Town Square

Post a New Topic

Taxing our way to prosperity ....here comes the business tax

Original post made by Chris, Palo Alto Hills, on Mar 10, 2007

Having showed themselves to be completely feckless when dealing with the budgetary issues facing Palo Alto, and unable to cut from spending anything that might offend the usual interest groups and city employees, some council members apparently think we can escape our situation by taxing businesses in town. (Web Link).

This story contains 301 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (6)

Like this comment
Posted by Winslow Arbenaugh
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 10, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Chris, spreading more fear, uncertainty and doubt again? You've got to stop crashing Palo Alto's growth party, Chris. :)

How is a mere $50 a head, added to tens-of-thousands of other salary and benefit dollars required to maintain an employee, going to make a difference. Beecham's plan is intriguing, and deserves a closer look.


Like this comment
Posted by Someone
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 11, 2007 at 1:07 am


$50 per yer per employee isn't much, I agree with Winslow.

Furthermore, what are the alternatives? Tax residents even more than they are being taxed currently, or more bonds (ie more taxes on residents). A lot of us can barely pay our current property taxes, whether we are long-time or newer residents.... Please no more bonds, no more parcel taxes!

Yes on the $50 per year per employee for businesses.


Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 11, 2007 at 9:37 am

City Council must stop looking to the business community to bail them out of the budget problems they seem to continually create for themselves. The police do not need a new building, the libraries are fine and the city should stop providing services that attract the homeless to Palo Alto. That should save enough money to balance the budget. Now if only City Council had the courage to actually do it.


Like this comment
Posted by Donnie
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 11, 2007 at 10:00 am

Kate is right. Why look to the business community all the time? Maybe this tax isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but eventually we'll get there. We compete with other much more friendly cities for jobs than we did a decade or two ago.

Let's look also to the cost side. We could save the same amount by not giving the average 3 to 4% raises our generously compensated workers receive each year. Or we could save the same amount by laying off 25 or 30 of them (maybe those holding "manager" positions that have no one under them to manage).

If we only look to the revenue side, we'll constantly be chasing our tails since the "needs" of the interest groups, and the demands of the unions are limitless.


Like this comment
Posted by Someone
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 11, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Actually, I do agree with Kate that we do not need a new police station and that Mitchell Park library is fine as is - and that if we want to ENLARGE it, rather than rebuild it, we ought to look at closing the branch libraries.

However I am under the impression that the current budget deficit is here regardless of what we'll do about the police station and the library buildings.

Finally, if we don't want to tax business, why I we so eager to tax residents with all those bond measures? Regardless of how long we have lived here, many of us just scrape by to afford living in this community... and each new bond or parcel tax is a new added burden. So, let's no throw bonds and parcel tax measures every which way as we have in the last 12 years or so...


Like this comment
Posted by pat
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 11, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Recalling my corporate budgeting exercises, every dollar counted. Will a company with 5,000 employees paying $250,000 as an “employee tax” think that’s a small price to pay for having a Palo Alto address? HP is one of our biggest employers and it’s been downsizing for quite a while. I think Stanford Hospital has about 7,000 employees.

What happens when we need more income to balance the city budget? Do we up the employee tax to $75 or $100/head?

Given that one of the city’s priorities is a “sustainable” budget, this doesn’t seem like a very sustainable idea.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Death by Diet
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 4,135 views

I am Voting Yes on Measure B the Sales Tax for Transportation
By Steve Levy | 30 comments | 2,364 views

Mountain View Oktoberfest returns this weekend
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,696 views

The timing is wrong
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 487 views

Preparing for college interviews
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 419 views

 

The 2016-17 Info Guide is here!

Info Palo Alto, a resource guide for the Midpeninsula, features local information on schools, outdoors and recreation, government and arts & entertainment

View