121–130 of 754 posts
1) Companies may now have a direct incentive to have their lowest income earners be outsourced/contracted out to boost the median pay amount.
2) It was smart of them to include compensation such as stock options. However if a city starts to expect this income, it will all go away in recessions when CEO's stock options are not valuable. ie more money to the city in boom periods and not much in bust cycles.
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…
With policies like this, why would anyone in their right mind (I say this as a staunch progressive) start a business in SF or even consider traveling to the Bay Area for the benefits of huge equity packages? Even if you choose to willingly ignore that CA state taxes are also increasing substantially. I hate to say it, but when you do things like this to Big Business TM it DOES have trickle down effects that negativel…
It doesn't seem like they're too worried about new businesses, they're just trying to hold the current ones hostage.
1) Companies may now have a direct incentive to have their lowest income earners be outsourced/contracted out to boost the median pay amount.
2) It was smart of them to include compensation such as stock options. However if a city starts to expect this income, it will all go away in recessions when CEO's stock options are not valuable. ie more money to the city in boom periods and not much in bust cycles.
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.
Very interesting, but, does that mean that execs who don't personally work in SF are subject to the tax? Ie, will Citibank's Michael Corbat, working out of Citigroup's New York offices, need to pay the tax because Citibank has bank branches in SF?
To everyone saying, "this will kill low wage jobs", most companies already outsource their low wage jobs. Their janitors and cooks and maintenance people are already via contractors. Their lowest paid employees are most likely their admin assistants at $50K a year. So basically this is targeting companies whose CEOs make over $50M a year, which is basically Twitter, Pinterest, Google, Facebook, Uber and a few others…
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…
Source: https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2020/11/san-francis...
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.
The law says any company operating in SF, which would include FB and Google, who have offices there. Very interesting, but, does that mean that execs who don't personally work in SF are subject to the tax? Ie, will Citibank's Michael Corbat, working out of Citigroup's New York offices, need to pay the tax because Citibank has bank branches in SF?
I'm really not sure how they plan to enforce this at all.