corporate taxes are not really ideally implemented at the municipal level, or else you end up in a regional race to the bottom, like w/ the Amazon HQ2 debacle.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @emilymbadger
Okay, let's make municipal taxation a debate for another thread. But the question here is what is today's federal corporate tax rates in comparison to 1975 during peak periods of federal investments? And years in between. Is there any correlation between those two trendlines?pic.twitter.com/VHZ3NbBfFP
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcohensf @emilymbadger
I'm generally pro-progressive and corporate taxation at the federal level and state level (though a little more particular on design at the state level), and mostly anti-Reaganist... so are you trying to create a point of disagreement?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @emilymbadger
Not creating disagreement. Your original comment was "its not a single company's job to make up for fed govt spending 1/3 of what it used to on low income housing." My guess is fed corporate taxes are also lower today. So perhaps it does now fall to local companies to step up...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pcohensf @emilymbadger
The scale of the issue is much larger than what one company can do and creating that illusion among an electorate enables them to absolve themselves of making larger systemic changes to the way we look at land and housing. Also, at a municipal level, it’s really not the best way
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To address the issue, since cities (like Palo Alto) will set bad faith asks that make them feel good while protecting their $3M+ home values and don’t do anything to fix their 3:1 jobs:housing ratio.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Then OTOH, you have San Jose which has for a long time provided the housing that PA doesn’t provide to its workforce and as a result, has a precarious city budget where they have to bend over backwards to attract tax revenue sources like Google.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
At a state or regional level, it would make sense to pool or increase Corp/commercial RE revenue, but at a city level, it creates all of these bad incentives, particularly in a governmentally fragmented region like the one we live in today.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @emilymbadger
Good argument. To be continued....
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pcohensf @emilymbadger
Like do I think the Msft fund is good in the short term — in part because lots of non-profit developers have told me they need a redeployable pool of capital to acquire land and sites? Sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But in the long-run, I’d worry that voters and taxpayers would say — I don’t have to do anything because that’s Microsoft’s responsibility — which is ***totally*** what a city like Palo Alto would do.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.