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

421–430 of 754 posts

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

#421

Post by jm_l »

kansface wrote: post #412
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…

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)?

The economic context has also changed a lot. In 2012 SF's total GDP was 350b, today it's 500b (a 40% increase). It shouldn't necessarily be that surprising that as the economy grows the government's spending does as well.

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

#422

Post by ransom1538 »

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…

"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 population can't figure out how to keep the tenderloin from being full of tents and open drug use? Or get some form of functioning public transit? Pretty pathetic."

SF resident for 15 years until I left.

I walked around and talked to homeless. From the dozens I have talked with:

1. They are not from SF.

2. They were homeless somewhere else and it sucked.

3. Pan handling cash is easy. $100+ a day.

4. The SF programs kick ass. Suboxone clinics, Free cell phones, free bus passes, monthly stipends $$, even occasional housing

5. The police do not hassle much, you can shoot up on the street no problem.

It is a system designed to create more homelessness.

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

#423

Post by burkaman »

cheriot wrote: post #318
burkaman wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think the very slight disincentive to future startups outweighs the hundreds of millions in health services funding? Remember that healthcare has a compounding positive effect, because healthy people have an easier time contributing to society, and unhealthy people are more likely to need public services.

It's dis-incentivizing future growth to make up for people and companies that barely pay any tax at all. The only thing this subsidizes are long time land owners.

I'm saying that this will have benefits beyond finance, and people who "barely pay any tax at all" are worth helping.

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

#424

Post by kansface »

jm_l wrote: post #421
kansface wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

The economic context has also changed a lot. In 2012 SF's total GDP was 350b, today it's 500b (a 40% increase). It shouldn't necessarily be that surprising that as the economy grows the government's spending does as well.

This does explain quite a bit! Although I'd assume there are economies of scale in running a city (or else they wouldn't exist in general).

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

#425

Post by xg15 »

cody3222 wrote: post #342
xg15 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Lowest-income jobs that can easily be outsourced are very likely already outsourced. If the company has the option to do this, why should it hold off doing so?

Like janitors, yes. However you can still go a level up, perhaps to support people. And then another level up, like to entry level sales people.

Then why didn't they already do that before?

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

#426

Post by gameswithgo »

ransom1538 wrote: post #422
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…

"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 population can't figure out how to keep the tenderloin from being full of tents and open drug use? Or get some form of functioning public transit? Pretty pathetic." SF resident for 15 years until I left. I walked around and talked to homeless. From th…

well, a system designed to attract the homeless to sf anyway

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

#427

Post by enahs-sf »

subsubzero wrote: post #409
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…

> "get tough on homelessness" attitude would be vilified by our political climate, so it won't ever be up to me. You and me both, the solution is really straightforward. I feel like homeless in general falls into 4 camps: camp 1 - drug addiction, this one would be to get people off the streets, Open rehab clinics, get them clean, and back into a functioning society. camp 2 - mental illness, This one would be opening…

I wonder what the distribution is between these four camps? My hunch is solving for the first three camps as you've described would lead to a much higher quality of living for the average city dweller.

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

#428

Post by norswap »

mrits wrote: post #397
rcpt wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago so we don't have to wonder about this: > THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power: > As productive power…

You can purchase a 5K sqft lot outside of Austin for $2,200 and we still have a growing homeless problem. I'd look more into providing mental health, relocation, and incentives to stay off heavy drugs.

Surely that number is not right - probably lacking two digits?

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

#429

Post by bhupy »

rcpt wrote: post #339
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…

Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago so we don't have to wonder about this: > THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power: > As productive power…

A pet crusade of mine: California can pass a 100% (or close to that) land appreciation tax (capital gains tax on land), and that wouldn't violate Prop 13. High land appreciation taxes are essentially indistinguishable from Georgist LVT. China taxes land appreciation between 30-60%.

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

#430

Post by randyrand »

textech wrote: post #31

San Francisco is the 16th largest city by population and has a budget of around 14 billion which is like 6 or 7 times larger than many cities with much bigger population. This is just a badly run city and throwing more money at their problems isn't going to help them.

The point has never been to fix problems - it’s to minimize the amount of money rich people have.

Even if the money was burned that would be okay.

Post reply on HN