Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

261–270 of 754 posts

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

#261
post #153

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.

People in San Francisco have long been angry at tech workers for driving up prices... Driving them out may be on purpose!

If that’s the goal then I think this is a good initiative.

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

#262
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen people take that position and I see a fundamental mistake. Look at rust belt cities. Look at NYC in the 70s. When employers leave the people left behind are not better off. This doesn't mean we need to kiss big tech ass, but we have a city where getting a job is a solved problem. Very few places on earth have that. Rent prices are the underlying problem pushing people out. Underlying _that_ problem is a lac…

> Underlying _that_ problem is a lack of supply And underlying that problem is Prop 13 - the insane multi billion dollar tax break that Californians bestowed on all land speculators. Until it's gone nothing will change.

Prop 13 is fucking horrible. We can't blame it for everything, though. It doesn't stop SF from zoning for more residential units or allowing the existing ones to be subdivided. All of those new units pay full freight.

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

#263
post #252

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…

The bill isn't about how CEOs will be taxed. It's about how their entire company will be taxed.

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

#264

Why do these discussions always revolve around the collection of taxes instead of how the taxes will be used? Would anyone be complaining if they knew the taxes would be more beneficial? Conversely, wouldn't we reject these new taxes if we knew they weren't going to be a greater benefit? Does anyone even know how the taxes will be used?

Does anyone even know how the taxes will be used? To fund currently unfunded pension liabilities? To hire more city employees at above-market rates? To build new parks and roads? To fund public transportation? The money will be used for what it always is - some of it will be good and some of it won't be very good. Once it's in the pot, it gets stirred around and all sorts of people and projects get a full bowl. That'…

> The money will be used for what it always is - some of it will be good and some of it won't be very good. Once it's in the pot, it gets stirred around and all sorts of people and projects get a full bowl. That's not what's interesting about this story - taxes get raised all the time by all sorts of authorities.

Why is this not interesting to you? Just because it's the status quo of how things are done doesn't make it less of an issue to me. Maybe if we knew what pot of taxes were used for what causes, we could reason about their worthiness better. Just raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes seems like a meaningless and potentially regressive goal otherwise.

> What's interesting is that the tax is full of perverse incentives and may very well lead to lower, not higher tax receipts.

These things can both be interesting.

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

#265
post #228
post #112

Yeah, that won't have any unexpected effects. U-Haul is 20x what it was 20 years ago. How much higher can it go.

Could you share a bit more context? What happened with U-Haul?

In a society that has reasonably established freedom of movement, which the US Constitution does fairly well, sufficiently onerous policies, where the sufficiently part is decided by those who bear the payment burden and not by the levier, eventually result in the target actively deciding to exercise that right to just leave. It's a big country, and there are many nice places in it where a decent life can be lived with less burden. U-Haul's stock price increase over the last two decades can be viewed as fairly reflecting such inter-state movement.

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

#266
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

I find it interesting that you frame income inequality as "wealth polarisation." Are you implying a bimodal distribution of some sort? My personal theory of "inequality" is that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. A distribution of income levels will always have a long right tail as you cannot make negative income but there is no theoretical limit to the maximum income. If all wages grow by the same relative amount, yo…

> I do not believe that the rich getting richer is the cause of the stagnation, though. If anything, automation and globalization have been the main reasons for stagnation among middle and lower income levels.

Who disproportionately benefitted financially from automation and globalization?

> From that perspective, I prefer policies that focus on wage growth for the lower and middle classes, even if that's a harder problem to solve.

You need to do both. No one was talking about this 20 years ago because most people were participating in the "good economy", even if some benefitted far more than others. Now people are being told the economy is good (by both major polities), but it doesn't match reality, which you noted is a major cause of angst.

Additionally, if your goal is to create more jobs and wage growth for low and middle income people, the best way to do that is to reduce economic concentration and create more opportunity for competition and small business. It will be less cost efficient, but the economy will be more resilient and the wealth would be more broadly distributed, even though some people could still achieve obscene wealth.

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

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Lord High Muckety-Muck

Emperor for Life

Grand PoohBah

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

#268
post #260

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.

"libertarian as it comes" : "proportionate response" : "pay disparity"

Wikipedia: "In modern politics, liberty is the state of being free within society from control or oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

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

#269
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed parent’s point, which is that companies will have (yet another) incentive to replace their lowest paid workers with contractors. First they came for the janitors, but I did not speak up, for I was not a janitor...

I'm completely at a loss as to why they wouldn't have already done as much of this as it was conceivably possible to do right now - or wouldn't get there eventually. Companies don't pay you more money because they CEO looks at his salary and goes "yeah I think I have enough".

Because outsource vs in house is not a simple decision. there are many factors each with a set of pros and cons.

Sometimes outsourcing lets "them" focus on efficiency and getting the details right and so you are better off. Sometimes out sourcing cuts quality to get better costs.

There are many accountants, it is relatively standard across industries, and so you can outsource it all easily - but most big companies have it in house anyway. (though they will hire out some of the grunt work) This is one area where messing up will kill your company so you better keep a close eye on it. (An accountant can easily steel enough money that you can't maintain cash flow - you might get the accountant in prison but your great company is bankrupt anyway). This is but one example of many cases where out sourcing is bad.

On the other side power utilities outsource most tree trimming around power lines. The companies that do this work give the utility a great deal because the contract that keeps their crews busy 3/4ths of the year which is important because most of this type of work is right after a storm and employees are easier to keep when they aren't laid off 3/4ths of the year waiting on the next job.

When an out sourcing is borderline not worth it because of risks above it, it may become worth it after this change.

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

#270
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen people take that position and I see a fundamental mistake. Look at rust belt cities. Look at NYC in the 70s. When employers leave the people left behind are not better off. This doesn't mean we need to kiss big tech ass, but we have a city where getting a job is a solved problem. Very few places on earth have that. Rent prices are the underlying problem pushing people out. Underlying _that_ problem is a lac…

> The fix is to keep the economic prosperity and build more housing. That makes sense to me. I don't keep up with exact SF policies but I'm guessing there are zoning and the NIMBY factor to deal with. Underlying this problem is? Money, influence and power? I know a soon to be ex-POTUS that might be the perfect man for the job! He can come in and cut all deals needed. Then SF is saved and then he goes from city to cit…

Yes, NIMBY zoning and a planning process that makes even zoning compliant projects difficult to impossible.

The Board of Supervisors are elected from districts instead of city wide. This means they're heavily influenced by neighborhood associations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Throw in the normal, human fear of change and... the result isn't pretty.

Post reply on HN