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

111–120 of 754 posts

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

#111

Post by standardUser »

This is a small tax and should be considered a pilot program for an idea that's been around a long time. Are all of the criticism on here valid? We'll find out soon enough. Will a tax like this actually change behavior in desired ways, or provide a useful amount of revenue? We'll find that out, too.

But what this tax will not do is change the very nature of San Francisco or dramatically alter its business environment. The tax is just too small for that to be the case. It's a tiny addition to a vast and complex and ever-changing web of taxes and regulations that large businesses in SF have been successfully dealing with for generations.

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

#113

Post by csomar »

jedberg wrote: post #99
csomar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook are in the SF Bay Area and not in SF City. Also, Zuckerberg gets a $1 salary. Unless this law targets full compensation (stocks included), it's not going to touch him. FB is too big to accept a 0.1% or 0.6% gross tax. This law is targeting smaller companies (think Stripe and similar). San Jose is an alternative for the CEO/Headquarters. There could be a minor office in the city where tech workers…

The law says any company operating in SF, which would include FB and Google, who have offices there. Also the law says all compensation, including stocks and bonuses. So Zuck would definitely qualify.

Thanks for the clarification. But any company operating in SF is a bit crazy. So if a bank has a branch/office in SF, then it's liable for this tax? For all their gross income or just for the income generated within city boundaries?

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

#114

Post by kansface »

gmadsen wrote: post #82
drak0n1c wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes tend to increase price levels, not reduce them. Costs are passed through to every level.

not 1-1. a personal wealth tax is not felt or distributed down lane. As long as it is not a company tax, it will not be directly pointed to the buyer.

> The tax will levy an extra 0.1% to 0.6% on gross receipts made in San Francisco for companies ...

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

#115

Post by echelon »

standardUser wrote: post #111

This is a small tax and should be considered a pilot program for an idea that's been around a long time. Are all of the criticism on here valid? We'll find out soon enough. Will a tax like this actually change behavior in desired ways, or provide a useful amount of revenue? We'll find that out, too. But what this tax will not do is change the very nature of San Francisco or dramatically alter its business environment…

> But what this tax will not do is change the very nature of San Francisco or dramatically alter its business environment.

Businesses are already leaving SF. If they haven't seen the writing on the wall, they're ignorant.

SF has itself to blame. They squandered revenue, didn't fix real issues, and pandered to land owners.

Businesses will move to more business friendly cities, and they will become more distributed - it's cheaper and easier to negotiate that way.

SF is done.

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

#116

Post by wpietri »

kmtrowbr wrote: post #70
umeshunni wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have lived in San Francisco since 2005. Over the time I've lived here, we've had the opposite problem: lots of highly paid tech firms moving into SF. This has changed the nature of San Francisco in a way that many dislike, including me. I was initially attracted to San Francisco because, it was chill, it was beautiful, and it had a lot of eccentric, really interesting people. Many of our good friends had to leave o…

Same. I think it's fine if some businesses leave SF, and even more fine if their staff spread out. Given all our talk of internet-driven disruption and the world-changing nature of electronic communication, it's always been ridiculous that we had to cram everybody together in 0.01% of the US's land area.

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

#117

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

heavyset_go wrote: post #39
umeshunni wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt it. The purported reasons to leave were already on the table before the pandemic hit, but they were not enough to do so when compared to the reasons for staying. The pandemic is relatively temporary, and once it is over, those reasons for staying will still be on the table.

> The pandemic is relatively temporary

Until the next ones comes. That could be in 1 year or 100 years. No one knows.

Reminds me of the repeated hurricanes that drive people out of coastal areas.

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

#118

Post by jedberg »

csomar wrote: post #113
jedberg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law says any company operating in SF, which would include FB and Google, who have offices there. Also the law says all compensation, including stocks and bonuses. So Zuck would definitely qualify.

Thanks for the clarification. But any company operating in SF is a bit crazy. So if a bank has a branch/office in SF, then it's liable for this tax? For all their gross income or just for the income generated within city boundaries?

The law says just money they make in the city. But it's kind of vague and I'm sure there will be a lot of debate between the companies and the city about how much they are making in the city.

The medium size businesses that only operate in SF will be screwed the worst.

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

#119

Post by csomar »

easde wrote: post #107
csomar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook are in the SF Bay Area and not in SF City. Also, Zuckerberg gets a $1 salary. Unless this law targets full compensation (stocks included), it's not going to touch him. FB is too big to accept a 0.1% or 0.6% gross tax. This law is targeting smaller companies (think Stripe and similar). San Jose is an alternative for the CEO/Headquarters. There could be a minor office in the city where tech workers…

BTW, Stripe has already left San Francisco for South San Francisco (which is a different city).

That was fast. Unless this tax targets all of the bay area, the moving cost is not really much and your workers could still commute with a WFH option. Imo, San Jose is in prime position to build a real city with the possible exodus from SF.

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

#120

Post by gumby »

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…

The total amount is so small I have a hard time believing that anyone would restructure their operations around it.
Post reply on HN