Seattle Rekindles Business Jobs Tax Debate

1. 85

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   "Seattle City Hall is returning to a familiar fight this week — whether and how to tax big business — but this time in an unfamiliar world.
   
   A “head tax,” the “Amazon tax,” a “tax on jobs” — the efforts made by the Seattle City Council over the past two years to find new and less regressive forms of tax revenue for government programs have been dubbed with a range of monikers."
   . . .
   
   "On Wednesday, City Hall will have its first briefing and discussion of the newest proposal — a 1.3% tax on businesses with payrolls over $7 million that would raise around an estimated $500 million a year. Amazon would pay the most, but another roughly 800 businesses would pay as well."
   . . .
   
   "Of the $500 million raised, $200 million would be for immediate COVID-19 relief; the rest would go toward affordable housing and “green new deal” type projects."
   . . . .
   
   'In fact, it’s written as a piece of emergency legislation — which, as reported earlier by SCC Insight, shields it from a voter referendum"
   
   Article: https://crosscut.com/2020/04/seattle-re … ew-economy
   
   I think this is a mistake.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How could it be a mistake to drive business from where it is demonized and taxed into oblivion?  For the rest of the nation, it could be a real windfall.
      
      But I especially like the 200M for Covid relief.  Barring Amazon, I suspect that a large majority of those business they want to support their utopian dreams won't have much income this year and that 200M will disappear even faster than businesses will.
      
      Have to wonder, too, what will happen to that "Covid 19 relief" in a year or two, when the problem has subsided.  Will the tax rate then drop, or will it be used for a different pipe dream.  I think I know the answer.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It depends, do you guys think this is the last of the pandemics? Or would this matter?

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            My objection to what I see as a very short-sighted policy is two-fold.  First, Amazon could save tens of millions of dollars, (if not hundreds of millions), by relocating to another city. As could any of the other 800 companies mentioned that would be affected by this tax. Don't they see that they could possibly drive all of that tax revenue out of their city?
            
            And think of how many small businesses depend on those "big businesses" for their existence.If Amazon leaves, how many small businesses will lose their customer base and fail?
            
            And secondly was their rationalization; it was rationalized as necessary due to the coronavirus, but only 40% of the predicted revenue was for that. And on that subject, the expected revenue wouldn't occur until 2021. So they would borrow from other funds while they robbed Peter to pay Paul.
            
            Just on the shallow surface details, I see a lot that is wrong and short-sighted about this proposal. As the article mentions, the details, (we know that is always where the devil is), are admittedly technically legally questionable. So the broad question would be the motivation of the bill's sponsors. Emergency relief or an ideological reach?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Given that this was tried not long ago, and suffered an ignominious failure, only to have it spring up again masquerading as "emergency relief" says it all.  It is ideological reach, nothing more than that.

               replyreport