WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:32 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
The socialist Seattle City government is doing it's best to convince Amazon to move somewhere else. Amazon is fine with that, and they have taken the second step (the first one was last year when they announced they are looking for a 'second' headquarters in a region that will appreciate them.), by announcing they are stopping current and proposed expansion in Seattle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/technology/amazon-development-tax.html

If Amazon leaves, and I wouldn't blame them, there goes Seattle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am
Posts: 6993
So I guess if Amazon wants a bail-out we shouldn't give it to them?

Please point out where the auto companies were told to leave Detroit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21603
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The socialist Seattle City government is doing it's best to convince Amazon to move somewhere else. Amazon is fine with that, and they have taken the second step (the first one was last year when they announced they are looking for a 'second' headquarters in a region that will appreciate them.), by announcing they are stopping current and proposed expansion in Seattle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/technology/amazon-development-tax.html

If Amazon leaves, and I wouldn't blame them, there goes Seattle.

Quote:
The new tax would charge large employers in the city about $500 per employee, with the money going to help alleviate a housing crisis. The tax is squarely aimed at Amazon, which is Seattle’s largest employer and frequently blamed by many residents for the city’s soaring housing costs.

Amazon's just too successful. If they think that little tax is a deal-breaker, they're nuts.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
So how do you think Seattle should find housing for these people? This is a question of keen interest to me. Los Angeles has an even worse homeless problem than Seattle and housing costs here (and throughout most of Southern California) are even higher than they are in Seattle. I seriously doubt that my son will be able to afford to live here after he graduates from college. I'd like him to have that option.

Hell, there's an associate in my firm, engaged to another lawyer in a similar firm, who can't afford to buy anywhere close to my neighborhood, which isn't remotely fancy. If I hadn't bought in more than 20 years ago, I doubt I'd be able to afford my house now.

Solutions generally cost money. It's easy to bitch about the problem. How do you propose to solve it? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
It's very cute to blame the homelessness problem on the success of Amazon. Seattle has an amazingly successful company that provides jobs for thousands of people and supports thousands of other small businesses in the city. But the socialists that make up the city council believes they are the cash cow to fund all their ideological projects. They have spent billions of dollars on the homeless problem over the years, and it's only gotten worse. Still, they insanely keep doing the same things that don't work. They are so determined to be a Sanctuary City, that before too long, the only people in the city will be there seeking sanctuary.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Quote:
So how do you think Seattle should find housing for these people?


My suggestion would be to get rid of the thousands of regulations that the city imposes on everything, and let the market do what it does. The housing problem will be solved. Builders will invest in housing until a stable price for housing is established. And the city should use the revenue it is getting from the large businesses they are so fortunate to have to reduce and eliminate homelessness, rather than enabling it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15039
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
My suggestion would be to get rid of the thousands of regulations that the city imposes on everything, and let the market do what it does.


Many of those "thousands of regulations" are designed to ensure that the housing is actually fit for human habitation.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
My suggestion would be to get rid of the thousands of regulations that the city imposes on everything, and let the market do what it does.


Many of those "thousands of regulations" are designed to ensure that the housing is actually fit for human habitation.


Many of them aren't. They are ideologically driven. Like permitting an office building to be built with no place to park cars. Because they don't like cars.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 467
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The socialist Seattle City government is doing it's best to convince Amazon to move somewhere else. Amazon is fine with that, and they have taken the second step (the first one was last year when they announced they are looking for a 'second' headquarters in a region that will appreciate them.), by announcing they are stopping current and proposed expansion in Seattle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/technology/amazon-development-tax.html

If Amazon leaves, and I wouldn't blame them, there goes Seattle.


Did tmobile, Microsoft and Starbucks leave already?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 1943
Location: The Deep South
Hmmm? Wasn't there a story about a goose who laid golden eggs floating around somewhere?

_________________
I felt the change

Time meant nothing and never would again


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4025
Location: Merion, Pa.
Seattle prides itself on its aerospace heritage (Space Needle, SuperSonics, etc.). Boeing moved out in 2001. But they’ll always have Starbucks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Another update on the People's City of Seattle and their socialist city council.

Last year they fired Wells Fargo as being the bank to handle the city's finances. They did it because they couldn't morally deal with the evil Wells Fargo because they were involved with the Keystone Pipeline.

Well, they are asking Wells Fargo to take them back, because after a year of looking, they couldn't find a bank that would take them.

They did manage to pass the head tax, but they congratulated themselves in coming to a compromise. They will extort only $275 per employee rather than $500.

Well, I look forward to them totally solving the problem of homelessness with all that money. Apparently, the millions of dollars they have already spent that made the problem worse over the past decade was because they didn't have the head tax on employment. If they don't, I'm sure it will be because they didn't get the full $500.

I always thought the left used taxes to discourage behavior they didn't approve of. I guess they don't like people being employed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:37 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Another update on the People's City of Seattle and their socialist city council.

Last year they fired Wells Fargo as being the bank to handle the city's finances. They did it because they couldn't morally deal with the evil Wells Fargo because they were involved with the Keystone Pipeline.

Well, they are asking Wells Fargo to take them back, because after a year of looking, they couldn't find a bank that would take them.

They did manage to pass the head tax, but they congratulated themselves in coming to a compromise. They will extort only $275 per employee rather than $500.

Well, I look forward to them totally solving the problem of homelessness with all that money. Apparently, the millions of dollars they have already spent that made the problem worse over the past decade was because they didn't have the head tax on employment. If they don't, I'm sure it will be because they didn't get the full $500.

I always thought the left used taxes to discourage behavior they didn't approve of. I guess they don't like people being employed.
I'm curious, flock. Given the housing shortages in Seattle, the job environment has to mean that people are traveling to their jobs from greater distances, thereby putting more strain on Seattle's roads and other infrastructure. How would you like the City to pay for this? Shouldn't the employers who are benefiting bear a share of the expense?

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. California's economy has suffered so much from our recent (voter-approved) tax increase that we're now only the world's fifth largest economy, having recently passed the United Kingdom. I wonder how big we'd be if we'd followed the fiscal example of a conservative state like, say, Kansas. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:40 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9024
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Another update on the People's City of Seattle and their socialist city council.

Last year they fired Wells Fargo as being the bank to handle the city's finances. They did it because they couldn't morally deal with the evil Wells Fargo because they were involved with the Keystone Pipeline.

Well, they are asking Wells Fargo to take them back, because after a year of looking, they couldn't find a bank that would take them.

They did manage to pass the head tax, but they congratulated themselves in coming to a compromise. They will extort only $275 per employee rather than $500.

Well, I look forward to them totally solving the problem of homelessness with all that money. Apparently, the millions of dollars they have already spent that made the problem worse over the past decade was because they didn't have the head tax on employment. If they don't, I'm sure it will be because they didn't get the full $500.

I always thought the left used taxes to discourage behavior they didn't approve of. I guess they don't like people being employed.
I'm curious, flock. Given the housing shortages in Seattle, the job environment has to mean that people are traveling to their jobs from greater distances, thereby putting more strain on Seattle's roads and other infrastructure. How would you like the City to pay for this? Shouldn't the employers who are benefiting bear a share of the expense? --Bob


I think you're conflating 2 issues. Homelessness and infrastructure.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Another update on the People's City of Seattle and their socialist city council.

Last year they fired Wells Fargo as being the bank to handle the city's finances. They did it because they couldn't morally deal with the evil Wells Fargo because they were involved with the Keystone Pipeline.

Well, they are asking Wells Fargo to take them back, because after a year of looking, they couldn't find a bank that would take them.

They did manage to pass the head tax, but they congratulated themselves in coming to a compromise. They will extort only $275 per employee rather than $500.

Well, I look forward to them totally solving the problem of homelessness with all that money. Apparently, the millions of dollars they have already spent that made the problem worse over the past decade was because they didn't have the head tax on employment. If they don't, I'm sure it will be because they didn't get the full $500.

I always thought the left used taxes to discourage behavior they didn't approve of. I guess they don't like people being employed.
I'm curious, flock. Given the housing shortages in Seattle, the job environment has to mean that people are traveling to their jobs from greater distances, thereby putting more strain on Seattle's roads and other infrastructure. How would you like the City to pay for this? Shouldn't the employers who are benefiting bear a share of the expense? --Bob


I think you're conflating 2 issues. Homelessness and infrastructure.
Homeless people put a lot of strain on infrastructure. So do people commuting long distances to work. And at least here in Los Angeles, there are sizeable homeless encampments immediately outside the campus of a lot of Silicon Beach companies. Those encampments are, to say the least, aesthetically unpleasant to experience. Reducing their size is a direct benefit to the affected companies. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:59 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9024
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
I'm curious, flock. Given the housing shortages in Seattle, the job environment has to mean that people are traveling to their jobs from greater distances, thereby putting more strain on Seattle's roads and other infrastructure. How would you like the City to pay for this? Shouldn't the employers who are benefiting bear a share of the expense? --Bob


I think you're conflating 2 issues. Homelessness and infrastructure.
Homeless people put a lot of strain on infrastructure. So do people commuting long distances to work. And at least here in Los Angeles, there are sizeable homeless encampments immediately outside the campus of a lot of Silicon Beach companies. Those encampments are, to say the least, aesthetically unpleasant to experience. Reducing their size is a direct benefit to the affected companies. --Bob


Understand. Also lived in Seattle for 7 years and have friends,
relatives who are quite familiar with road crud. Homeless are not traversing the freeways from Lynnwood, Everett or Queen Anne Hill.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
I'm curious, flock. Given the housing shortages in Seattle, the job environment has to mean that people are traveling to their jobs from greater distances, thereby putting more strain on Seattle's roads and other infrastructure. How would you like the City to pay for this? Shouldn't the employers who are benefiting bear a share of the expense? --Bob


I think you're conflating 2 issues. Homelessness and infrastructure.
Homeless people put a lot of strain on infrastructure. So do people commuting long distances to work. And at least here in Los Angeles, there are sizeable homeless encampments immediately outside the campus of a lot of Silicon Beach companies. Those encampments are, to say the least, aesthetically unpleasant to experience. Reducing their size is a direct benefit to the affected companies. --Bob


The majority of people, according to a recent poll, have no confidence that the City Council will use this new revenue source they have created wisely. I am as empathetic towards the homeless as anyone else, but to continue to enable and encourage the behavior will only increase it. And that's what they will do. They have already spent millions, and only increased the problem.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 3:23 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:

I think you're conflating 2 issues. Homelessness and infrastructure.
Homeless people put a lot of strain on infrastructure. So do people commuting long distances to work. And at least here in Los Angeles, there are sizeable homeless encampments immediately outside the campus of a lot of Silicon Beach companies. Those encampments are, to say the least, aesthetically unpleasant to experience. Reducing their size is a direct benefit to the affected companies. --Bob


The majority of people, according to a recent poll, have no confidence that the City Council will use this new revenue source they have created wisely. I am as empathetic towards the homeless as anyone else, but to continue to enable and encourage the behavior will only increase it. And that's what they will do. They have already spent millions, and only increased the problem.
How do you think the money should be spent? How has the money already spent increased the problem?

It's easy to criticize, but there's a real problem here that needs solving. Seattle is at least trying something, and I, for one, believe that what they're trying is better than the status quo. Do you disagree? Do you have any proposals that you believe are preferred to the status quo and that would work better than Seattle's attempt? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Homeless people put a lot of strain on infrastructure. So do people commuting long distances to work. And at least here in Los Angeles, there are sizeable homeless encampments immediately outside the campus of a lot of Silicon Beach companies. Those encampments are, to say the least, aesthetically unpleasant to experience. Reducing their size is a direct benefit to the affected companies. --Bob


The majority of people, according to a recent poll, have no confidence that the City Council will use this new revenue source they have created wisely. I am as empathetic towards the homeless as anyone else, but to continue to enable and encourage the behavior will only increase it. And that's what they will do. They have already spent millions, and only increased the problem.
How do you think the money should be spent? How has the money already spent increased the problem?

It's easy to criticize, but there's a real problem here that needs solving. Seattle is at least trying something, and I, for one, believe that what they're trying is better than the status quo. Do you disagree? Do you have any proposals that you believe are preferred to the status quo and that would work better than Seattle's attempt? --Bob


The only thing that here that is different than the status quo is they extorted a lot more money for themselves. I have seen or heard of no new plans or new strategies to deal with the problem. They will just throw more money at it and continue to do the same things that haven't worked, but on a larger scale.

Here are the results of a survey of the homeless in Seattle.

http://mynorthwest.com/562286/homeless-study-finds/

Make of it what you will. I would support spending more money on the homeless problem if the proposal included enforcing laws against sleeping on the streets or camping in public parks. Get them off the streets and actually help them stay off the streets instead of enabling them to stay on the streets. The Seattle City Council will not do that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 1:45 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The only thing that here that is different than the status quo is they extorted a lot more money for themselves. I have seen or heard of no new plans or new strategies to deal with the problem. They will just throw more money at it and continue to do the same things that haven't worked, but on a larger scale.

Here are the results of a survey of the homeless in Seattle.

http://mynorthwest.com/562286/homeless-study-finds/

Make of it what you will. I would support spending more money on the homeless problem if the proposal included enforcing laws against sleeping on the streets or camping in public parks. Get them off the streets and actually help them stay off the streets instead of enabling them to stay on the streets. The Seattle City Council will not do that.
Here's the thing -- you can't criminalize homelessness. It's not just immoral (particularly when 40% of the homeless actually have jobs). The courts won't let you. And it's no answer to say that the law in its majesty treats all people equally, forbidding rich and poor alike to sleep on the streets or in public parks.

Creating alternatives takes money. It's entirely possible that the things they've tried haven't worked because there hasn't been enough money to spend on them. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The only thing that here that is different than the status quo is they extorted a lot more money for themselves. I have seen or heard of no new plans or new strategies to deal with the problem. They will just throw more money at it and continue to do the same things that haven't worked, but on a larger scale.

Here are the results of a survey of the homeless in Seattle.

http://mynorthwest.com/562286/homeless-study-finds/

Make of it what you will. I would support spending more money on the homeless problem if the proposal included enforcing laws against sleeping on the streets or camping in public parks. Get them off the streets and actually help them stay off the streets instead of enabling them to stay on the streets. The Seattle City Council will not do that.
Here's the thing -- you can't criminalize homelessness. It's not just immoral (particularly when 40% of the homeless actually have jobs). The courts won't let you. And it's no answer to say that the law in its majesty treats all people equally, forbidding rich and poor alike to sleep on the streets or in public parks.

Creating alternatives takes money. It's entirely possible that the things they've tried haven't worked because there hasn't been enough money to spend on them. --Bob


http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 9:39 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
The only thing that here that is different than the status quo is they extorted a lot more money for themselves. I have seen or heard of no new plans or new strategies to deal with the problem. They will just throw more money at it and continue to do the same things that haven't worked, but on a larger scale.

Here are the results of a survey of the homeless in Seattle.

http://mynorthwest.com/562286/homeless-study-finds/

Make of it what you will. I would support spending more money on the homeless problem if the proposal included enforcing laws against sleeping on the streets or camping in public parks. Get them off the streets and actually help them stay off the streets instead of enabling them to stay on the streets. The Seattle City Council will not do that.
Here's the thing -- you can't criminalize homelessness. It's not just immoral (particularly when 40% of the homeless actually have jobs). The courts won't let you. And it's no answer to say that the law in its majesty treats all people equally, forbidding rich and poor alike to sleep on the streets or in public parks.

Creating alternatives takes money. It's entirely possible that the things they've tried haven't worked because there hasn't been enough money to spend on them. --Bob


http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a large business would oppose being taxed and would publicly complain about it.. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Here's the thing -- you can't criminalize homelessness. It's not just immoral (particularly when 40% of the homeless actually have jobs). The courts won't let you. And it's no answer to say that the law in its majesty treats all people equally, forbidding rich and poor alike to sleep on the streets or in public parks.

Creating alternatives takes money. It's entirely possible that the things they've tried haven't worked because there hasn't been enough money to spend on them. --Bob


http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a large business would oppose being taxed and would publicly complain about it.. --Bob


bob-tel, let me clue you in on something.... Businesses don't get taxed. Their cost of doing business goes up. They adjust in many ways. Mostly by raising prices on the goods or services they produce or sell. Or in this case not hiring more employees or reducing the number of employees they have. Whatever way they adjust, it comes down to the fact that we, the end consumer, pays the tax, not the company.

The Seattle City Council understands economics even less than you do. Starbucks, Amazon, Microsoft, etc... they have the wherewithal to move where they do business if they think it would be more profitable to do so. No other city in the US imposes a head tax anywhere near this severe, and it was only half of what they wanted to do! Now if Amazon decides to move their headquarters to Atlanta, or Phoenix, or DC, Seattle won't just be losing their Head Tax, They would be losing all the employees that are moved. But its not limited to that. Any large business spawns a whole lot of support businesses that generate a lot of jobs. Janitorial services, construction, delivery, restaurants, retail, consulting, communication etc, etc, etc.
Yes, you are shocked that they would complain. Just the fact that they ARE complaining is an ominous sign. When's the last time you saw a public message like that which is so specific. It should be a warning signal for the SCC, but they don't seem to be hearing it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 16936
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
[bob-tel, let me clue you in on something.... Businesses don't get taxed. Their cost of doing business goes up. They adjust in many ways. Mostly by raising prices on the goods or services they produce or sell. Or in this case not hiring more employees or reducing the number of employees they have. Whatever way they adjust, it comes down to the fact that we, the end consumer, pays the tax, not the company.
You appear to misunderstand basic microeconomics. In competitive industries, business pricing is set primarily by competition, not by the cost structure. That's because if a business in such an industry attempts to raise its prices while its competitors don't, customers flock (you see what I did there?) to the competition instead.

Companies hire workers when they expect the value added by the worker to exceed the worker's cost. I have a very hard time believing that a worker who will get hired at the cost of a six-figure salary (remember, we're talking about headquarters employees) plus benefits will suddenly become uneconomical when $250 is added to that cost.

What's left? The affected companies will make less profit. (By the way, the same phenomenon in reverse explains why the recent enormous business tax cuts haven't translated to higher wages for workers. The companies are using their increased profits for stock buy-backs, just as economists said they would. Score one for the scientific method and billionaires. Score one against the middle class.)

I'm not worried about a tax of this magnitude affecting either pricing or employment. The real risk Seattle is taking is that its large employers will find the tax sufficiently onerous, with little enough benefit, that it becomes worth the considerable price of relocating. Seattle is obviously gambling that its unique features, the benefits it offers (including those funded by the new tax), and the cost of a move will deter this from occurring. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 3864
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
[bob-tel, let me clue you in on something.... Businesses don't get taxed. Their cost of doing business goes up. They adjust in many ways. Mostly by raising prices on the goods or services they produce or sell. Or in this case not hiring more employees or reducing the number of employees they have. Whatever way they adjust, it comes down to the fact that we, the end consumer, pays the tax, not the company.
You appear to misunderstand basic microeconomics. In competitive industries, business pricing is set primarily by competition, not by the cost structure. That's because if a business in such an industry attempts to raise its prices while its competitors don't, customers flock (you see what I did there?) to the competition instead.

Companies hire workers when they expect the value added by the worker to exceed the worker's cost. I have a very hard time believing that a worker who will get hired at the cost of a six-figure salary (remember, we're talking about headquarters employees) plus benefits will suddenly become uneconomical when $250 is added to that cost.

What's left? The affected companies will make less profit. (By the way, the same phenomenon in reverse explains why the recent enormous business tax cuts haven't translated to higher wages for workers. The companies are using their increased profits for stock buy-backs, just as economists said they would. Score one for the scientific method and billionaires. Score one against the middle class.)

I'm not worried about a tax of this magnitude affecting either pricing or employment. The real risk Seattle is taking is that its large employers will find the tax sufficiently onerous, with little enough benefit, that it becomes worth the considerable price of relocating. Seattle is obviously gambling that its unique features, the benefits it offers (including those funded by the new tax), and the cost of a move will deter this from occurring. --Bob


What you are describing is, in other words, extortion. Thank you for that clarification. And the targetted businesses will have many places which will be more than happy to host them and offer them incentives to move there, rather than treating them as a cash cow.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.