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

621–630 of 754 posts

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

#621

Post by j8014 »

rmk wrote: post #535
sroussey wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was upped to about $600m. Good luck getting an audit.

Okay, that is something on the order of $10,000 per person if there's a homeless population of 60,000 people. I doubt if SF has such a large homeless population. Does this $600 million cover things like Churches sheltering the homeless, pantries, and such? Or is it in addition to the the $600 million? Something is very rotten here.

SF does have a huge homeless population. Yes it go's to homeless shelters and other charities/programs. We sometimes forget that not all homeless are chronic homeless which is what most people associate as homeless.

Someone may be having hard times making rent and go to a church or other organization for financial help and other services. Battered women, at risk children also exist and may require a shelter with more security or women only shelters - which are funded too. There are many other services that exist that use that funding.

I didn't see waste. Actually, I would go so far as say most charities that receive federal and state funding rely on reporting to receive those grants and funding and things are very transparent. HMIS is the tech side of things that build the systems to track and report on everything.

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

#622

Post by digitaltrees »

runarberg wrote: post #611
digitaltrees wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do have that perspective which was my exact point. Don’t group people and make broad generalizations.

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

#623

Post by runarberg »

primitivesuave wrote: post #573
subsubzero wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 walking home in the TL, he had hitchhiked from a trailer park in North Carolina to SF. His neighbor in the trailer park made amateur porn websites, so he pretty much learned web development purely in the context of pornography. He was addicted to meth and came to SF looking for a job and the free methodone treatment. His laptop got stolen so I gave him an old Macbook I had lying around and told him to che…

I am currently a web developer earning 6 figures in the Seattle area. I learned the skill in the Front End development course in Noisebridge—a hacker space in the Mission. They provided a free course, every Tuesday (or was it Monday) evening. I was living in a van at the time (what many people consider homeless). I know I might have learned the craft without this resource but I feel like this course made things significantly easier for me. And I definitely owe a dept of gratitude to the Noisebridge community (and Jeffrey in particular) for providing this to me.

Now just to be clear I’m not saying that any homeless person can learn how to code and get a job. I’m just saying that in my case I was what many people consider homeless, learned how to code, moved away from the city to Northern Europe, and then happened to get a job in the industry.

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

#624

Post by digitaltrees »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #612
digitaltrees wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your response doesn’t show that we can’t do both. We do have the resources and social science knowledge to accomplish both objectives.

I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.

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

#625

Post by digitaltrees »

ovao wrote: post #610
digitaltrees wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should talk and listen. They don’t want to be homeless. They want something else. What? Provide that.

In many cases? Drugs.

In that case Portugal and Sweden have show some success in treatment rather than the approach we have been taking. We should learn from evidence based outcomes rather than normative based appeals to tradition.

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

#626

Post by typ »

bhupy wrote: post #588
typ wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am not sure what you mean by "doesn't function as a traction tax". It does create the same incentive for hoarding. I don't see any advantage of it compared with LVT.

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

#627

Post by digitaltrees »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #578
digitaltrees wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many billion dollar start ups came out of the Austin ecosystem? SF is expensive because it is productive. It’s producing wealth so prices go up. If you want to raise money, recruit talent SF adds value which is paid for with hire expenses. I would rather own equity in a high growth start up than 3 rental houses; at least from a growth perspective.

> I would rather own equity in a high growth start up than 3 rental houses; at least from a growth perspective. But that isn't the choice, the choice is between three rental houses and a maybe 1 in 20 chance of owning equity in a high growth startup that may or may not IPO in the next 15 years.

It is the choice because the ecosystem is in SF. And because of the demand of people wanting to participate in the SF ecosystem, prices are higher. It’s a gold rush dynamic. YCs are the new 49ers.

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

#628

Post by cheriot »

burkaman wrote: post #423
cheriot wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're focusing on where the money goes. That doesn't change the fact that this is a uniquely bad way to raise it. Transfer taxes are not like capital gains or income taxes. There is no value being created when something is transferred.

> people who "barely pay any tax at all" are worth helping

Millionaire property owners are barely paying any taxes. Disneyland and every other large commercial building is barely paying any taxes. Why are they worth helping?

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

#629

Post by digitaltrees »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #574
digitaltrees wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if other states could be blocked from buying one way bus tickets for their homeless citizens and instead be responsible that would help.

This is an urban legend and gets claimed in every major city. San Francisco has great weather, lots of well off people to panhandle from, and treats the homeless relatively better than its neighbors. It really is that simple.

It’s not an urban legend. Mayor Bloomberg had a well funded, well documented program in NYC. Quick duck duck go.

Many others have piled on, so the burden has shifted to you. What support do you have for this being an urban legend?

Literally one search shows sources from across the ideological spectrum covering this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/us/homeless-busing-seattl...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/27/nyc-exports-ho...

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

#630

Post by jelliclesfarm »

digitaltrees wrote: post #624
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your response doesn’t show that we can’t do both. We do have the resources and social science knowledge to accomplish both objectives. I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.

1. Please define ‘both’

2. Please elaborate ‘..we can do both’

Post reply on HN