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

581–590 of 754 posts

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

#581

Post by mypalmike »

nogabebop23 wrote: post #534
opportune wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know lots of people under 30 in the Bay Area who could have much more than 3 rental properties if they wanted to. Especially outside of the bay area. It's just that living with roommates is pretty frugal, and before the pandemic, it was a good way to save an extra $10k a year living in a more central location. Every single person I know who is a bay area SWE makes enough to afford renting a 1bed apartment in a good…

>> makes enough to afford renting a 1bed apartment in a good area In most cities in the US this is not the definition of wealthy or even well off. living with roommates to save 10K a year does sound like one step above poverty.

When I lived in the bay area, lots of my friends lived in shared accommodation because they actually liked living with other people. Saving money was a side effect. They usually bought a place when they got married or not long after. That's not poverty.

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

#582

Post by jordan_curve »

opportune wrote: post #519
ransom1538 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Just as an aside, I don't know the stats for SF, but in Seattle the "invisible" homeless outnumbered the street-homeless 2:1. Street-homeless people tend to cause the most problems and put the most strain on the system, but there are a lot more people sleeping in cars, shelters, temporary housing, and couchsurfing, who are still homeless and need help. I honestly think SF and Seattle need to be tougher on the street-…

Do you have a source for the 2:1 ratio in Seattle? I ask not because I think it’s false, but because I was looking for similar data earlier and couldn’t find it.

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

#583

Post by heavyset_go »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #490
heavyset_go wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminds me of the repeated hurricanes that drive people out of coastal areas. People still live in coastal areas, and rich people continue to build lavish vacation homes on the coast despite the fact that they're washed away by storms every couple of decades. Part of being rich is not having to worry about money, which is why many rich people live in cities, states and countries that tax them more: the benefits of…

Sorry you focused on my comment about coasts. I was really just trying to point out that another pandemic can happen and can happen soon.

I didn't focus on it because I agree with you.

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

#584

Post by apta »

leetcrew wrote: post #86
spinningslate wrote: post #57

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 think there are essentially three schools of thought. 1.) wealth/income inequality is inherently wrong, so redistribution is automatically good. private property is theft! 2.) whatever people get paid is theirs, fair and square. therefore redistribution is automatically bad. taxation is theft! 3.) some people are genuinely much more productive than others, and their pay may reflect that. at the same time, people ca…

You can see how Islam addresses this issue in a very pragmatic and moderate manner. People are heavily encouraged to work and generate wealth, at the same time, it acknowledges that there will be a poorer segment of the population due to different factors (opportunity, luck, hard work, inheritance, etc.).

Islam requires a form of "charity tax" called Zakat. Its proceedings goes to the poor and needy, among others (e.g. freeing slaves, wayfarers, etc.). The percentage is different based on the commodity (e.g. livestock is taxed differently from cash), but the percentage is fixed (only 2.5% in the case of cash money annually).

However, and extremely importantly, it also prohibits exploitative and parasitic practices that cause very unfair advantages to some at the expense of others. Obvious things like lying and cheating (e.g. false advertising), but also very important issues of lending money with interest, selling what you don't own, selling debt for debt, etc. Most of which you'll find on Wall St. as normal behavior. Everything inside these boundaries is up for grabs. Remove these horrible practices, and things will get better almost by definition without having to start taxing people even more.

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

#585

Post by fedd »

How is it even working? How a city is going to tax a company registered in, say, Delaware? What if every municipality in the world decide to tax every company created everywhere?

The article mentions another city where it's working - Portland, afair. How's it possible?

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

#586

Post by dionidium »

bhupy wrote: post #452
alasdair_ wrote: post #433

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…

Most homeowners don't pay capital gains taxes when they sell their home.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomes...

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

#587

Post by rcpt »

titzer wrote: post #489
rcpt wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody would ever sell. They'd just use the increased value as borrowing power if they ever needed cash. Housing prices would skyrocket. If your idea were put on the ballot it'd probably pass.

It would just become another variable in pricing land. It would actually slow down appreciation because taxes would have to be priced into every transaction. You can't borrow against collateral you don't have, so lenders would obviously calculate the appreciation taxes due if they need to foreclose.

But would the lenders adjustments offset the huge rise in prices from people not selling?

Prop 13 already locks people in. With this law they'd have an even bigger reason to bank land forever.

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

#588

Post by bhupy »

typ wrote: post #469
bhupy wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that as a transaction tax, it reduces the demand for the land. The net effect is the same: curbing land speculation.

A transaction tax does not reduce the demand. It reduces the quantity of transactions that matches the demand and supply. That means it adds friction to the reallocation of resources for more efficient use. It literally encourages hoarding. That is even worse than speculation.

Why is it that traditional capital gains tax doesn’t function as a transaction tax on equities and securities?

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

#589

Post by bhupy »

titzer wrote: post #489
rcpt wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody would ever sell. They'd just use the increased value as borrowing power if they ever needed cash. Housing prices would skyrocket. If your idea were put on the ballot it'd probably pass.

It would just become another variable in pricing land. It would actually slow down appreciation because taxes would have to be priced into every transaction. You can't borrow against collateral you don't have, so lenders would obviously calculate the appreciation taxes due if they need to foreclose.

That’s not true, because appreciation isn’t uniform in a housing market. Not everyone experienced the same value gain, so your tax bill might be hundreds of thousands of dollars while your neighbor’s tax bill might just be thousands of dollars.

This is also why capital gains taxes don’t get priced into equities and securities.

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

#590

Post by mypalmike »

rmk wrote: post #541
mrits wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hear bay area friends tell me how it's not that bad there if you have room mates. Mean while the engineers here in their 30s are collecting income from their 3rd rental property already.

One of the problems is that every person wants to live in some trendy neighborhood in "The City". Naturally, that means landlords can get away with charging exorbitant rents (the bulk of the inventory is under rent control, which reduces incentives for folks to move out). Because of this, you end up with ridiculous startups that rent beds out to people, folks paying $2000+ for a small room in a small house, and so on…

Not everyone wants "nice suburban homes" or being a landlord. Many people like city life. It's really that simple.
Post reply on HN