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

361–370 of 754 posts

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

#361

Post by d33lio »

heavyset_go wrote: post #334
d33lio wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"mandatory spending" - right I take a bigger issue with programs like student loan debt forgiveness which would be a slap in the face to poor people like myself who worked their way through college in order to no longer be burdened by loans. Not to mention the fact that without a refresh of regulation on universities (specifically graduate degrees) loan forgiveness would just further embolden universities to increase…

> I take a bigger issue with programs like student loan debt forgiveness which would be a slap in the face to poor people like myself who worked their way through college in order to no longer be burdened by loans This is like saying that a cheap cure for cancer would be a slap in the face to people who drained their life savings battling cancer, and to the families of those who lost.

To be frank, conflating healthcare and higher education is quite a mental leap. Yes, they both have problems and are "free" in other countries - in either case, nothing is really "free".

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

#362

Post by TuringNYC »

LinuxBender wrote: post #333
RangerScience wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did they have to move? This new law, or something else?

This was in the middle of Covid, around the time many businesses and renters were leaving SF. They would not give me specifics, but I assume it no longer made financial sense to be in that expensive high-rise, as all the parking was locked down, forcing all the customers to take BART. I am not sure what affect this new law will have for those that remain.

Another reason SF companies are leaving: restrictions mandating lower maximum elevator occupancy (e.g. 4 persons) is causing long lines at some high-rises, making it hard to get in and out of the building -- esp for quick breaks, food pickups, lunch, etc.

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

#363

Post by closeparen »

GhostVII wrote: post #309

San Francisco's solution to everything seems to be to just keep raising taxes, and throwing money at things which don't work. At some point you have to realize that more money isn't always the solution, you actually have to fix your beurocracy. It's insane to me that the city with so many rich people and incredibly valuable companies is such a mess, your telling me that a small city with an incredibly wealthy populat…

As upper-middle-class professionals we tend to assume that city institutions are here to serve us, and that the things we find unpleasant must be failures.

The ability to pitch a tent almost anywhere, free from police harassment, is pretty great if you’re homeless.

Likewise the public transit system is pretty great if you’re a transit worker, or someone who wants an indoor third space but whose appearance/behavior/smell would tend to get you thrown out of Starbucks, or if your best alternative is to walk.

San Francisco isn’t failing. It just values these people and their needs a lot more than it values the comfort and convenience of tech workers. If you don’t like it, vote for a moderate instead of a progressive in your next BoS election.

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

#364

Post by stainforth »

pydry wrote: post #243
Consultant32452 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I'd like to see them do is radically simplify the ability for regular people to start regular businesses. One thing we could do is pick some small industry and run experiments with it. An example might be food trucks. There's a lot of regulations around these today. As a thought experiment we could eliminate all sales tax, special licensing, etc. for food truck companies under a certain size (We don't McDon…

Concentration of market power and lack of risk capital, not regulation, is the primary inhibitor to normal people starting businesses.

What do you mean by risk capital? Legal shark loans?

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

#365

Post by cheriot »

rcpt wrote: post #328
cheriot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zoning laws aren't laws of physics. People make those up to align with what works best for them. Prop 13 strongly incentivizes less housing (because it boosts voters asset values with no downside to homeowners) and more commercial (because cities now rely on sales taxes to stay functional). Until the landowners start to feel some downside from the housing disaster don't expect anything to change.

Landowners are a minority in the city. The divide is deeper than just property values because 100% BMR units are obstructed the same way.

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

#366

Post by cody3222 »

jameslk wrote: post #349
cody3222 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely love the historic example of taxes that Benjamin Franklin talks about in his biography: he says he went to all his neighbors' houses and asked if they wanted to chip in a nickel a week and have one of the neighborhood boys sweep the street for everyone's benefit every week. Most said yes and paid the fee. This is literally what tax is in the most simplistic form (let's pool our money to get something we…

Wow what a great example. I hadn't heard this story before but I will be certainly be referencing it. Thank you. Article I found about it: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-07-02-01...

Amazing, thanks for sharing a source!

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

#367

Post by huevosabio »

Sigh... more ill-thought "policies" voted as propositions.

I wonder, when will the balance change such that it no longer makes sense for any relevant company to be based off of San Francisco.

I wonder, how many bad regulations does San Francisco have to come up with before it finds itself in Detroit's shoes? It is harder for San Francisco, since the weather here is phenomenal, but not impossible.

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

#368

Post by jelliclesfarm »

dheera wrote: post #332
GhostVII wrote: post #309

San Francisco's solution to everything seems to be to just keep raising taxes, and throwing money at things which don't work. At some point you have to realize that more money isn't always the solution, you actually have to fix your beurocracy. It's insane to me that the city with so many rich people and incredibly valuable companies is such a mess, your telling me that a small city with an incredibly wealthy populat…

> a small city with an incredibly wealthy population can't figure out how to keep the tenderloin from being full of tents and open drug use? The wealthy people avoid walking through the Tenderloin. They spend their time in the Battery and the Modernist. They have no incentive to fix the situation there. None. Zero. This isn't Europe where wealthy people enjoy a stroll downtown, and have some incentive to want to keep…

It is understandable that you want these issues fixed. But do you think those who don’t use these services should be burdened with the cost of fixing them?

In Europe, social costs are borne by the middle class to provide a safety net for the middle class. In the USA, we expect the wealthy to provide for all of society. It is highly irrational.

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

#369

Post by primitivesuave »

GhostVII wrote: post #309

San Francisco's solution to everything seems to be to just keep raising taxes, and throwing money at things which don't work. At some point you have to realize that more money isn't always the solution, you actually have to fix your beurocracy. It's insane to me that the city with so many rich people and incredibly valuable companies is such a mess, your telling me that a small city with an incredibly wealthy populat…

I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in - back then, there was a guy on every street corner trying to sell you something, and certain alleyways/corners where there was daily cleaning for piles of human waste. It's become much less dangerous but still quite depressing to walk through.

I started talking to people living on the streets and my opinion is that the problem can't be fixed by throwing money at it. Some people don't want to get free treatment, a shelter bed, or transitionary housing because of drug addiction, mental illness, a dog who can't accompany them, etc. A lot of them travel to SF because of how much we spend on homeless people, and it used to be pretty common to find people reselling food bank donations on the street for a fraction of grocery-store prices.

If it was up to me, I would tell people that they either need to accept help to get back on their feet (I've witnessed the Homeless Outreach Team doing great work) or leave the city. However, espousing a "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me.

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

#370

Post by devmunchies »

stainforth wrote: post #295
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The measure wasn't to tax based on CEO pay. It was based on the highest paid managerial employee. So title doesn't matter.

Just want to comment that thank god we can actually build rules that can't be loopholed.

Create a secondary company to house all the low-wage employees.
Post reply on HN