Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

451–460 of 754 posts

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

#451
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Presumably because there was no significant advantage, or no sufficient incentive to do so. If the executive team is trying to raise the median salary of their employee base, however, there's now a strong incentive to outsource the lowest-paid portion of your employee base to contract work (even if contractors might cost marginally more), since it'll raise the median wage of your employees.

e.g. let's say my employees' wages are:

[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10, 10, 10, 10]

Now let's say I could replace each employee with a contractor by paying 0.5 more than the salary of an FTE.

In the above example, let's say I want to raise the median salary of my employees to 10. I could do that by either:

* Paying one of my employees 9 more (boosting them from 1 to 10), at a total cost of 9

* Replacing all my 1-salaried workers with 1.5-salaried contractors, at a total cost of 2.5 (five workers, each getting a 0.5 bump)

It's clear that I'd never want to do this if contract workers and full-time workers were just as favorable for me (since I'd be paying more to get the same work done). If all of a sudden the company were incentivized to raise their median employee's salary, though, all sorts of non-common-sense solutions can come out of the woodwork, and replacing FTEs with contractors (even at a cost) could be the incentivized solution.

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

#452
post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

>China taxes land appreciation between 30-60%. Doesn't the government technically own all the land in China and then just lease it to individuals? Slightly different system.

Not quite relevant, because we already tax land appreciation in the US today, it's just the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is also low because (in theory) we want to incentivize investment in the name of growth. There's no reason why we ought to apply the same incentive in favor of investment in real asset growth. A Land Appreciation Tax is just a capital gains tax just on real estate.

In fact, LVT would be unconstitutional at the Federal level today, but a Land Appreciation Tax would not.

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

#453
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they show do nothing about today's inequality because this will get them more taxes in 20 years? (Unless someone makes the same point 20 years in that they should better wait another 20 years)

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…

Proposition H (passed) was designed to do exactly that: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-s-Propositio...

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

#454

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 met a guy who fit all of the above. Did some drugs, had some mental issues (but not to the point of being insane), was down on his luck. He didn't exactly want to stay homeless, but he preferred it to his other alternatives (which included job skill program with free housing). After a while his luck turned and he found a job that suited him and a place to stay. He probably still has some mental issues and does some drugs.

Idk where I'm going with this except to say it's complicated.

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

#455
post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

> China taxes land appreciation between 30-60%. If you want support for your causes in the US, you probably don’t want to compare it to a communist regime that scares the crap out of people. Unless this was sarcastic...?

I think it's fair that comparing something to China doesn't win adherents, but just because China does it, doesn't mean that it's "communist". China has shopping malls — does that make shopping malls communist?

Also, a Land Appreciation Tax isn't really radically different from the status quo in the US today. Land appreciation is already taxed as capital gains, it's just that the capital gains tax is intentionally set to be low to incentivize investment. The argument here is that we should not only NOT incentivize speculation on land, we should deter it by carving out a "special" capital gains tax on land.

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

#456
post #437

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…

What about all those regular people who do not have the skills, knowledge or risk capital to start a business?

With a couple hundred bucks you could buy a camp stove and some groceries to start a food truck on the weekends.

I'm definitely open to discussions about how to help people incapable of raising a couple hundred bucks and lacking the skills to cook a hot dog. I'm not claiming to attempt to solve every problem.

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

#458
post #440
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you build on that? Is there water, electricity, gas and cable?

Yes. If you want to drive 50 miles outside the city you can get 10 acres for $50k.

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

#459
Imagine being so incompetent that you think the solution to San Francisco's problems is a property transfer tax. Not a property tax. A transfer tax.

Transfer taxes disincentivize transfers. What do we need more of in property constrained places like SF? Transfers.

What a shockingly stupid policy.

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

#460
post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China taxes land appreciation between 30-60%. Doesn't the government technically own all the land in China and then just lease it to individuals? Slightly different system.

Not quite relevant, because we already tax land appreciation in the US today, it's just the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is also low because (in theory) we want to incentivize investment in the name of growth. There's no reason why we ought to apply the same incentive in favor of investment in real asset growth. A Land Appreciation Tax is just a capital gains tax just on real estate. In fact, LVT would be…

Why capital gains tax rate is lower

[..] The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption. ... Finally, a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption.[..]

Post reply on HN