In the case of a progressive income tax it would be less reliant on their support so much as their indifference. If they got lower B&O and customers got lower sales taxes out of it, it might be a worthwhile enough trade for them not to vehemently oppose.

Or Idaho’s!

I really don’t disagree with you for the most part on the substance, I just have a difference in strategic approach.

Naive or not, I’d try to get everyone in a room to find a grand bargain. At least that would be my first attempt, before using the bully pulpit and then ultimately scorched earth. 🤷‍♂️

And yet look at their contemporaneous statements and they’re hardly as offensive and over-the-top as their recent statements about state- and local-level B&O changes.

An excellent example of a pro-growth progressive tax policy that could attract cross-aisle support in a “grand bargain.”

Is this for all zones?

This is the best argument I’ve seen in the replies! There will be a Seattle after Big Tech (regardless of whatever the city does).

None of that is unique to Seattle; it’s happening in pretty much every big metro.

All I’m saying is that it’s a delicate balance, and that the risks to “going big" are higher than they’ve been in a while (given AMZN can move 10K heads to Bvue tomorrow), so it will to be strategic

This is not, like, some right-wing sentiment. It’s just a difference in strategy and approach.

That’s one of the reasons doing it at the state level is so important––there’s less ability for them to leave the state than leave the city.

The hair-on-fire reaction of the tech industry right now to the idea of progressive revenue also pales in comparison to their more muted reaction to I-1098.

You are relying on a very strong assumption that substantially increasing JumpStart or B&O or something *WOULDN’T* cause them to either relocate their growth or relocate employees en masse. Such a move would be *bad* for Seattle.

I just don’t think that confidence is warranted, that’s all.

It can’t just be another tack-on tax, though. We need a fundamental tax rethink to make our system more progressive *AND* more pro-growth. It’s probably some combo of:

- income tax
- lower sales tax
- transition property tax to LVT
- shift B&O burden from smaller to larger companies

Amazon has already drawn down to 50K (from 60K) in Seattle and they have space (that they’re already paying for!) for 10-12K more in Bellevue already, plus there’s pre-entitled office space in DT Bellevue for another 10-12K more after that!

Solution is state-level.

*Washington* is the tax haven, not Seattle. So the solution needs to be at the state level instead of focusing so inwardly on Seattle.

And as I mentioned last night, I’m a pragmatist––I just don’t think anything durable is going to happen without business’s either support or indifference.

I don’t disagree with you at all, but you’re describing state-level issues (our regressive tax code) and advocating city-level solutions.

And fundamentally I’m a pragmatist. Nothing that’s durable, state-level or city-level, is going to pass without Amazon’s explicit or implicit blessing.

They have room for 10-12K people in Bellevue in space they are already paying for but is sitting empty. If they filled those up tomorrow with people from Seattle, that would be a major hit on Seattle’s JumpStart and B&O revenue.

At least start with the worst offenders.

Newcastle, Beaux Arts, Medina, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point ➡️ Bellevue

Yarrow Point ➡️ Kirkland

White Center ➡️ Burien or Seattle

Lake Forest Park, Kenmore ➡️ Bothell

Mountlake Terrace ➡️ Lynnwood

It’s a vanity exercise to have them in the room, and we all know what their perspectives are. But that’s politics! It can pay off massively later to have your “enemies” in the room!

Legally there’s nothing stopping that from happening. It’s how Spokane implemented its middle-housing, optional-parking, and downtown height limit elimination reforms.

Would be happy to have Seattle join us!