Earlier quoted context omitted.
And/Or move their companies too. Particularly all the "tech startups" that think they don't need physical office buildings anymore. For a lot of companies, SF is becoming difficult to justify. Well-intended ideas, not fully thought out, leading to unintended consequences... nothing really new for SF.
I understood this to be the primary intended consequence! San Francisco is overheated and a majority of residents would expect to benefit from CEOs or tech companies reducing their pressure on housing and services.
San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
221–230 of 754 posts
Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#222Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#223Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#224At this rate in 20 years California will be competing with Mississipi for the title of the poorest state in the country
The worst case scenario is a democratic super majority where CA and it's insanely mis-managed cities are bailed out by the federal government. Think GM Auto Bailout, but this time for an entire state... This is coming from someone who's never voted for a single republican. Let's remember that [0] SF also just elected a DA who's parents were literally complicit in the Weather Underground bombings... [0] - https://cali…
Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, this is problematic if the executive is compensated primarily in stock options.
Why do you think it is problematic? According to my reading of OP, the measures includes stock options in calculating comp.
I am curious how you would determine what the fair value of a stock option is when it is granted. Assume the option's strike price is for the current stock price. Theoretically, that stock option has a current value of "0" (assuming that it is non-transferrable so we don't have to worry about market price)
That stock option is expected to increase in value if the stock price increases (which then aligns the CEO's salary with shareholder value). So in five years, those stock options might be worth millions of dollars. But would you then say the CEO got paid millions of dollars five years ago? But the stock options when they were granted were 0 - they increased in value when they were the property of the CEO. If the CEO bought artwork 5 years ago and the value increased 10x in 5 years, would you also add that to his taxable income?
I am sure there are ways to value these options. But I can't find the details in this bill. Do you know how it might work?
0: https://sfelections.sfgov.org/sites/default/files/Documents/...
Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#226It will work out well fiscally because giant companies will suck it up and pay, but it looks like a bad strategy from a forward-looking point of view. You want to incentivize future growth too, and you want to make sure that 20 years down the line, you have the new FAANGs of the world giving you millions in tax dollars, because history has shown that the largest of companies can eventually die out, and tech is full o…
So they show do nothing about today's inequality because this will get them more taxes in 20 years? (Unless someone makes the same point 20 years in that they should better wait another 20 years)
Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#227Earlier 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…
The spoils from this boom primarily benefited companies and people based in and around the Bay Area. People there didn't realize that the rest of the country (and much of the developed world) were still struggling and haven't fully recovered from the 2008-10 recession. The increased prosperity and resulting tax base growth papered over the fundamental mismanagement and poor governance in that area. Some of the highest incomes and highest taxes in the country and yet some of the most dilapidated infrastructure, highest poverty rates and poorest quality of life in the country. "European taxes and third world quality of life" is how I describe the area to people.
Yet, people moved here for the jobs and then new jobs followed the people.
14 years (i.e. half a generation) since then and at the beginning of what is another major recession and economic reset, it's perhaps difficult for most people to imaging that the appeal of the area has diminished and that things aren't magically going back to 2019. People have moved out, companies are hiring elsewhere, the tax base is down >50% and budgets are deep in the red. The local governments can try and raise taxes to squeeze a few million more here and there, but fundamentally, they will have to cut waste and cut spending in the next few years to survive.
I'm not saying SF is going to become the next Detroit, but I remember NYC in the 70s or Seattle post-Boeing (also, early 70s) as an example of what happens to cities when a major industry leaves town. It's a death spiral of lower tax collection -> poorer services -> more people leaving.
Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#228Yeah, that won't have any unexpected effects. U-Haul is 20x what it was 20 years ago. How much higher can it go.
Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#229Re: San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to be clear, it's only on business that is done in San Francisco . Essentially, it's going to turn into a sales tax for SF. > 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 empl…
The interesting question, in my opinion, is whether Stripe's revenue from other San Francisco companies is considered gross receipts within the city or someplace in Delaware or Ireland.
So, for now, it's probably a non-issue... and they have time to adjust.