“They” should pay their fair share

“Seattle’s latest tax proposal to combat homelessness takes aim at large businesses such as Amazon that have helped drive the city’s economic boom.

But the measure has sparked intense debate — even shouting matches in otherwise reserved Seattle — over who should pay to solve the housing crisis exacerbated by that growth.

The City Council is proposing a tax on employee hours to raise about $75 million a year for affordable housing and homelessness services. Nearly 600 large employers making at least $20 million in gross revenues would pay about $500 a year per worker.

Amazon, the city’s largest employer, would take the biggest hit.

Supporters insist the online retailer and others that have benefited from Seattle’s prosperity and contributed to growing income inequality and skyrocketing rents can and should pay.


Businesses and others say the so-called head tax is misguided and potentially harmful. They question whether the city is effectively using the tens of millions of dollars it already spends on homelessness each year.

Amazon raised the stakes last week when it halted construction planning on a 17-story tower near its hometown headquarters as it awaits a tax vote. It is also rethinking filling office space in another leased building.

The company has more than 45,000 workers, meaning it would pay more than $20 million a year under the tax. It would likely owe even more when the tax switches to a 0.7 per cent tax on business payroll in 2021.”

More at link

http://theprovince.com/pmn/new...0b8345b318f#comments

More broken record here, how much of those tax monies would actually improve the lives of the homeless? Vs how much would be siphoned off in admin, or spent somewhere entirely different? They are Democrats you know.

Socialism is always the answer.

quote:

Amazon, the city’s largest employer, would take the biggest hit.

A semi-rhetorical question: when Amazon books out of there and moves to a city without such ridiculousness, what then?

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
More broken record here, how much of those tax monies would actually improve the lives of the homeless? Vs how much would be siphoned off in admin, or spent somewhere entirely different? They are Democrats you know.

How much of that money will be spent on "affordable housing" only to have the siding removed and scrapped for dope money, the inside trashed, and made virtually unlivable and in need of being condemned shortly.

Seems as if most people that are handed things never take care of them, despite the "model" family they always trot out when they need positive press.

Despite the insistence of many who advocate for more of other people's money to "combat" homelessness, most do so by choice, due to drug addiction or mental illness, or a combination of both. Virtually every "community kitchen" spends as much time cleaning up the styrofoam containers from a block around the soup kitchen as the "homeless" eat and just drop their trash no the ground.

Haha!!! I find it rich that one of the richest companies with progressive policies suddenly doesn't like it when its own mindset is turned against them.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Amazon, the city’s largest employer, would take the biggest hit.

A semi-rhetorical question: when Amazon books out of there and moves to a city without such ridiculousness, what then?

Isn't Bezo a total liberal. Surprised he hasn’t just bucked up on his own.

Just another failed democrat SCAM to fleece the pockets of hard working, successful individuals and companies. This is what you get when you elect left wing, liberal, progressive democrats.

So essentially they are wanting to bite the hand that feeds.

Would be great if Amazon popped smoke and set up elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
More broken record here, how much of those tax monies would actually improve the lives of the homeless? Vs how much would be siphoned off in admin, or spent somewhere entirely different? They are Democrats you know.

How much of that money will be spent on "affordable housing" only to have the siding removed and scrapped for dope money, the inside trashed, and made virtually unlivable and in need of being condemned shortly.

Seems as if most people that are handed things never take care of them, despite the "model" family they always trot out when they need positive press.

Despite the insistence of many who advocate for more of other people's money to "combat" homelessness, most do so by choice, due to drug addiction or mental illness, or a combination of both. Virtually every "community kitchen" spends as much time cleaning up the styrofoam containers from a block around the soup kitchen as the "homeless" eat and just drop their trash no the ground.

Sadly, you make a good point. We try to provide a safety net, too many use it as a hammock.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:...Isn't Bezo a total liberal. Surprised he hasn’t just bucked up on his own.

Silly, socialism is to be generious with other people's money, not your own money.

Seattle can always be trusted to spend taxpayer money wisely.

Remember those five self cleaning toilets for $5 million.
The drug addicts loved them, but they didn't last long.
Seattle sold them on e-bay to guy that hauled trash and ran a dirt track.
Sold 'em at a steeply discounted price they did.

How about those green bikes.
Great idea.

Turned out people only rode them down hill and not in the rain, who would have guessed.
Completely forgot there were hills, and it rains in Seattle they did.

$20 million in Seattle is Chump change.
Amazon has more money than that.
They need to think big.

Wait until Amazon announces they are leaving Seattle, the "the wise politicians will then raise the taxes on anyone remaining". Then the stampede will really be on.

Me, I'll be rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. One of these days all these Snowflakes are going to realize that pipe dreams are just that. An Economy only functions well when a majority of the population is actually Contributing to that Economy and when you fail in insure that happens you end up in the Shitter.

The reason there's "housing issues" is because of the policies they've enacted.

With the lack of any meaningful mass transit or infrastructure- Why would you build in Seattle to begin with?

So... let's punish those creating jobs to help with those who don't have one.

Typical liberal backwards bullshit.... You companies and employers are "enjoying" the growth of Seattle. Of course no way can they admit these companies are responsible for that success and growth.

Amazon already announced they are putting 8,000 jobs and construction on hold. This appears to have actually made an impact in this tax debate, as amazon is looking for a new headquarters Location. The money is nothing, Seattle already spent $50,000,000 plus on homeless this year. Most of it going to six figure crony consultant jobs. And to truly cap off how dumb that city is, every time one of the bike sharing (tax funded) bikes kimber1911 mentioned is left on a ferry, a full blown man overboard search is launched. The helicopter search of one instance was cited at $17,000.

Let the liberals destroy themselves. Unreal.

"Supporters insist the online retailer and others that have benefited from Seattle’s prosperity and contributed to growing income inequality and skyrocketing rents can and should pay."

In a real sense, one need read nothing else than the sentence above to understand the "looking glass" thinking that liberals use when forming ideas economic.

Seattle: Fifty years from a total S-hole.

Silent

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
Let the liberals destroy themselves. Unreal.

Sadly they will migrate to conservative areas that are thriving and spread their liberal nonsense like a cancer.

Basic economics says that anything you subsidize, you get more of than you should.

In other words, if you want more homeless, just subsidize them.

Look at the civic areas that throw millions away on homelessness....how many (if any) of them actually recorded a drop in homelessness? Or has the count risen with the subsidies, as predicted by the dismal science?