WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:02 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
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.
What I'm describing is asking businesses to pay some of the local costs associated with their operations.

The evidence, by the way, suggests that you're mistaken about higher taxes inevitably leading to a worse economy and lower taxes inevitably leading to a better economy. Services and labor-force quality matter too. Kansas is one data point. California, which recently surpassed the United Kingdom as the world's fourth largest economy, is another. --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 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
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.
What I'm describing is asking businesses to pay some of the local costs associated with their operations.

The evidence, by the way, suggests that you're mistaken about higher taxes inevitably leading to a worse economy and lower taxes inevitably leading to a better economy. Services and labor-force quality matter too. Kansas is one data point. California, which recently surpassed the United Kingdom as the world's fourth largest economy, is another. --Bob

If they were an effective city council, they could deal with the problem without imposing another tax that no other place in the country has done. Seattle is booming because of these businesses, and so is their tax revenue. Some of the blame may rest on these businesses, but I believe most of the blame lies on the city government and their short-sighted, ideologically driven policies, which Starbucks referred to in their statement:
Quote:
This City continues to spend without reforming and fail without accountability


And I don't think it's any news that Starbucks is not exactly a right-wing enterprise. So if they're complaining, there must be a real problem.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9928
Location: In Texas of course!
Maybe I've missed it in the discussion but I see the downside of the tax being the additional spending on the homeless. While that may seem worthwhile and commendable, what is to prevent the problem from getting worse. Does Seattle really want to the America's Best City To Be Homeless In?

Feeding the bears kills the bears.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
BackInTex wrote:
Maybe I've missed it in the discussion but I see the downside of the tax being the additional spending on the homeless. While that may seem worthwhile and commendable, what is to prevent the problem from getting worse. Does Seattle really want to the America's Best City To Be Homeless In?

Feeding the bears kills the bears.


The big problem is that they imposed this tax without specifically saying HOW they're going to spend it. If they spend it the way they have in the past, the problem will just grow larger, as it has been. And they seem to ignore the input that they get from the citizens of the city and do what they think is best for them. Like imposing the BAD idea of "Safe Injection Sites". This idea was supposed to be voted on, but some activist judge decided that the issue was too 'technical' to be decided by the dumb citizens. However, they could vote to legalize marijuana.

https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/supervised-injection-site-ban-king-county-seattle-12282135.php

And some lucky neighborhood gets to win the lottery and host one of these clinics! Bet it won't be near where any of the SCC lives. The heroin dealers will be setting up shop where ever they pick.

This how the SCC operates, and I don't blame the targetted companies for being worried.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
It has just been reported that this tax, far from being a vehicle for the SCC to develop more programs to help the homeless (that don't work), is actually a vehicle to hide a large deficit that is forecasted for next year. Despite the large influx of tax revenue due to the fact that Seattle has been booming, the SCC has managed to overspend it. And they are doing everything they can to stop the booming, which will reduce their tax revenue. I will never understand democrats and the people who support them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
It has just been reported that this tax, far from being a vehicle for the SCC to develop more programs to help the homeless (that don't work), is actually a vehicle to hide a large deficit that is forecasted for next year. Despite the large influx of tax revenue due to the fact that Seattle has been booming, the SCC has managed to overspend it. And they are doing everything they can to stop the booming, which will reduce their tax revenue. I will never understand democrats and the people who support them.
Your uncited sources must be kind of slow. There have been stories in the local press for months about Seattle running a small budget deficit (approximately 2% of its budget), Seattle's historical pattern of actually spending less money than it has budgeted (so that projected deficits don't always materialize into actual deficits), the fraction of the general fund balance needed to cover that deficit if it does occur, and the steps the City has been taking to eliminate that deficit prior to passing the new tax. Nothing about this was "just reported," which implies that the City Council snuck something through in order to fool the citizens. --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: Mon May 21, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
It has just been reported that this tax, far from being a vehicle for the SCC to develop more programs to help the homeless (that don't work), is actually a vehicle to hide a large deficit that is forecasted for next year. Despite the large influx of tax revenue due to the fact that Seattle has been booming, the SCC has managed to overspend it. And they are doing everything they can to stop the booming, which will reduce their tax revenue. I will never understand democrats and the people who support them.
Your uncited sources must be kind of slow. There have been stories in the local press for months about Seattle running a small budget deficit (approximately 2% of its budget), Seattle's historical pattern of actually spending less money than it has budgeted (so that projected deficits don't always materialize into actual deficits), the fraction of the general fund balance needed to cover that deficit if it does occur, and the steps the City has been taking to eliminate that deficit prior to passing the new tax. Nothing about this was "just reported," which implies that the City Council snuck something through in order to fool the citizens. --Bob


You read the local press in Seattle down there in la-la land? How do you find time in the midst of trying to get trump out of office?

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/policy/breakdown-seattle-city-council-gets-some-bad-budget-news


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You read the local press in Seattle down there in la-la land? How do you find time in the midst of trying to get trump out of office?

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/policy/breakdown-seattle-city-council-gets-some-bad-budget-news
There's this thing called the Internet. You may have heard of it. It turns out that it's possible to find previously published stories there, sometimes as far as years back. There's this other thing called Google. It turns out to be of some assistance in finding the stuff on the Internet that you're actually interested in, because there's a whole bunch of stuff on the Internet and it would take a very long time to read it all.

The Seattle Times has been covering the budget issue for months. --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: Mon May 21, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You read the local press in Seattle down there in la-la land? How do you find time in the midst of trying to get trump out of office?

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/policy/breakdown-seattle-city-council-gets-some-bad-budget-news
There's this thing called the Internet. You may have heard of it. It turns out that it's possible to find previously published stories there, sometimes as far as years back. There's this other thing called Google. It turns out to be of some assistance in finding the stuff on the Internet that you're actually interested in, because there's a whole bunch of stuff on the Internet and it would take a very long time to read it all.

The Seattle Times has been covering the budget issue for months. --Bob

Thanks for that information, bob-tel. I'll have to check out the internet (is that how you spell it?) But in the meantime, The Seattle Times has apparently not addressed this issue yet. It has been reported on local radio from NPR to conservative talk shows.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm
Posts: 2541
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.


Yes, because the housing in every less regulated state is notorious for being unfit for human habitation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Spock wrote:
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.


Yes, because the housing in every less regulated state is notorious for being unfit for human habitation.


Well, bob-tel reads the Seattle Times over the internet and uses google, so he knows everything about what's going on up here. I guess I'll defer to him. He is probably ethical legal counsel to Kshama Sawant. (Which is a very pretty and wonderful name that I have no objection to, either consciously or sub-consciously. I am seriously thinking of changing my name to be the same as hers, since I respect the name so much. She, however, is unfit for public office, but her name is great.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 4:01 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9387
Location: Location.Location.Location
Flock, many years since I lived there, tho bro and friends do, but is the Seattle PI still viable?

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Beebs52 wrote:
Flock, many years since I lived there, tho bro and friends do, but is the Seattle PI still viable?

Kinda but not really. It stopped printing in 2009, and is only online now, and wikipedia said it transferred all its print subscribers to the Times.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
The Seattle City Council has reluctantly bowed to public outrage and repealed their Head Tax on employment. All but Kshama "Jeff Bezos is our enemy" Sawant, the socialist and one other quasi-socialist on the Council.

Citizen groups had already raised more than enough signatures to put the Head Tax repeal on the November ballot, and polls indicate a good 80% against the head tax. But, of course, I see an article from USA Today entitled "In a fast about-face, Seattle caves to Amazon, overturns landmark corporate head tax". It was the people of Seattle quickly reacting to a unilateral, dictatorial move by the extremists on the Council along with many of the other targets of this tax, not just Amazon. Is there light at the end of the tunnel toward getting some mature, informed adults to run the City of Seattle?


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 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.