Apple’s agreement with Cupertino
>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.<p>So $4m a year?<p>>The Adopted Budget is budgeted at $130,587,325 and is funded by $130,244,157 in revenue.<p>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?<p>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.<p>> 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.<p>Err, what? There’s some math here there doesn’t add up. Did the article mean to say that Apple has contributed $107m <i>per year</i> since 1998 — so $2.6b? If so, Cupertino is facing a <i>96% reduction</i> not 73%.<p>I must be missing something here. Could someone point me in the direction of the right math?