Will Seattle'' s ' Amazon Tax ' Spark Copycat Proposals Aimed at Silicon Valley'' s Greatest Firms?

Worker Tax Targeting Top Companies Discovers Favor in California Tech Markets Dealing With High Real Estate Costs, Traffic Jam

Inspired by Seattle’s controversial effort to impose a ‘head tax’ on its largest employers, the Silicon Valley cities of Cupertino, the home of Apple’s new spacehip complex, and Mountain View, the area of Alphabet’s sprawling Googleplex, are running to certify similar tax procedures on California’s Nov. 6 regional tally.

Meanwhile, officials in Sunnyvale and a number of other close-by cities, are pondering their own worker tax steps.

The recent moves in California expose how deeply the Seattle tax procedure, which passed last month despite scathing criticism and risks to halt expansion from Amazon.com, has actually resonated with leaders in tech markets who are having a hard time to resolve installing issues over traffic jam, increasing real estate costs and other undesirable byproducts of the extended tech market boom.

The Mountain View City board voted unanimously Tuesday to progress with strategies to approve a progressive tax measure that would raise approximately $10 million a year by imposing a tax on a half-dozen of the city’s biggest employers, led by Google, which has 24,000 employees and would undergo a tax of up to $6.6 million a year. The council is set up to take a last vote on the step June 26 to put the step before citizens in five months.

Surrounding Cupertino commissioned a survey of citizens by Voxloca which found that 71 percent of most likely city citizens in November support gradually increasing the business tax on the city’s largest companies. Business with over 5,000 workers would pay the greatest tax, and Cupertino only has among those, Apple, which at 26,000 employees makes up two-thirds of the employment base. Apple opened its brand-new $5 billion, 13,000-employee Apple Park head office last year, and thousands more work at Apple’s storied 1 Infinite Loop address and surrounding structures.

Apple would be levied a $7.4 million annual tax under a situation detailed by city personnel this week, while a sole owner with a one-room workplace would pay about $160. A small store or average-size dining establishment inhabiting a 2,000 square feet of business space would be taxed about $220 a year, while a big grocer like Safeway would pay about $1,700.

No Apple agent spoke prior to the council, however, and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce board member Kevin McClelland stated while the chamber supports transportation enhancements and he does not have an objection in concept to a service tax, he advised the city proceed thoroughly and take its time, shooting for the 2020 tally.

“There seems to be a great deal of rush, with a lack of information,” McClelland said. “There are thoughtful methods this can be done.”

Other council members, consisting of Steven Scharf and previous Mayor Barry Chang, said waiting up until 2020 would indicate missing out on 2 years of potential earnings to discover local options to the region’s traffic and real estate issues.

“We have a major transportation issue,” Chang said. “I wish to see us get it done this year. It will be a disaster if we don’t do anything.”

The council accepted consider the procedure again at its June 19 meeting and need to approve legislation by July 3 to quality for inclusion on the November ballot.


Like many big companies, Amazon has actually long utilized the power of facility site choice as a bargaining chip in tax issues with states and cities, and its anger over being singled out under the Seattle law has drawn headings across the country.

Nevertheless, a handful of cities already have some kind of company tax based upon employee headcount, consisting of Denver and Pittsburgh. A minimum of so far, Apple, Google and other big companies have not released statements crucial of the efforts in Cupertino and Mountain View.

Tax policy analysts vary on the net efficiency of taxes targeting large employers. Some professionals argue that they indirectly hurt smaller business that gather around huge business, while other experts preserve a head tax is a reasonable choice for city governments having a hard time to raise income to deal with growth problems associated with the tech company’s quick growth of the tech firms.

“Plainly these propositions target the tech sector, coming as they perform in the hometowns of Alphabet, Apple, and Amazon,” said Jared Walczak, senior policy analyst at the Tax Structure. “However while these taxes might target the ‘As,’ their impact ranges from A to Z.”

The effect of a head tax extends far beyond the largest employers, Walczak competes, often hitting low-margin organisations like supermarkets and smaller sized business such as providers and smaller sized tech companies wishing to lie near an Amazon or Apple. Those companies might take a big hit if major companies reduce their footprint.

“If incomes are tight now, imagine what they could be if work declines,” Walczak said.

While Walczak acknowledges large companies like Amazon and Google can trigger included traffic jam and strain other services, “how a city raises additional earnings matters.”

“Whatever you tax, you get less of. Imposing a new tax on rather literally utilizing individuals is the wrong technique,” he said.

A head tax might be an excellent alternative to raise required revenue offered minimal regional fundraising options, countered Steven M. Rosenthal and Richard C. Auxier, senior fellow and research relate to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Organization.

“We agree that Seattle could create its head tax a little better. But the root concern, and one that other cities might watch closely, is: how are fiscally constrained cities expected to discover earnings as their populations and services grow?” Auxier and Rosenthal said in a current commentary.

They further kept in mind that other U.S. cities, such as Pittsburgh and Denver, have smaller employee tax programs that raise more modest sums from companies.

Pittsburgh’s tax is $52 a year on staff members engaging in a profession within the city while Denver enforces a $117 annual tax on workers who carry out services in the city, with earnings used to money cops, fire, emergency situation medical and other services.

“The cities believe the expenses of these kinds of services belong to work levels,” Rosenthal and Auxier said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *