[mc32]

So let me see if I understand this. Companies hire people, they become successful and make their employeees successful (at least their non warehouse, non call center employees) making the city and population at large successful; growing the economy. For that good they get taxed more? It’s no wonder AMZ for one is looking for an HQ2 location.

I know it makes people feel good, but honestly, the only answer to homelessness is a federal approach. Piecemeal approaches tend to attract people to homeless friendly places creating a positive feedback loop.

Why not go the whole hog and institute an “automation tax”. Tax companies for every job they automate which leads to an unemployed willing worker, avoiding the creation of a homeless pop. This would be less ridiculous.

[NotSammyHagar]

There's not a good way to get more revenue to cover the infrastructure needed as companies hire more employees. We don't have income taxes here. If we did, as you hire an employee you'd get more revenue to cover the fractional cost of bus service, etc. A head tax is a way to do that. Are you against income taxes? They could accomplish the same thing.

[whb07]

Florida and Texas do not have income tax and yet they appear to not suffer from the same ailments that the city of Seattle and SF are suffering from.

In a couple of years the city council will move to raise the head tax, stating that their new record tax receipts are not enough to implement their working solution. It is easy to spend money that isn't yours.

The city of Seattle has had record tax receipts for the past couple of years and yet they somehow are always "short" on money.

[NotSammyHagar]

Saying Seattle has record revenue is just a completely misleading thing to say, without enough information. Your comment doesn't clarify anything about whether Seattle is spending money poorly or wisely. Seattle's costs have been going up, partly because lots more people have been moving here, and we don't have income taxes, and businesses can hire more people without that leading to increased tax revenue. The city has to build more infrastructure to handle us (roads, transit, bike lanes, tunnels). There's no clear match between infrastructure needs and revenue.

[whb07]

As you can see from the data[0] the city itself raises tax through a variety of channels. The largest being property, business, and retail taxes. As you can imagine, when the city grows all those enumerated taxes grow accordingly. As you can see in data[1] the tax receipts for the years 2000 is roughly $600ish million. For the 17-18 fiscal years, according to data[0] Seattle had receipts of $1.1-1.2 billion.

So tax revenues for the city are close to 100% increase. If you see the Census for the year 2000, the population of Seattle is at 564k. For the year 2016, the population is at 750k or so. So a 100% tax revenue increase and a 50% population increase. I'd dare say the city council is just belligerent with other people's money.

Also, there is a legitimate far left socialist on the board. You should watch the Shapiro debate against the Seattle $15 min wage. She's full of ideas with no substance to back it up.

[0]https://sccinsight.com/2016/10/03/understanding-the-seattle-...

[1]https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/0102Adopted/City%2...

[NotSammyHagar]

Saying it should be federal problem means nothing will happen. First, half the nation hates anything to do with us evil left coasters. Second, the govt is not that functional, nationally right now.

[taurath]

> making the city and population at large successful; growing the economy

The economy doesn't grow for most of the population, only those with the ability and skills to ride the wave. The rest are pushed out and forgotten. This is like asking why someone like Trump would get elected when GDP is at an all time high.