbdragonnetmage
  • Reply 37 of 87
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member
    US has the same housing problem that HK has, and instead of making adjustment to improve standard of living, they decide to tax those who help them create jobs.
  • Reply 38 of 87
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,513member
    These are complex issues but, in general, as long as taxation is 'fair' (I know many people will have differing views on what is fair), and the local government is transparent in how it operates, such a move would get the nod from me, especially if the simple placement of Apple in Cupertino puts uneven stress on the council's infrastructure.

    I know a lot about these issues as I live in a small town that has 150Km of roads. Just managing street lighting here is a gargantuan task, as is sewage, telecommunications, waste management, primary health care, policing, water distribution, street cleaning and a seemingly endless list of other elements. In summer, our population triples putting even more stress on resources.

    Some aspects are joint funded with, local, regional, and state government picking up part of the bill. We need water collectors to retain the rain from the late summer storms (millions of euros for each one) and prevent flood damage. The water is then used for watering and street cleaning. All the flood routes need to be permanently cleaned to prevent blockages. The same goes for the forests surrounding us. Firewalls need to be kept open. Beaches need to be permanently maintained to reach EU blue flag status.

    The biggest part comes from local budgets but if you have a large group of people or companies using local resources, it's valid IMO to ask them to help out if they have the financial muscle to do so (all within a fair contribution).

    I firmly believe that overtaxing is wrong (people just end up moving away) but running local government effectively, depends on its ability to balance the books and provide the necessary services to all citizens in a transparent manner.

    As I don't know how local councils are funded in the US, I can't really comment on this case but on the face of it, and depending on the real, quantifiable, needs of the local council, the move doesn't sound that bad.

    Transparency is key though and all citizens should know exactly how their taxes are spent. 
  • Reply 39 of 87
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,268member
    blastdoor said:
    $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. 
    Flawed logic. It is a complete disincentive for businesses to invest and create real jobs. Notice how they waited until after Apple's new HQ was built.
  • Reply 40 of 87
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    dewme said:
    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. 

    edited May 2018 jony0
Sign In or Register to comment.