San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

rriepe wrote: post #395

primitivesuave wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I'll vote for you. Setting up a welfare magnet for the homeless in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country is cruelty, not compassion.

[deleted]

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

#412

Post by kansface » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

jm_l wrote: post #376

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 think this is a common line of thinking that doesn't actually reflect the reality of how much the city is spending per year. SF's spending in 2019 was 12b dollars (roughly $12,000 per resident). Of that, 1.6b went to MTA ($1600 per resident, or 13% of total spending) and 360m went to addressing homelessness ($360 per resident, or 3% of total spending) Comparatively, SF's GDP was 500b (500,000 per resident). To conc…

My understanding is that the city spends quite a bit of money on the homeless indirectly in various forms. The bigger problem is the growth in the budget:

2012: 7.3 billion for 829,027 people = 8805/resident 2020: 13.7 billion for 896,047 people = 15289/resident

Why did the budget increase 51% in 8 years when the population increased by 8% (1.13% inflation)?

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

#413

Post by dheera » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

rland wrote: post #404

NoRagrets wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist economy, we create Capital. It is capital that funds industry. You can’t take capital and make it spending money. What do you think the wealthy spend their money on other than ‘basic necessities’? Why would anyone be wealthy and only spend on basic necessities? They spend on luxury. They spend on high living and expensive things. So there are resorts. And staff that work in resorts. There are sports c…

Most money that wealthy people have is not spent on consumer goods. It is plowed into more investment. Who spends more of their income? A paycheck-to-paycheck worker, or a wealthy person? The wealthy person puts most of their money into retirement accounts, college accounts, real estate equity, investment accounts, trusts, tax havens, shell companies... If you have 5 million paycheck-to-paycheck workers they will spe…

Let's also not forget that many wealthy people only pay at most 15% on taxes because the tax structure has more or less been lobbied by the wealthy in favor of the wealthy. Most middle class people pay 25-35%, and have neither time nor resources to lobby otherwise.

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

#414

Post by didibus » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:10 AM UTC

primitivesuave wrote: post #369

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 t…

> or leave the city

I would like it that we can as a society find ways to help homeless with their issues and manage their lives in a way that isn't just each city tossing them out.

That said, I'm not against someone's honest decision to say, well I don't know how, and in the mean time, I want them out of sight so kick them out.

But, and this is the but I feel is never discussed by those who propose that solution is HOW?

How do you kick them out? What if they resist? Arrest? Jail? Now who pays for that? Should we just fire gunshots at them? Force relocate them, and if they come back? Erect barriers? What else?

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

#415

Post by nostrebored » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

rland wrote: post #404

NoRagrets wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist economy, we create Capital. It is capital that funds industry. You can’t take capital and make it spending money. What do you think the wealthy spend their money on other than ‘basic necessities’? Why would anyone be wealthy and only spend on basic necessities? They spend on luxury. They spend on high living and expensive things. So there are resorts. And staff that work in resorts. There are sports c…

Most money that wealthy people have is not spent on consumer goods. It is plowed into more investment. Who spends more of their income? A paycheck-to-paycheck worker, or a wealthy person? The wealthy person puts most of their money into retirement accounts, college accounts, real estate equity, investment accounts, trusts, tax havens, shell companies... If you have 5 million paycheck-to-paycheck workers they will spe…

Investment does benefit other people. That's the primary point of investment.

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

#416

Post by jm_l » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

primitivesuave wrote: post #385

jm_l wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a common line of thinking that doesn't actually reflect the reality of how much the city is spending per year. SF's spending in 2019 was 12b dollars (roughly $12,000 per resident). Of that, 1.6b went to MTA ($1600 per resident, or 13% of total spending) and 360m went to addressing homelessness ($360 per resident, or 3% of total spending) Comparatively, SF's GDP was 500b (500,000 per resident). To conc…

One number you're missing there is the total homeless population estimated in 2019 to be around 8000 people [1], which works out to around $45k per homeless resident. 1. https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDRep...

Yes the point-in-time count is 8000, but a lot of homelessness services go to preventing people who are on the edge of homelessness.

If you use the estimate here (https://sf.curbed.com/2019/11/20/20973811/sf-homeless-count-...) that 18,000 people are homeless at some time in a given year then the figure goes down to 20,000 per homeless.

Also consider that an additional estimated 9,500 each year would be homeless if not for SF's existing supportive housing services (https://sf.curbed.com/2020/3/4/21152501/san-francisco-homele...)

Plus people being evicted. In 2019 there were 1600 eviction notices (https://sfrb.org/sites/default/files/Document/Statistics/18-...). If we assume that even just 25% of those are 4-person families, that's bringing us to around 10k a year per homeless/at-risk resident (and that's not even counting those who are at-risk of eviction but did not get evicted thanks to SF's existing eviction prevention resources.

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

#417

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

One thing I don't get - what's the point of having an office in SF now? (Almost) nobody is going to the office anymore, everyone switching to remove. All meetings are online. The city itself is dirty and unsafe and smelly. And you've got insane prices and taxes. What's the point of staying there? Is it just inertia? Is it too expensive to move?

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

#418

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

csomar wrote: post #113

jedberg wrote: post #99

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.

Thanks for the clarification. But any company operating in SF is a bit crazy. So if a bank has a branch/office in SF, then it's liable for this tax? For all their gross income or just for the income generated within city boundaries?

I foresee some real estate companies that have office buildings just next to SF municipal border are going to make a nice profit.

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

#419

Post by kansface » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

singron wrote: post #141

kansface wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if SF wants to tax excessive income disparity, I say, fair enough. None of the billionaires here made that money from their salary. This will not touch them at all. > If they do leave, I don't see that as a bad thing. Chasing away jobs and the tax base will not end well. There is a decent chance SF enters a financial death spiral from its pension obligations. At the very least, massive cuts are in order. SF will no…

The text of the measure refers to "compensation", of which it gives a specific definition that includes commissions, bonuses, and equity (specifically mentioning stock options). The $1 salary CEO isn't excluded if they also have a huge equity package. Although it doesn't mention capital gains, so if the CEO owns a significant part of their company already and doesn't have an additional vesting schedule, then they cou…

Our billionaires are billionaires from their ownership stakes in the companies they founded. For instance, Jeff Besos only makes ~2 million per year in total compensation! He would pay no more in taxes if he were to move to SF (from this particular bill, anyway).

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

#420

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 12:17 AM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #133

csomar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was fast. Unless this tax targets all of the bay area, the moving cost is not really much and your workers could still commute with a WFH option. Imo, San Jose is in prime position to build a real city with the possible exodus from SF.

> San Jose is in prime position to build a real city San Jose is already 25% bigger than SF. It's the third largest city in California after Los Angeles and San Diego.

SJ is big by population but it's essentially a tiny downtown and a huge spread of suburban single-family homes and strip malls. And (before the covid mess) the traffic was already not great. So if we ever get back to in-person office working, and after Google sets up their new office in SJ and others will consider doing the same it probably is going to suck big time. But if it will be "mostly remote" setup then SJ has plenty of space and opportunity to accommodate more business.