Can somebody tell us what percent tax the city has on all alcohol sales?

I checked out the Voice's website mentioned in the Measure P and it seems EVERY business will pay more. It appears based on the Cost Difference graph there, that one business will pay about twice as much, but all others will pay more than 2 times as much. in one case a lot more: One business (presumably Google LLC, with the largest bubble in the "And what the city wants them to pay ..." bubble chart) will pay about 2 million times as much.

The data seems somewhat shaky since the total annual tax will be only about $6 million, and the website mentions "more than 3,600" businesses for an average tax of less than $1667. Also the article's math seems off: "Trader Joe's with its 63 employees would pay up to $75 for each worker, or a total of $1,420." 63 times $75 is $4725. Where does "$1,420" come from? And that's not the only example of strange math I noted.

The story does not say what businesses currently pay but the number of bubbles in the "What businesses pay now ..." graphic is way more than the number of bubbles in the "And what the city wants them to pay ..." graphic.

Web Link
This graphic is the kind of journalism that make me pay for Mountain View Voice subscription.

Will there ever be enough tax & fees?
It is ALWAYS more...
Even with all the fees generated by development... They still need more.
My msg is not about "what" they are taxing, it is about why is it never enough?

Hi @Doug,

I wish it were as simple as 63 workers X $75.

The costs tiers are staggered so that each per-employee fee goes up for every worker past certain thresholds. I'll explain.

Trader Joe's has 63 employees. They have to pay a $75 base fee. ($75)

For employees 2 through 25, they have to pay $5 per worker. ($120)

For employees 26 through 50, they have to pay $10 per worker. ($250)

For employees 51 through 63, they have to pay $75 per worker. ($975)

This adds up to $1420.

Does anyone have data on what the business license fees are in the surrounding cities? $10k does seem like a very small amount for a company as big as Google however raising it to $3.5m seems like a bit of an over correction. (Based on nothing besides the fact that it is a 34,900% increase) Is MV trying to get in line with current rates with a system that makes sense or is this just a short sighted cash grab?

I agree that since google and its employees use a lot of the MV resources they should, through taxes and fees, help maintain and improve them. That said, are there any concerns that such substantial fees will keep large employers out of MV if the licencing fees in the area are substantially lower? Obviously it would be expensive to move headquarters but if the "Google Tax" doesn't exist in other cities in the bay area maybe they begin to look elsewhere. If they do leave, will this all but guarantee that no one will step in and replace them? I understand the need to update an out of date system but gouging our existing businesses seems like it could be a dangerous game. Are business license fees (that end up in the general fund) the best (most appropriate/effective) way to have businesses contribute to MV?

I am not at all trying to cast doubt on the measure but these are genuine questions and concerns that I have. Any additional info/insight would be greatly appreciated.

@RTan00 The discussion about using the increases in the general fund to pay for transportation seems important and partially answers your question.

- if they want to build any kind of transit link to North Bayshore, that costs money. It'd be hugely valuable for downtown to have it better linked to Google and to near Google.

- if you're one of the people who thinks that building more housing is the only humane choice, to reduce people's commutes both to cut down on wasted time and to reduce traffic overall, than you might also see that increased housing is going to need increased spending on transportation infrastructure.

You may think that if the funding will be used for transportation than it should go into a transportation fund instead of into the general fund, but ballot measures are so permanent that I'm okay with this one being vague on what the money is used for. Hopefully Mountain View is small enough that people can hold council members accountable just via personal relationships with voters (which is kind of how it's supposed to work, but obviously doesn't work at the national level).