On Wednesday, Microsoft announced a commitment of 0 million “to advance affordable housing solutions” in the greater Seattle area. While it was striking for the company to acknowledge how supremely difficult it is for “lower- and middle-income workers to afford to live close to where they work,” 95 percent of its commitment would be in the form of loans to housing developers, much of it for market-rate housing that will benefit more-affluent residents.
What is needed in Seattle — as well as San Francisco; Austin, Tex.; New York City; Boulder, Colo.; and other urban areas where the rapid influx of high-paid tech workers has made housing unaffordable for nearly everyone else — isn’t a corporate takeover of housing policy but, rather, a per-employee “head tax” that would fund real investments in affordable housing, which should be a public good.
The notion of a head tax isn’t unprecedented, even in Seattle. In May 2018, faced with a crisis of homelessness and housing insecurity, the Seattle City Council levied a fee of 5 per employee on corporations whose annual revenues exceed million — the most conspicuous of which is Amazon. (Microsoft is based in nearby Redmond, Wash.) The tax would have raised a modest but useful sum to build affordable housing units and fund social services. But just weeks later, after Amazon hinted that it might leave Seattle altogether, the Council voted overwhelmingly to reverse its decision.
It was a terrible loss for Seattle’s housing advocates, who were hoping for a systemic response to doubling rents, inhumanely fast evictions (Washington State has a three-day notice period) and a rise in the number of families living in their cars. And they were not reassured when, a few months after killing the head tax, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, announced that he would pay a minimum wage of per hour to all of its United States workers, a boost to low-wage warehouse and cafeteria workers. But in Seattle, where the minimum wage is now for big employers, low wages cannot buy decent housing. The average rent in Seattle was nearly ,000 in 2017, and nearly half of all renters spent more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. For many workers, or even an hour, at 40 or 50 hours a week, means couch-surfing.
At a deeper level, by rejecting taxation but agreeing to a wage increase, Amazon seemed to imply that corporations, rather than the government, should dictate the terms of redistribution. The same is true of Microsoft’s 0 million pledge: It subordinates public policy to a we-alone-can-fix-it hubris.
Rather than becoming landlords, tech giants should pay their fair share. More and more cities are pushing them to do so. In November, voters in San Francisco approved Proposition C, a tax on large businesses that will fund homeless services. Down the peninsula, residents of East Palo Alto, where Amazon recently leased 214,000 square feet of office space for 1,300 new employees, approved a parcel tax on large plots of commercial real estate. In Google’s hometown, Mountain View, 70 percent of voters said yes to a per-employee tax to fund transportation and affordable housing.
These California cities are providing the rest of the United States with a template to address the housing crisis: local, targeted taxes on large companies that employ a significant proportion of high earners. Such taxes could be based on square footage, the number of employees or even workers’ salary range, and would apply to any industry — not just tech — that puts pressure on the local housing market by suddenly hiring thousands of highly paid employees.
Such measures do not make “businesses, pay a price for creating jobs,” as corporations opposing the Seattle head tax claimed. They are a tax on negative externalities — something akin to a pollution tax. A half-century ago, it seemed inconceivable that factories, smelters or power plants should have to account for the toxins they released into the air. But we have since accepted the idea that businesses should pay the public for the negative externalities they cause. Today, corporations must answer for increased rents and evictions, and for worsening traffic jams. Like air and water pollution, these costs are shared by all of us.
Modestly taxing gentrification is unlikely to drive tech companies into suburbia; their employees increasingly prefer the amenities of city life. It’s true that a head tax could make one place less desirable than another — Amazon played off that fear with its implied threat to leave Seattle — but the answer is not for cities to give up billions of dollars in tax incentives. A better approach is for all metropolitan areas that are being transformed by the extremes of corporate wealth to enact redistributive policies focused on housing justice.
There are many possible solutions: Across the country, local advocates are pushing for increased housing subsidies, rent-stabilization laws, renter protections to prevent arbitrary eviction, permanently affordable public and private housing, community land trusts, and free legal representation and emergency funds to prevent tenants from being evicted. Some combination of these measures, deployed on a large scale — and funded through corporate taxes — is needed to address what is so clearly a crisis.
Call it a head tax or a luxury tax. But recognize what is behind it: the rapid rise of companies employing tens of thousands of high-earning workers has caused, and will continue to cause, displacement. This has happened in the Seattle area and Silicon Valley, and it will soon happen in Long Island City and Northern Virginia, where Amazon will add two new headquarters. Unaffordable rents are not a personal failing or an inevitable outcome of the market; they are a corporate externality as toxic as smog or acid rain.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
“【皇】【上】，【没】【有】【人】【比】【我】【更】【懂】【晋】【国】【的】【国】【政】，【有】【我】【辅】【佐】，【皇】【上】【会】【更】【加】【轻】【松】【的】。” “【这】【些】【重】【担】【自】【然】【有】【人】【承】【担】。” “【为】【了】【晋】【国】，【老】【臣】【鞠】【躬】【尽】【瘁】【死】【而】【后】【已】。”【田】【文】【激】【动】【了】，【身】【体】【微】【微】【的】【颤】【抖】，【垂】【皱】【的】【眼】【角】【流】【下】【了】【一】【滴】【老】【泪】。 【田】【文】【老】【迈】【的】【身】【体】【不】【灵】【便】【的】【跪】【倒】，【苻】【峻】【端】【坐】【在】【椅】【上】，【毫】【无】【反】【应】，【冷】【冷】【的】【俯】【视】【着】。 “【请】【皇】【上】【准】
【虢】【国】【夫】【人】【的】【府】【上】【很】【漂】【亮】，【楼】【台】【亭】【谢】，【曲】【廊】【山】【池】，【精】【致】【辉】【煌】【不】【输】【皇】【宫】。 【王】【烁】【来】【过】【几】【回】【了】，【但】【像】【今】【天】【这】【样】【颇】【有】【闲】【情】【逸】【志】【的】【参】【观】【游】【玩】，【还】【是】【第】【一】【次】。 【身】【边】，【还】【跟】【着】【一】【个】【和】【政】【郡】【主】。 【两】【人】，【就】【像】【是】【一】【对】【相】【亲】【见】【面】【后】【的】【年】【轻】【男】【女】，【保】【持】【着】【礼】【貌】【又】【不】【失】【亲】【密】【的】【距】【离】，【轻】【声】【细】【语】【的】【小】【声】【交】【谈】。 【只】【不】【过】，【谈】【得】【却】【是】【关】【乎】【朝】
“【呵】【呵】【呵】……【兄】【台】【与】【嫂】【夫】【人】【不】【必】【惊】【慌】，【不】【瞒】【你】【们】【说】，【那】【四】【个】【女】【尼】【是】【愚】【弟】【的】【女】【卫】，【原】【是】【尼】【姑】【出】【身】，【跟】【随】【了】【愚】【弟】【后】，【愚】【弟】【觉】【得】【有】【许】【多】【用】【场】，【便】【没】【有】【让】【她】【们】【丢】【掉】【尼】【姑】【的】【身】【份】【与】【修】【行】，【也】【是】【愚】【弟】【担】【心】【兄】【台】【与】【嫂】【夫】【人】【爱】【子】【心】【切】，【被】【一】【些】【僧】【道】、【庸】【医】【骗】【子】【给】【趁】【火】【打】【劫】【了】，【所】【以】【先】【派】【他】【们】【过】【来】【了】，【除】【她】【们】【以】【外】，【还】【派】【了】【去】【摸】【那】【真】【全】【子】【老】【道】黑彩网集结3d高手论坛【那】【日】【之】【后】 【泰】【武】【只】【是】【给】【王】【虚】【门】【的】【一】【些】【长】【老】【交】【代】【了】【一】【下】【之】【后】，【就】【开】【始】【闭】【关】。 【至】【于】【为】【啥】【闭】【关】【不】【知】【道】，【但】【也】【有】【人】【传】【说】【是】【因】【为】【泰】【武】【去】【了】【趟】【大】【夏】【王】【国】【国】【都】，【似】【乎】【是】【给】【了】【某】【个】【大】【人】【物】【什】【么】【东】【西】，【要】【他】【帮】【忙】【解】【决】【一】【下】【付】【永】【亮】【以】【及】【现】【任】【王】【虚】【门】【炼】【丹】【师】【的】【事】【情】。 【期】【初】，【这】【些】【话】【也】【都】【是】【一】【些】【王】【虚】【门】【门】【下】【弟】【子】【之】【流】【传】，【最】【后】【慢】【慢】【的】【蔓】【延】
【乔】【歆】【暖】【敷】【着】【面】【膜】【深】【深】【看】【了】【他】【一】【眼】，【远】【处】【看】【不】【出】【面】【部】【表】【情】，【但】【宫】【守】【靠】【的】【近】，【很】【明】【显】【的】【接】【收】【到】【了】【一】【记】【白】【眼】，【乔】【歆】【暖】【羸】【弱】【的】【说】，“【不】【行】，【守】【宫】【砂】【们】【会】【集】【体】【哭】【出】【一】【条】【江】【的】，【你】【是】【大】【家】【的】。” 【吃】【瓜】【摄】【影】【师】【们】：【神】【一】【样】【的】【是】【大】【家】【的】。 【宫】【守】【小】【奶】【狗】【般】【的】【嘟】【嘴】，【无】【所】【谓】【乔】【歆】【暖】【的】【回】【复】，【伸】【着】【脑】【袋】【继】【续】【往】【她】【手】【机】【屏】【幕】【上】【凑】，【乔】【歆】【暖】【也】
【看】【得】【出】【来】【姜】【抑】【心】【情】【挺】【不】【好】【的】，【一】【直】【到】【骑】【车】【子】【回】【到】【了】【家】【他】【把】【书】【包】【丢】【给】【薛】【唐】，【然】【后】【又】【转】【身】【往】【楼】【下】【走】。 【薛】【唐】【问】【他】【去】【干】【什】【么】，【姜】【抑】【头】【也】【不】【回】【的】【就】【说】【去】【找】【物】【业】【把】【防】【盗】【门】【修】【好】。 【操】。 【这】【是】【真】【生】【气】【了】【啊】？ 【薛】【唐】【看】【他】【的】【态】【度】【很】【挺】【懵】【逼】【的】，【心】【想】【我】【都】【说】【了】【不】【是】【两】【个】【人】【见】【面】，【还】【有】【别】【人】【呢】，【而】【且】【还】【是】【约】【在】【了】【你】【兼】【职】【的】【奶】【茶】【店】【里】
【贝】【尔】【的】【言】【论】【自】【然】【是】【贬】【低】【江】【辰】。 【在】【他】【的】【心】【中】，【他】【自】【己】【才】【是】【最】【厉】【害】【的】，【这】【个】【星】【球】【上】【就】【没】【有】【比】【他】【更】【厉】【害】【的】【球】【员】。 【贝】【尔】【认】【为】【他】【天】【生】【就】【是】【成】【为】【核】【心】【级】【的】【球】【员】，【其】【他】【人】【都】【必】【须】【成】【为】【他】【的】【陪】【衬】。 【在】【球】【队】，【必】【须】【要】【围】【绕】【着】【他】【转】，【为】【他】【服】【务】。 【在】【皇】【家】**【里】【的】【时】【候】，【就】【是】【这】【样】，【所】【有】【为】【人】【都】【在】【围】【绕】【着】【他】【贝】【尔】【转】。 【当】【初】【在】