Evil politicians give big tax breaks to super-wealthy, big business: Guess where?

[PeshakJang]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sa...-break-plan-2011-04-05-1830150?dist=afterbell

-The aforementioned measure passed today

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/03/twitter-tax-break-takes-stage

San Francisco’s best shot to prevent Twitter from migrating south faces a key vote Wednesday on whether to give the microblogging service a six-year tax break.

The growing San Francisco-based company has explored a move to Brisbane, where its business costs would be lower. San Francisco has a 1.5 percent payroll tax whereas Brisbane does not have one.

Before we go any further... I'd just like to point out that this scenario is a stated impossibility, as defined by the left. Raising taxes WILL NOT cause businesses to relocate. This has been said over and over again, most loudly when IL raised corporate taxes to record levels. Taxes WILL NOT cause a business to relocate. IMPOSSIBLE.

Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes the mid-Market Street area where Twitter would move, has broken from predecessor Chris Daly’s stance and is advocating for the passage of legislation that would give Twitter a six-year payroll tax break if it decides to move into the building at Market and Ninth streets.

The tax break would apply to all qualifying businesses that relocate to the portion of the Tenderloin and the mid-Market Street area that city officials hope to revitalize.

“I’m philosophically against cutting taxes,” Kim said Monday. “I’ve had to think about this long and hard. This is targeted enough. It’s specific enough. It’s short enough.”

Carrying this legislation through the board process is the first big political test for Kim, who came into office in January.

On Wednesday, the legislation, which has generated criticism from the more progressive political factions of San Francisco, is before the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee for its first hearing. If approved, the full board could take action as soon as next week.

Kim said she has been addressing the concerns of her colleagues.
Supervisor John Avalos said the proposal doesn’t seem fair given the financial struggles of residents in his district.

“Who are the [Twitter] investors?” he said. “Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth.”

Stereotypical, laughably retarded comment from the resident token liberal.

The business stated that it would leave if the tax break didn't go through. This lib stated that he would rather see the business pick up and leave the area completely, as that would be more "fair".

Kim said she plans to amend the legislation Wednesday to “shrink” the area of the tax exemption to ensure it applies only to parcels with a long history of vacancies.

A report from budget analyst Harvey Rose raised some concerns about the possibility that Twitter’s job growth is less than projected. The City might have a difficult time delivering increased service levels “to meet the demands of a large company while potentially reducing payroll tax revenues.” The City and Twitter have negotiated increased services such as extending a foot-patrol police beat to the area and an express Muni line.

“In some ways, this legislation is a leap of faith,” Kim said. “But there have been so many attempts to revitalize mid-Market and none of them worked. We are going to give this one a shot.”

The City Controller’s Office is expected to release an economic impact report on the proposal today.

Impossible to spin. Failed policies and failed ideologies trying to be corrected with conservative, business-friendly policies meant to keep employment in the city.

Goddamn that EVIL company Twitter, and their big-business rich-person executives... they are just as bad as big oil and Google. Evil to the core.
​

 

[fskimospy]

That was an awful lot of typing you just did for a strawman argument.

 

[PeshakJang]

That was an awful lot of typing you just did for a strawman argument.

It's cute how you don't seem to understand what a straw man argument it.... but you try anyway

 

[fskimospy]

It's cute how you don't seem to understand what a straw man argument it.... but you try anyway

A straw man argument is when you intentionally misrepresent the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to defeat. Your claim that liberals believe taxes could NEVER cause a business to relocate is pretty much the definition of a straw man.

Perhaps if you understood the definition better you would write better posts.

 

[Matt1970]

Businesses flock to areas of lower taxes all the time. States even bid tax breaks to businesses to get them to move there.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Supervisor John Avalos said the proposal doesn’t seem fair given the financial struggles of residents in his district.

“Who are the [Twitter] investors?” he said. “Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth.”

CalPERS heavily invests in venture capital funds. Venture capital funds invest in Twitter. That makes the above statement one of the most idiotic things I've seen in a long while.

 

[boomerang]

It's fun watching the kids grow up. Taking their first steps and all... Ah, they grow up so slowly.

 

[First]

lmao. Your threads are terrible.

 

[PeshakJang]

A straw man argument is when you intentionally misrepresent the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to defeat. Your claim that liberals believe taxes could NEVER cause a business to relocate is pretty much the definition of a straw man.

Perhaps if you understood the definition better you would write better posts.

That's why we need to raise the corporate tax rate right? Because we can raise it as much as we want and businesses will not leave America, right?

That's why we need to raise taxes on the ultra-wealth, right? Because we can raise it as much as we want and rich people will just pony up, and certainly not leave, right?

Commonly repeated liberal arguments. It can even be inferred from the idiotic comment in the news piece.

 

[fskimospy]

That's why we need to raise the corporate tax rate right? Because we can raise it as much as we want and businesses will not leave America, right?

That's why we need to raise taxes on the ultra-wealth, right? Because we can raise it as much as we want and rich people will just pony up, and certainly not leave, right?

Commonly repeated liberal arguments. It can even be inferred from the idiotic comment in the news piece.

You can't be this stupid. Someone advocating for a higher tax rate does not equal an endorsement of unlimited, consequence free tax hikes. Maybe I was giving you too much credit by calling your argument a straw man. That requires intent to misrepresent, and now I'm starting to think maybe you actually believe something this dumb.

Using your logic, a counter example:
Republicans want to lower the tax rate? WELL I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY TAXATION EVER HURR HURR. GOD THEY'RE SO DUMB, ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ESKIMOSPY.