Apple has been given the final go-ahead to build its infamous “fruit loop” HQ - as long as it agrees to cough more taxes to the City of Cupertino. Cupertino City Council voted unanimously to reduce the annual tax break it gives Apple by 15 per cent, before also agreeing to allow the fruity firm to park the spaceship-like Apple …
The fact that there was no public opposition to this is testament to the fact they got the decision right. Who on earth would have thought leaving it as wasteland is better than development, Apple being the only ones with the cash and want to redevelop it.
No country in the world would have refused planning permission for this build if Apple were willing to relocate, except of course here in the UK.
Any community in the US at the moment would have bent over backwards to get this sort of investment in their area, I'm just glad they managed to get some dosh out of them.
The new Apple "fruit loop" will be nowhere near the center of town, but in the NE sector bordering Sunnyvale.
Cupertino, like all the other cities in the whole world, should enact legislation that would ban a company to claim its head office is in city where it does not pay the income tax. Apple is screewing all Americans because it produces its marvelous hw with slave labor and doesn't pay a cent of taxes in America. Such entity is called a parasite (i.e orchid).
New legislation needed
No company should be allowed to claim its head office is located in a place where it doesn't pay income tax. This applies exactly to Apple and Cupertino - Apple's head office should be located in the Caymans or in one of its slave labor factories in China.
Re: New legislation needed
How exactly would you define "head office"? The place where the CEO spends most of his 'in the office' time? What about companies with CEOs who work from home, or work out of another company's office (as Steve Jobs often did when he was CEO of both Apple and Pixar simultaneously)
Maybe you'd like to consider the head office as the place where most of the employees are? In which case some manufacturing companies would be shocked to find their head office is now in located in Mexico.
There are no advantages to "claiming" your head office is in a particular location, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Most large corporations in the US are incorporated in Delaware for legal reasons, maybe the head office is there? Or just to not able to call themselves a "Silicon Valley" company, unless they meet your murky criteria, which would apparently disqualify Apple and presumably many other companies?
Your definition not only needs work, you also need to explain exactly what you're trying to achieve by making this change, which I assume would involve making a new law. Is the goal for companies to pay more taxes? To want to leave California, New York and other high tax states? Or maybe leave the US entirely?