Okay, the Football vs. Football arguments just plain bore me. We all love sport, so let's all leave it at that, shut up, and order another pint! 
Now for the REAL controversy (in my mind):
This is a great move by Apple, but I see a possible conflict of interest here. California, and especially San Francisco, has huge taxes and huge regulations. Possibly the most regulated state outside of New York. And California has been losing population because of it.
I think as a matter of ethics, taxes should be paid for by the people who voted in favor of them and taxes should be paid for by the people who voted for the politicians in favor of them.
The taxpayer should not be disconnected from the tax bill, because it encourages irresponsible voting habits and irresponsible spending habits. And eventually, bankruptcy. California is on this path right now.
And even if taxes aren't at issue, I must say that I am immediately suspicious of this buddy-buddy arrangement, and I think everybody should be asking questions about whether or not some quid-pro-quot setup is afoot here.
1. Is Apple hoping to gain some sort of secret special favor with the city of San Francisco? Maybe for a prime location for a store where a mom-and-pop would never be able to locate due to onerous regulations?
2. Is Apple hoping that this perceived goodwill will help the corporation avoid future environmental, electrical, waste, labor, city, or municipal service regulations in the city, or in California where the corporate headquarters resides?
3. Is Apple making it easier for San Francisco, California, or even Washington DC politicians to someday get into bed with Apple for future favors?
No, I think that it should not be legal for a publicly traded corporation to offer to assume somebody else's tax responsibility. If taxes are too high, then certainly California voters could strongly encourage their city, state, and federal politicians to fix that situation. But we can't get there if somebody else pays the bills.
Now for the REAL controversy (in my mind):
This is a great move by Apple, but I see a possible conflict of interest here. California, and especially San Francisco, has huge taxes and huge regulations. Possibly the most regulated state outside of New York. And California has been losing population because of it.
I think as a matter of ethics, taxes should be paid for by the people who voted in favor of them and taxes should be paid for by the people who voted for the politicians in favor of them.
The taxpayer should not be disconnected from the tax bill, because it encourages irresponsible voting habits and irresponsible spending habits. And eventually, bankruptcy. California is on this path right now.
And even if taxes aren't at issue, I must say that I am immediately suspicious of this buddy-buddy arrangement, and I think everybody should be asking questions about whether or not some quid-pro-quot setup is afoot here.
1. Is Apple hoping to gain some sort of secret special favor with the city of San Francisco? Maybe for a prime location for a store where a mom-and-pop would never be able to locate due to onerous regulations?
2. Is Apple hoping that this perceived goodwill will help the corporation avoid future environmental, electrical, waste, labor, city, or municipal service regulations in the city, or in California where the corporate headquarters resides?
3. Is Apple making it easier for San Francisco, California, or even Washington DC politicians to someday get into bed with Apple for future favors?
No, I think that it should not be legal for a publicly traded corporation to offer to assume somebody else's tax responsibility. If taxes are too high, then certainly California voters could strongly encourage their city, state, and federal politicians to fix that situation. But we can't get there if somebody else pays the bills.
