It is a very well crafted statement with zero content. Whoever wrote this must be applauded for his effort to conceal a stance against higher taxes for being higher taxes as a stance against taxing in the wrong way.
-
-
-
2/ and I am in no way against or for prop c in this statement, rather just highlighting the argumentative thinness and sublime, yet misleading use of language.
-
Huh? I actually found this to be very informative and learned a lot by reading it. If what Stripe is saying were true, how could they have better made the argument?
-
The problem is it obfuscates. Stripe and Square's real problem with Prop C is they don't think the proposed tax rate for financial services co's (vs. other industries) is fair or works for their business models. Fine. But Stripe is hiding behind the other red herring arguments.
-
This tweet from Dorsey is their real reason for opposition. Again, could be legit and they should have engaged with the supporters beforehand to change it. But instead they've been hiding behind "we support the mayor" and "it's not a problem of funding".https://twitter.com/jack/status/1053312149815091200?s=19 …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
My god man, the argument isn't about being for or against 'the homeless', but whether your company is willing to take on a miniscule tax burden to abate this crisis. Just say that you aren't and spare us from the 1000 word digression.
-
the argument has literally been framed as “for or against homelessness” by marc benioff, the architect of prop c’s disinformation campaign. prop c has no plan to actually fix the problem. no one is saying they don’t want to pay. they’re asking for a plan before they pay.
-
comprehensive
-
...or maybe just bad faith.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
if folks spent as much on Prop C as they did for a bill to overhaul zoning regulation, we’d do a lot more for the homeless problem. But, tackling zoning doesnt make one an easy hero. its harder and more complex. kudos
@patrickc on this blog postThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I will eat my shoe the day you lift a finger to support a citizen’s initiative that taxes you
-
you don’t get to be a billionaire and sit while these people die in the cold. you know that supportive housing takes a tremendous amount of money to build at scale. so let’s be real: you just want to stay in the three comma clubhttps://twitter.com/uhshanti/status/1053449544975835137?s=21 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You never specifically mention why STRIPE is against the proposition. It’s one thing to say you disagree with the fundamentals of the prop, but for a company to take a stance on a proposition specifically… feels like there’s other issues not mentioned.
-
I think this is a really good statement and that they’re saying *why* they oppose the bill, in a political way: basically, they think SF has no clue on how to solve the issue, and just pouring more money without a good plan is not going to fix it. They can’t, of course say:
-
Here’s the thing - that’s a totally valid reason for an individual to be against the bill, it’s less clear/transparent when it’s an entire company who’s mission is payments. It’s clear there’s a business reason at stake, and I think they should include that.
-
That’s true. There’s no clear “business reason”. It is signed by
@patrickc though. Anyway, I hope you folks can solve this issue soon. Good luck fellow dev! -
Most important thing not mentioned is that this is a revenue tax. Payment companies operate at roughly 15%-25% margins while SaaS (salesforce, Twitter, etc) operate at 70% margins. Stripe and Square would essentially pay more tax than companies 10x their size
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.