Twitter remaining in San Francisco

For months, Twitter threatened to leave the Californian city of San Francisco unless it was given a tax break. Twitter stated that if they were not given the required tax break, the service would be moving to the suburbs. The long-running feud ended on Friday, April 22nd, as the New York Times reports. Twitter announced in a blog post they would be remaining in the city, though they will still be moving premises. Now, the company is headed in Market Square, in the Central Market district. The relocation isn't happening any time soon, though. According to the blog post the company will be moving in mid-2012.

The decision was already expected at this point in time, with the company having said it would consider the action should they receive the tax break they demanded. In the blog post written by the company, they thank the Board of Supervisors and also the city mayor, Ed Lee. Locally in the city, the agreement is known as the 'Twitter tax break', as such occurrences are relatively rare within the city; not least due to the fact that San Francisco is the only Californian city to have the 'payroll tax' enforced. Any business earning over $250,000 on its payroll is required to pay the equivalent of 1.5% of total employee compensation per year.

Zynga, the games company renowned for titles such as FarmVille, has also set its sights on a tax break agreement. Much like Twitter, Zynga have threatened to leave the city to operate in another area. The Market Square area of San Francisco can be seen using this website.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

White iPhone 4 sold early to Vodafone customer

Next Story

ACLU asks if police are secretly stealing phone data

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

@ lfashl
Rich gets richer because they work their butt off plus the loop holes in the current tax law.
The poor gets poorer because some of them doesn't want to work their butt off and get out of entitlements.

RommelS said,
@ lfashl
Rich gets richer because they work their butt off plus the loop holes in the current tax law.
The poor gets poorer because some of them doesn't want to work their butt off and get out of entitlements.

I work the hell off my butt off, professional with two titles and I am still poor. The richer get rich because they already born rich, only few lucky ones can became rich if they found a way to make a lot of money. But for the most part, the richer born already in a rich family.

Unix2 said,

I work the hell off my butt off, professional with two titles and I am still poor. The richer get rich because they already born rich, only few lucky ones can became rich if they found a way to make a lot of money. But for the most part, the richer born already in a rich family.

I totally agree with you on that, but NOT eveyone are born rich. If you have to profession, and you still feel that you are poor, then maybe you might need to rethink your lifestyle, or better yet, compete better because frankly, I've seen people around me that made it to where they want to be. Don't take this the wrong way, but that is just my experience.

The rich get richer because, as they say, it takes money to make money. They have the required capital to make investments.

The poor get poorer because poverty is a vicious cycle.

Unix2 said,

I work the hell off my butt off, professional with two titles and I am still poor. The richer get rich because they already born rich, only few lucky ones can became rich if they found a way to make a lot of money. But for the most part, the richer born already in a rich family.

hmm explain this...
94% of the rich today they are rich because of their self not because they we're already rich...

Like RommelS said if you can't get enough money from two job take a look at your budget and maybe your choice in life don't thrash other's choice

Dusco25 said,
tax breaks is what is wrong with this county.. **** twitter.

Actually, taxes are what's wrong with this country.

If they can negotiate a better beal good for them, otherwise, they'll pay what they owe or move.

The Patriot said,

Actually, taxes are what's wrong with this country.

If they can negotiate a better beal good for them, otherwise, they'll pay what they owe or move.

Actually, taxes are not what's wrong with this country. It's the inconsistent taxation and bad budgeting by the government (federal and state). IRS expects Common people to pay for overseas income, but corporations and their subsidiaries are exempt from this idiotic rule. This is why GE gets away with $0 taxes. On top of this, the country has been spending money on the wrong things for the past 10 years. Just because there was a surplus in 1999-2001, doesn't mean the govt. should reduce taxes for the people. Taxes help the government pay for services for its people. The govt. should be collecting them regardless of income surplus and spending it for the benefit of people in the country, such as helping students pay loans, free education, public broadcasting, healthcare, non-profits, research and development, etc. These are the things that differentiate one country from another is a good way. It should never be used for wars. Wars = Financial Sink and Bad Reputation. It is fantastic to see how one government (Bush) dragged a country in cash surplus to 10s of trillions of dollars in deficit.

Running a country like a business is bad for the people because corporations will win 100% of the time. (Donald Trump wants to do this.) It will be like 100% of the companies haggling with each other continuously, charging whatever price they want for even basic commodities such as water. (This has happened before.) "Free Market" is just a stupid buzzword which corporations keep spitting out, which simply means "bad things" for the common people and good things for corporations. No Free Market means more regulation, which corporations don't want (duh). (I prefer more regulation over corporations and less on common people. You just cannot let capitalist entities decide for the country what the future of the common people should look like because they're *always* after more money.) The govt. should be owning certain key corporations as well, so that they get direct income from those companies and get the taxes as well. This is useful in times of economic emergencies. The US govt. has 0 direct investment in corporations because most of the Congress is owned by the corporations already. Hence, the bailout for the corporations and no bailout for the people.

The ultimate goal is to reduce taxes once the country is able to sustainably able to make its people happy. It can even reach $0 at a point when the govt. doesn't have to depend on its people for money.

You elect the wrong people, you get the wrong result.

Edited by Jebadiah, Apr 23 2011, 7:39am :

Jebadiah said,
It is fantastic to see how one government (Bush) dragged a country in cash surplus to 10s of trillions of dollars in deficit.

Yep you are right, but then again, we have this president in office that tripled the deficit within his six months in office, and it continues to grow.

Jebadiah said,
Taxes help the government pay for services for its people. The govt. should be collecting them regardless of income surplus and spending it for the benefit of people in the country, such as helping students pay loans, free education, public broadcasting, healthcare, non-profits, research and development, etc. These are the things that differentiate one country from another is a good way.

I agree that the government has to make revenue, however, goverment MUST realized that they work for the people, and not the other way around. The problem is that the government knows that they have an unlimited money coming in from the people through taxes, and they all still feel the need to tax the working class Americans.

In addition, with all of the services that you've mentioned, the majority of them has to be reduced or go to deserving AMERICAN CITIZENS. Then maybe we the government can lower the defecit.

Here is spill here, you just cannot blame corporations out there because they are taking advantages of the loop holes out there that our politicians put into law, and both side of the isle in Washington, D.C. are NOT immune to Lobbyist.

because its cheaper in the suburbs. their stance is either make it more compelling for them to stay or lose all the possible tax revenue from them.