Most businesses aim for net income. Most startups don't even try, even if they've raised hundreds of millions of dollars and occupy fancy offices. (It's also very easy for IP-based businesses to shift where income is generated.)

And that's the basic reasoning behind SF's gross proceeds tax. It's a uniquely SV tax that only works because so many unicorns built their house of cards out of claiming revenue for things no other business would claim as revenue.

abalone's comment that "they've changed their tune. ... and they still shouldn't pay taxes" could simply be hyperbolic, depending on how charitable people are in their interpretation (e.g. "shouldn't pay [the full amount of] taxes").

I think the main thrust of abalone's comment stands: the CEO of Square pushed for a tax that many think is absurd (e.g. darawk), and now that Square has grown and the tax is unfavorable for them, Square wants to change the tax that it seems to have lobbied for (and presumably thought was fair back then) -- that makes Square seem opportunistic [and not having the community's best interest in mind when the CEO lobbied for the tax]. At least, I think that is abalone's implication.