Seattle and Amazon at War

I have no idea how this will end, but I don't think it's good government to attack you city's most important employers. Amazon has taken the toughest stance, but other big companies are preparing to defend themselves as well.





Amazon is using hardball tactics to fight a proposed tax in Seattle. Other cities are taking note.
Amazon — which will soon decide where to base its second headquarters — halted construction plans on one development site and vowed that it would forgo additional space it recently leased if the council approves the tax, which is aimed at addressing a homelessness crisis.

• By Jonathan O'Connell

​A showdown is looming in Seattle, where the city council plans to take an initial vote Friday on a tax on big businesses that would address an escalating crisis in homelessness but has widened fissures between the city and its largest employer: Amazon.com.
Amazon halted construction plans on a development site in the northern end of the city and vowed that it would forgo additional space it recently leased if the council approves the tax, which is intended to raise $75 million a year.
Hundreds of other companies in Seattle, including Starbucks and Expedia, have also expressed opposition to the proposal. But it is Amazon’s hardball tactics that have caught the attention of city council members and the national media covering the debate.
Amazon is in the midst of a high-profile search for a second headquarters in one of 20 other cities. And the dispute playing out in Seattle is being closely followed by elected officials who would have to wrestle with Amazon’s growth if the retailing giant landed in their back yard. . . .

I've got a feeling that if anyone votes for this tax bill they're going to be out of a job themselves come election time....

Kal'Stang said:

I've got a feeling that if anyone votes for this tax bill they're going to be out of a job themselves come election time....

Click to expand...

In a normal place, I'd agree with you. But this is Seattle...

Seattle approves compromise on tax to help homeless after complaints from Amazon, other firms
The city council agreed to impose a lower tax rate on big businesses to fund homeless services than officials had initially proposed. The mayor is expected to sign the measure.

• By Jonathan O'Connell and Gregory Scruggs

It's a classic economic truism that if you want less of something you tax it. For instance, we tax the crap out of tobacco to curtail smoking and a good case can be made that it worked. So, then how can a measure that taxes jobs be wise policy? Yeah, helping the homeless is a noble goal but isn't it likely that this tax will create more of them.

Seattle, a few years ago, tried helping the poor by imposing a high minimum wage - yet another noble cause. Unfortunately that caused a lot of businesses to move outside the city limits and others to scale back hours and reduce hiring.

Will the last person left in Seattle please turn off the lights.

Seattle seems to be at war with itself.

Good article on how Democrats screw up a city.

Excerpt: "This year the full $15 per hour minimum wage went into effect, but the impact was felt much earlier. A University of Washington team completed a study of worker pay, hours and benefits in Seattle last and found the law was a net loss for workers. The study concluded: “Our preferred estimates suggest that the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance caused hours worked by low-skilled workers (i.e., those earning under $19 per hour) to fall by 9.4% during the three quarters when the minimum wage was $13 per hour, resulting in a loss of 3.5 million hours worked per calendar quarter. Alternative estimates show the number of low-wage jobs declined by 6.8%, which represents a loss of more than 5,000 jobs.”

Seattle created its homelessness crisis; now it's trying to make it worse | Fox News

I remember when the liberals went to place a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich"). What happened was the rich quit buying yachts so the yacht manufacturers lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy, again. The Dems are always looking to help the "little guys," but their ill-conceived programs almost always wind up screwing them instead.