Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Tax Controversy Explained In Cartoon Form
theodp writes "If you prefer to digest your news in a cartoon format, you'll be happy to know that the Twitter tax controversy has gotten the Next Media Animation TV treatment. In the NMAtv clip, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone cuts a tax break with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and ascends a ladder to 'Tax-Free Haven' where he's high-fived by execs from GE and Google. If you insist on reading the news, IBD has an account of the payroll tax break, which critics are calling corporate welfare."
A hilarious, but true, story. Please remember, when you see 'haven' instead of 'heaven,' that English isn't everyone's first language.
admittedly it's a bad pun, but would it really be surprising that the taiwanese media have a better grasp of english than slashdot editors?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
English audio for those who don't like reading subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1evfTk58o
Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
Seriously?
What the fuck? Now you're mocking people for using the term "haven"? A perfectly acceptable word when talking about tax-free locations.
Dictionary.com definition of "haven"
Now, as a person for whom English is his 3rd language, allow me to dumb down my judgment of Roblimo's IQ and knowledge of English to a level that even he should be able to understand, despite it having three syllables: Imbecile.
You may also want to look up the term "walking on cloud nine".
I'm betting it's an AC who made up numbers he thinks proves his point. I'm not an AC. With income at $100,000 in a year, I was at 10% federal income tax, and about 20% for the sum of all taxes I paid (SS, Medicare, sales, state, local, property - multiple properties, and all that). It would be hard to reach 40% in the US. Though some people manage it, like those hit with AMT and other such weirdness. Or those who pay both halves of SS themselves (contractors) but he specifically said "salary" so that doesn't count.
Learn to love Alaska
While I hate corporate welfare I really don't know if you can call it that in this case. In fact what they got Twitter to agree to is to build new offices in a scummy slum part of town, which of course will now cost Twitter in extra security and such, in the hopes that they can renew the area and get businesses to move back which will also get the same break if they move into scum town.
Now considering this neighborhood is probably "welcome to the jungle" you are gonna have to offer something for any business to take the risk, and I'm sure there will be employees that will turn down an offer from twitter because they'd have to go into and out of such a rough area.
So while I think bullshit like GE paying almost no taxes by pulling crap like the double dutch IS bullshit and needs to be stopped ASAP, giving a company a break for taking increased risk by moving into bad areas in the hope of fixing them up is just smart. The same was done several years ago in my own state with the river market area, and whereas before the place looked like Beirut, what with all the bombed out looking buildings and garbage everywhere, now it is a really nice neighborhood with little shops and a thriving gay community.
Everything there is clean and nice with plenty of foot paths and nobody is afraid to walk there anymore, so I'd say the tax breaks the city gave were money well spent. If by giving them a tax break the city of SF can do the same to one of their slums why not? Better than just letting the buildings fall apart and become fire hazards like Detroit.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
>>I understand it's SOP, but I do think it is motherfucking bullshit that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than these companies
You know what's bullshit? San Francisco's tax laws. Combined with California's tax laws. That's why there's this controversy in the first place. They have one of the most business-unfriendly environments in the US.
My company pays 1.5% of its profits to the state of California. You know what's bullshit about it? It's an S-Corp, so there are no profits, technically - all money passes through to the shareholders, who pay personal income tax on the money. But you get the privilege of paying 1.5% anyway, on top of the taxes you get to pay for personal income, simply because you have a corporation. If your profits are not that high, you get to pay a minimum tax of $800 anyway. Which can work out to a lot more than 1.5% of your income, if you're a small operation. Hey, that's fair, right? Mom and Pop start a $20,000/year candle business, and so California taxes them a bonus 4% for the privilege. (And people wonder why corporations are leaving the state.)
C-Corps (that retain earnings) get to pay corporate taxes (unless you're rich enough to buy a loophole) on top of the taxes that the owners pay when they eventually draw money out of the corporation. That's double-bonus awesome, right?
Twitter was going to be charged a bonus 1.5% taxes on all money it spent on payroll (i.e. personnel expenses), on top of all the other bullshit. That's the San Francisco Treat right there, and why they were going to move to San Jose. Twitter is big enough and famous enough to get an exemption from the SF government though. Smaller corporations just have to take it or leave. (Guess which companies are hard to relocate? That's right, small businesses.)
Even more fun: if you're a corporation grossing over $100,000 a year, you get to pay California sales tax on all purchases of durable goods bought outside of California. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/taxprograms/usetax/index.html) How's that for being fair? And if you don't keep records for your "exemptions" (i.e. purchases from companies like Newegg that charge CA sales tax already), you get to pay sales tax twice. Lucky you, eh? Oh, and after they enroll your corporation for Use Tax, it's retroactive for the past four years, taxes and penalties due immediately.
You're right about the corporate tax code being bullshit, but the reality isn't exactly what you think it is for anyone not rich enough to buy off the legislature.