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

251–260 of 754 posts

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

#251

Post by ciarannolan »

dpoochieni wrote: post #236
ciarannolan wrote: post #218

Brings to mind the last paragraph here (see my comment below for the ending): > By the time of Plato’s death (347 B.C.) his hostile analysis of Athenian democracy was approaching apparent confirmation by history. Athens recovered wealth, but this was now commercial rather than landed wealth; industrialists, merchants, and bankers were at the top of the reshuffled heap. The change produced a feverish struggle for mone…

How did the poor fare in the end?

Sorry, didn't want to spam, but here is the last paragraph of that thought:

> The middle classes, as well as the rich, began to distrust democracy as empowered envy, and the poor distrusted it as a sham equality of votes nullified by a gaping inequality of wealth. The rising bitterness of the class war left Greece internally as well as internationally divided when Philip of Macedon pounced down upon it in 338 B.C., and many rich Greeks welcomed his coming as preferable to revolution. Athenian democracy disappeared under Macedonian dictatorship.

TLDR on this whole thing: this never ends well for the poor.

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

#252

Post by eloff »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #188

It 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…

I agree companies will just suck it up and pay it if they want to be in SF.

But I don't think it will disincentive new companies starting out. They have a hundred other concerns more important than how the CEO will be taxed if they one day become huge and the CEO has extremely high compensation. It won't even factor into the decision of where to locate the company. Also, you should notice most highly compensated CEOs are not founders. Founders don't need to compensate themselves that heavily because they own a large chunk of the equity. Simple capital gains or dividends are the favourite forms of compensation for founders.

Since founders, by definition, are the ones deciding where to found the company, they won't care at all about this law.

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

#253

Post by macinjosh »

op03 wrote: post #242
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #188

It 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…

Cities consistently outlast Kings and Empires. But to build empire you have to be in denial of that fact.

Cities may stick around for millenia but their governments don't. Those come and go.

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

#254

Post by forest_dweller »

bambax wrote: post #175
offtop5 wrote: post #165

Feels like a great way to encourage companies to leave the state. I left California many years ago. Every single part of my life is much better. Fiscally , romantically, mentally. SF over values how essential location is. With Covid it's clear remote work is the future, base the company out of Delaware and go full remote

This is the eternal objection to measures like this. But if every city and every state implement this, where will they go? And even if not, will they actually move? Will companies move? Time will tell but it seems very doubtful.

> This is the eternal objection to measures like this. But if every city and every state implement this, where will they go?

To another country. The world is a big place, there are also a number of tax havens that are relics of the British Empire, there will be other countries which will quite happily have large tech business move there.

None of these measures have the intended consequence (usually the opposite happens). All it ever does it make it look like the politicians are doing something.

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

#256

Post by czbond »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #188

It 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…

People will attempt to prove the counter with theoretical, I have an actual to support your claim.

Years ago, Denver placed a tax on companies that create software. By "magic", companies decided to found outside the county lines including Boulder. Boulder has an active software scene. Denver is getting there, but still not the advanced companies Boulder has. I believe Denver recalled the tax, but unsure.

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

#257

Post by dpoochieni »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #169
thursday0987 wrote: post #131

San Franciso is a city, so I imagine what will happen is that companies will move out of the city limits and this new tax will be completely ineffective. Seriously, how hard is it to find a new office in Oakland or San Jose?

Might be effective in reducing rents though!

Probably office rents only, not residential

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

#258

Post by HenryKissinger »

bduerst wrote: post #239
dontreact wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that the performance of companies is driven by the CEO much more than the employees. If the Bay Area has great FANG companies because of talented workforce here, then CEOs will gladly take a pay cut to be able to employ the best workers.

Yep. Founders would likely be on the board and just give themselves different titles from CEO if they really cared, so it shouldn't impact startups.

> just give themselves different titles from CEO

"Lead executor"

"Company Chief"

"Dear Leader"

"Head Director"

"Paramount Leader"

"Viceroy"

"Corporate Emperor"

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

#259

Post by walshemj »

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…

But they voted to screw low paid uber drivers out of employment rights - talk about "presentism"

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

#260

Post by sadfev »

Honestly this not a bad move. It incentivizes the right behavior and the extra levy isn’t ludicrous.

I am as libertarian as it comes but this looks like a proportionate response to pay disparity and a way to generate extra $$.

That being said I am skeptical of it being very successful in either of its goals.

Post reply on HN