|
|
|
|
|
|
by hobs
3701 days ago
|
|
|
If you fail to see the issue, here is a paragraph from the article highlighting it: Companies with more than $1 million in payroll signed community benefits agreements in exchange for the tax breaks. In 2014 and 2015 alone, those agreements yielded 17,000 volunteer hours, $1.7 million in cash grants and $2.5 million in donations, according to a city tally. The tax breaks have spurred job growth and revenue from sales and property taxes, the city said. But the tax breaks have so far cost the city nearly $40 million. So, companies received tax breaks that were supposed to help the community but seems to have cost it millions.
I don't see how anyone here commenting can come to another conclusion given this sentence. The only argument I could see making is one where the money would have never been spent in this way, but that is an argument that we should pay corporations millions so that we can get a pittance for our poor; this doesnt make sense to me. |
|
|
This assumes a world where Twitter (or a Twitter like) company would have moved into what was an effectively abandoned building. They didn't displace $40M of tax revenue that would have been there and it's unlikely that they would have moved there. Now that neighborhood has a market, a coffee shop, several restaurants and a bar (all paying taxes that likely wouldn't have existed).
It seems like the city got more than they were hoping for. The neighborhood is improved, safer and no one was displaced. Square and Uber are next door and aren't getting any tax breaks (they moved into the old bank of america building which wasn't eligible for any of the tax breaks). The taxes from those two new companies along with the restaurants, shops, etc don't seem to be reflected in the (what seems to be) completely made up $40 M number.