>The agreement outlines that 35% of that local portion that is returned to Cupertino is handed by the city to Apple—to the tune of $107.7 million since 1998. California took notice and launched an audit.
So $4m a year?
>The Adopted Budget is budgeted at $130,587,325 and is funded by $130,244,157 in revenue.
So taxpayers are “missing out” on 3% of their budget in exchange for 65% of 1% of Apple’s online sales in California. How much does the city get in return for this deal? And, wouldn’t Apple just choose somewhere else to direct the funds otherwise?
Apple has to choose where to allocate the tax funds. That’s the law. That Cupertino offered the best deal for them is a quirk of the law, not a shady deal by Apple. As well: their headquarters are located there. It’s not like they shopped around for the best kickback deal by allocating it to some little town on the coast.
> Cupertino is facing a 73% reduction in local tax revenue. California is taking issue with the agreement and examining the extent to which the California purchases attributed to Cupertino are proper.
Err, what? There’s some math here there doesn’t add up. Did the article mean to say that Apple has contributed $107m per year since 1998 — so $2.6b? If so, Cupertino is facing a 96% reduction not 73%.
I must be missing something here. Could someone point me in the direction of the right math?
So $4m a year?
>The Adopted Budget is budgeted at $130,587,325 and is funded by $130,244,157 in revenue.
So taxpayers are “missing out” on 3% of their budget in exchange for 65% of 1% of Apple’s online sales in California. How much does the city get in return for this deal? And, wouldn’t Apple just choose somewhere else to direct the funds otherwise?
Apple has to choose where to allocate the tax funds. That’s the law. That Cupertino offered the best deal for them is a quirk of the law, not a shady deal by Apple. As well: their headquarters are located there. It’s not like they shopped around for the best kickback deal by allocating it to some little town on the coast.
> Cupertino is facing a 73% reduction in local tax revenue. California is taking issue with the agreement and examining the extent to which the California purchases attributed to Cupertino are proper.
Err, what? There’s some math here there doesn’t add up. Did the article mean to say that Apple has contributed $107m per year since 1998 — so $2.6b? If so, Cupertino is facing a 96% reduction not 73%.
I must be missing something here. Could someone point me in the direction of the right math?