I have to show you as the stupid Progressive again !

https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/29275-seattle-repeals-job-killing-head-tax-one-month-after-passing-it

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/technology/seattle-tax-amazon.html

Show up with facts Water Boy LMMFAO

Hello, Excon.

First off, the companies that would have been hit by this tax are companies like Amazon, and I don't think these taxes are killing any jobs there..

Actually, you are wrong.

According to one of the articles in the topic prompt, "Amazon put a hold on projects that would have added another 7,000 new jobs in the city."

Rather than pay an aggregate tax of $1,925,000 in addition to the cost of hiring, Amazon was looking to hire those people in other cities, and was looking at subleasing their office space, and move out of Seattle.

Consider:

"The Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California at Berkeley reports average cost to replace an employee for all categories of workers is about $4,000. The IRLE notes that blue collar and manual workers can be replaced for an average cost of $2,000, while the average cost for managerial and professional employees may be as high as $7,000."

(http://work.chron.com/average-cost-hire-new-employee-13262.html)

This means that on the low end of hiring costs the city raised the cost of hiring by about 13�FORE the company has a chance to make any money from the investment. That makes locating/expanding a company in Seattle much less profitable, and therefore much less likely.

Most critically, this job-killing tax would have raised the percentage of the cost most for the blue collar workers, who are less likely to have many other job options, or the financial capability to relocate or commute to wherever the jobs are moving.

So, yeah, the tax is job-killing. If you prefer, however, we can just call it job-exporting (to other cities.)

Secondly, the average home price in the Puget Sound region is valued at around $500,000. Home prices are increasing at MORE than 10% annually.

That means that the same increase is happening to prices for commercial property. A large portion of the expense of the expansion in (or relocation to) Seattle must be paid prior to the ability to make any money from it. However much the interest rate on any loan involved increases both the cost and the risk of failure to the business.

This high property cost already makes Seattle a less attractive location for businesses than locations with lower property costs. Adding the 13% cost ($275) for hiring, plus the additional $275 for any existing employees would make it even less attractive, especially if the business expects to continue to grow.

Cities all over the country are competing to get companies to locate in their areas, employ their residents, and contribute to their tax base. Most of how cities are doing this is by offering lower tax rates, fee reductions, zoning advantages, and infrastructure projects tailored to the needs of the businesses they are courting. Some are even offering city-owned business real estate at steeply discounted rates.

Expensive places to live, like Seattle, are already less attractive, not only because of the higher cost of business property, but also because wages are usually higher for commensurately qualified workers than in less expensive cities.

This means Seattle is already behind the eight ball for attracting large businesses. Adding the head tax, especially when competing cities are lowering taxes for incoming businesses would have ultimately driven away most labor intensive enterprises in favor of better business climates.

But hey,at least home values and housing prices would go down as people left Seattle and moved to where the companies were opening up their new facilities.

If the people on the Seattle City Council had understood how businesses make decisions about whether to grow in particular regions, or where to locate themselves, then they would have known that making the city even more expensive for large businesses would stifle job growth and drive out large businesses.

Excon,

If we did NOTHING to address the homeless problem, it'll just make right wingers feel SUPERIOR to the (how did you put it?) the stupid, the addicted, and the crazy.

I did NOT put it as "the stupid, the addicted, and the crazy." That is all you.

Normally we disagree amiably, and generally what you say indicates that you are well-meaning, and even compassionate (despite the fact that your political solutions would most likely radically increase human suffering.)

That is why I am surprised that you would characterize real people with really big problems so callously.

I don't have a solution to the homeless problem. But, whatever it is, it's gonna COST big money and we need to PAY it..

That was my point. ("The job-killing prosperity-damaging head tax would not have been enough to pay for keeping these folks off the street.")

If you want to solve a problem, or even lessen its severity, you have to do something that ACTUALLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM.

The fact is that the vast majority of these folks need a lot more than a roof and a shower and a job.

They need extremely expensive mental health care (often including addiction treatment), both in-patient and out-patient.

Building cheap housing a foolish waste of money when what is required is building and staffing mental hospitals and out-patient residential facilities that offer a structured continuum of care that tapers ultimately toward monitored independence.

If the ignorami on the Seattle City Council actually wanted to address the homeless problem, they would spend the money on mental health treatment.