Comments on What would you ask LivingSocial or DC officials? - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:44:38 EDT

Hi DC officials. Why does LS get a tax break, and not me? I frequent businesses in DC, and thus directly support the DC economy. Where's my rebate?

Comment by FYI

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:26:52 EDT

Lisa Mayr is not the CFO of LivingSocial. She is the treasurer.

Comment by CouponBooks

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:32:20 EDT

My question is: Why do we consider Living Social a tech company? They're an online coupon book business. Many companies sell products and services online but aren't considered tech companies. If the goal of this tax break is to attract and retain tech start-ups, why is this money going to a company like Living Social?

Comment by swested

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:48:23 EDT

My question for LS:

How much longer do you plan to stay in business? Something tells me the "lose a half billion a year with an admittedly toxic and replicable model" won't cut it for more than a few more quarters of massive hemorrhaging of investor cash.

And yes, as other posters have pointed out, those new "jobs" are going to 20-something hipsters fresh out of college who probably won't make DC their long-term home anyway.

On the plus side, they won't be around by the time the abatement goes into effect...so perhaps the DC Council is wiser than we think...

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:40:16 EDT

MW: Except the LivingSocial non-tech jobs aren't really "working class" jobs. They're still going to hire a recent college grad from a major university or something, not a formerly unemployed non-college-educated Ward 8 resident who has been having trouble finding a job.

There's nothing wrong with recent college grads getting jobs, but they can compete for lots of jobs including in the federal government and this isn't something DC will get long-term benefits from paying for.

Comment by MW

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:48:30 EDT

Encouraging the non-tech jobs at Living Social is consistent with DC's policies of getting jobs for the working class. (same with construction job requirements). I wouldn't assume that this is an unintented portion of the bill.

Comment by MW

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:43:42 EDT

I tend to agree that everyone should be paying taxes without these special carve-outs.
If we want to encourge the next google / facebook then we should be funding basic research or funding incubators. Excusing Living Social's taxes seems a convoluted way to encourage other companies.

Comment by Rob P

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:04:04 EDT

I've seen these sorts of tax abatement deals in other cities and this doesn't appear at all unique to DC.

Often, the deals seem like a race to the bottom, in which cities and suburbs battle each other for a company to move from elsewhere in the metro area. Ultimately, there's no net-increase in jobs, just a shift from one office building to another at a cost to both jurisdictions (the one that just lost that company and its tax revenue, and the one that just got the company but paid for it via tax abatements).

What effort is being made by DC to work cooperatively with jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia? Is there any chance we could get some sort of anti-poaching agreement so that companies can't use the threat of moving to some other place to extract money from local governments?

Comment by Tom Veil

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:18:34 EDT

I can understand why Living Social would want this deal. But can anyone on City Council describe the limiting principle here? In other words, why are we asking other for-profit companies to pay taxes, but not this one? Why should we expect citizens who work for the government or for non-profits to pay taxes, if Living Social doesn't have to?

Comment by varun

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:59:01 EDT

Can you make up any loss in tax revenue by charging Pepco 1 percent of net profit for every day more than a thousand DC residents have no power?