Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 754 posts

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#51

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

aeternum wrote: post #15
hawkoy wrote: post #6

From: https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2020/11/san-francis... > The tax will levy an extra 0.1% to 0.6% on gross receipts made in San Francisco for companies whose highest paid executive makes 100 times or more its median worker’s salary. The amount levied will increase in 0.1% brackets proportionally to the pay ratio. A company whose highest paid employee earns 200 times more than its median San Francisco wo…

I'd also be surprised if it brings in anywhere near the quoted amount since the SF supervisors have proven themselves incapable of considering second order effects such as companies contracting out their low-pay roles or simply leaving SF.

> SF supervisors have proven themselves incapable of considering second order effects

Correct. SF and its politics cannot be saved, just let them slowly eat themselves.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#53

Post by bradlys »

WalterBright wrote: post #36

> He dismisses fears that the surcharge will drive companies out of the city, saying the tax is modest in comparison to the cost of moving a business. Perhaps - but it will discourage new businesses from locating there, and new businesses are the future.

Let me weigh the pros/cons here:

Pros: lots of funding, lots of experienced employees who have taken companies from seed to IPO, probably a higher chance than some other areas to go from well off to ridiculously rich

Cons: I get taxed more if I start making 200x what the average employee in my company makes.

Can you see how no one would care unless they're 100% sure they're gonna be making 200x what their average employee makes regardless of where they put their business?

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#54

Post by tlogan »

umeshunni wrote: post #5
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #2

Sounds like business will be booming for temp agencies as well as janitorial and facilities maintenance contractors. Whatever the net positive here is wholly negated by the number of stable long term jobs that are going to go away and be replaced by whoever the body shop chooses to send that day. Working for these middle men really sucks compared to working for whoever the service is being provided for (and I say tha…

More likely, this will just result in businesses continuing to leave San Francisco. The pandemic has given most companies a good reason to do so already and my bet is on most of them not returning to their overpriced San Francisco headquarters when this is eventually over.

Maybe but outsourcing is much easier solution than relocating.

Think about hedge funds, bond traders, etc. For example, they will be all firing desk support people and replacing them with RobertHalf.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#56

Post by jariel »

'Which companies' does this rule apply to? Companies that have HQ in SF? That's rather an easy thing to change, no? 'Majority of Employees'?

What if the CEO has 'an office' in South Bay but spends their time in the city?

This seems like the wrong tranche of government to be flirting with such a law.

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#57

Post by spinningslate »

rdiddly wrote: post #29

"Critics call the surcharge a blatant attempt at redistribution of wealth..." Um, yes? "Critics call John Travolta 'blatantly an actor, playing parts in movies.'"

that was my reaction too. I don't live in the US, so this is an honest question. Most of the comments here are disparaging about the policy. Is that because:

1. you agree with the principle of addressing wealth polarisation, but don't agree with tax as the mechanism? (in general or the proposed model specifically)

2. you don't agree that increasing wealth polarisation needs to be stopped/reversed?

3. something else?

Thanks.

--

Edit: fixed the numbering, forgot I wasn't writing markdown!

Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses

#60

Post by conanbatt »

bradlys wrote: post #53
WalterBright wrote: post #36

> He dismisses fears that the surcharge will drive companies out of the city, saying the tax is modest in comparison to the cost of moving a business. Perhaps - but it will discourage new businesses from locating there, and new businesses are the future.

Let me weigh the pros/cons here: Pros: lots of funding, lots of experienced employees who have taken companies from seed to IPO, probably a higher chance than some other areas to go from well off to ridiculously rich Cons: I get taxed more if I start making 200x what the average employee in my company makes. Can you see how no one would care unless they're 100% sure they're gonna be making 200x what their average emp…

The alternative is not having the office in SF.
Post reply on HN