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

611–620 of 754 posts

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

#611

Post by runarberg »

digitaltrees wrote: post #576
runarberg wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question why are you blaming the homeless for fucking up things for the rest of us? In my experience the rich are far more guilty (as a generalized group) of fucking things up for me. The rich have polluted the planet, raised the global temperature up a whole degree. The damage is that now I can’t go outside in late summer, if it doesn’t rain the week before, because the air is poisoned by soot from forest fir…

I agree that the scale of damage is greater. I just caution anyone grouping people based on belonging to a category. Being rich doesn’t mean you polluted more than others. Al Gore is rich, but he was kind of focused on that issue.

So for every 100 rich folks that have screwed you over you have an Al Gore that doesn’t. Please have the perspective also that for every homeless person that mugs someone you heard of, there are thousands that wouldn’t even think of doing anything even close to that.

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

#612

Post by jelliclesfarm »

digitaltrees wrote: post #572
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because I am insulted by this attitude. As someone who comes from a country of starvation deaths, I can easily see how the homeless in SF would be considered the 1% of the world. If the milk of human kindness is all about spreading the wealth..how about spreading the wealth to other countries? Why should I pay for the homeless in SF when they live in the richest country in the world when I can send th…

We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response; it’s a red herring argument.

No, we can’t do both.

Imagine you walk into a theatre thinking it’s going to be a Hitchcock movie. After the 12th minute, they start showing Groundhog Day.

They ask you to come back the next day.

You return. Again, after the 12th minute, Groundhog Day. Again, they ask you to come back the next day.

And they don’t return the money you paid for your ticket. Or a credit. You have to pay for a ticket again. Everyday.

Now. How often are you going to keep returning to someone who steals from you and knows you will return. Meanwhile, any theatre next street is playing the Hitchcock flick.

What would a reasonable rational person do?

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

#613

Post by artaak »

0goel0 wrote: post #560
artaak wrote: post #549

And where exactly these taxes will go? From pockets of CEOs to pockets of ... municipal bureaucrats, whose median salary floats at a humble mark of 175K/year? https://www.city-journal.org/san-franciscos-municipal-budget

If you spent time reading the article instead of leaving lies, maybe you'd know: > The CEO tax is expected to generate between $60 million to $140 million per year. Haney said he wants most of the money directed towards health services.

Where exactly I “leave lies”? That’s a serious allegation and is thrown very casually here, as if it is self-obvious.

What he says and what will actually happen is two different things, especially in politics. If you have actually examined the URL I’ve posted, you might (maybe?) realize that money isn’t exactly the problem in the SF municipal budget. Maybe it is something else, like ehm.. actual governance?

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

#615

Post by titzer »

bhupy wrote: post #589
titzer wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Markets don't move by magic. They move by the aggregation of thousands and millions of transactions. And yeah, sellers and lenders absolutely incorporate their taxes into prices.

I see what you are trying to say about capital gains taxes not being in the "price" of securities. But they are in aggregate because taxes inevitably have to be paid. The whole market can't go up without transactions pushing it higher. And all transactions that make profit get a portion pulled out for taxes. They quite literally act as a damper on how fast a market can move.

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

#616

Post by jelliclesfarm »

grugagag wrote: post #522
NoRagrets wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I think more people should strive to be elite than ordinary. Or not. It is the elite and the wannabe elites and those who want to be wealthy and powerful that make the world go round. Ambition that drives people to stand out is why they are motivated to Create. That’s why we are not an equal nation of peasants. There is a reason tax havens exist. And why socialist Europe has Riviera and why we have Jackson Hole.…

Wow, you are a selfish person. Wish you could live tax free in a world where all the inhabitants is just you

Yes, I am a selfish person. You are free to pay my share of the taxes to increase the budget from 360 million/year to $600 million/year etc. Have a nice day.

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

#617

Post by arcticbull »

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…

Housing is literally exclusively a supply and demand problem. If you want rent to go down, allow more building. End of story. There's actually nothing else to it. Lower property values caused by an increase in supply will yield lower rents because rents are generally indexed to mortgage rates which are indexed to property values.

The problem is twofold.

1. Americans view property as an investment while also wanting it to be affordable. These are mutually exclusive. If you want something to be a good investment you want it to become less affordable over time.

2. Renters tend to be younger, transient, non-voters with weaker ties to the community. Landowners tend to be older, established voters with strong ties to the community. This means the city council panders to landowners, and they pass policies which prevent development.

SF is the worst for this, the city is basically unchanged since the 1970s to the absolute and sole benefit of landowners.

There are wonderful examples of cities which pretty much default-allow building housing, like Tokyo. Tokyo is incredibly affordable, downtown starter-home/condos cost $200K USD, and people in Japan do not view property as an investment but rather as somewhere to live. More like a car.

Yes, prop 13 sucks, yes a land value tax is pointing in the right direction, yes rent control isn't helping, but none of these things are a substitute for the simple unit economics of supply and demand. Anything other than permitting tons of new building is at best a band-aid over a hole in the dam.

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

#618

Post by kortilla »

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.

> You can purchase a 5K sqft lot outside of Austin for $2,200 and we still have a growing homeless problem.

But not actually near Austin enough for it to be a sane place to live and commute to Austin from (especially if you depend on public transit).

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

#619

Post by kortilla »

rmk wrote: post #564
mdorazio wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're off by almost an order of magnitude [1]. Even if we say the official estimates are off by a huge margin and there are actually 20,000 homeless in SF, that's $30K per person, on top of however many millions are given out via begging and other programs. It's insanity. [1] https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population

Oh my. I feel like I will never understand California politics. Such blatant corruption and such a large vulnerable population, but also such a huge 'woke' electorate. It would take some crazy mental gymnastics to reconcile these things.

Being woke doesn’t translate to voting for good policies. You’re even more susceptible to voting for heartstrings boondoggles when you’re extra woke.

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

#620

Post by CryptoPunk »

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.

Social problems exist in degrees. San Francisco, with the most stringent land-use restrictions in the US, and largely as a consequence of that, the highest rental rates in the world, experiences the problem of homelessness to a much higher degree.
Post reply on HN