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

671–680 of 754 posts

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

#671

Post by qgrgergfqgfev »

asdff wrote: post #659
rmk wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's because CA voters are bombarded with propositions every election. At least a half dozen. People barely have time to study the issues, so they go off what makes sense from the headline or the title of the measure on the ballot. Hence being fleeced by Prop 22 and the new privacy laws, which sure looked pretty when they were sitting there in the ballot.

Not only that, all these props are just propaganda to me. I see a bunch of youtube videos constantly telling me that people are gonna die if I don't vote for prop something. No information, just appeals to emotions.

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

#672

Post by qgrgergfqgfev »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #188

It will work out well fiscally because giant companies will suck it up and pay, but it looks like a bad strategy from a forward-looking point of view. You want to incentivize future growth too, and you want to make sure that 20 years down the line, you have the new FAANGs of the world giving you millions in tax dollars, because history has shown that the largest of companies can eventually die out, and tech is full o…

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here.

Come on... There's a million reasons why new startups shouldn't start here, the salary of a CEO is not one of them.

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

#673

Post by arcticbull »

haxney wrote: post #654
arcticbull wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> If you want rent to go down, allow more building. End of story. There's actually nothing else to it. There's actually another solution, but people don't talk about it: reduce demand. Break some windows. Have a few organized robbery parties. Hold monthly "Stabby Sundays" where you just stab people randomly. That'll drive down demand, and prices will drop like a rock. Obviously, I'm joking. Building more houses is th…

I'm sad you got downvoted for that, I really enjoyed it haha.

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

#674

Post by snidane »

arcticbull wrote: post #617
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…

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 i…

> Housing is literally exclusively a supply and demand problem. If you want rent to go down, allow more building

Wrong. Without Land Value Tax the housing market simply doesn't clear. If there is no force to make house and land owners to sell to those who would actually utilize it better, they will sit on it forever until a huge ass corp or gov eventually buys them out for ridiculous price. As an owner you just have to wait while not paying virtually anything. Everybody else who actually needs to live, work or produce something in that location has to rely on new housing in ever increasing urban sprawling cities.

San Francisco is a prime example of this and apparently always has been as Henry George showed more than a century ago.

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

#675

Post by [deleted] »

rmk wrote: post #668
kortilla wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Completely agree with everything you said. But how does woke and liberal politics square with almost complete apathy to the the plight of the homeless (or of those verging on homelessness)? Almost nothing has been done to make housing affordable (even very modest, incremental bills in this regard have been shot down). If you consider the plight of agricultural workers and housing for them, you would be even more befu…

[deleted]

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

#676

Post by roenxi »

rcpt wrote: post #636
arcticbull wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Yes. Because of policies that favor landowners housing in California has become primarily an investment instead of a place to live. However it's not simple supply and demand. We have a ton of "speculative demand" which increases when prices rise and we can't reasonably stop that by building more. Yes California needs to build but even if we started Shanghai levels of growth today it's unlikely we'd get affordable cit…

I agree that a land tax is great policy if anyone wants to argue about fairness and outcomes. (And therefore I suspect politicians talking about land taxes will by a sign of the end times.)

But it is very easy to have cheap housing and lots of it without a land tax. If I could sign a 50 years lease with strong protections that might even be better for me than buying, and landlords would have the usual incentives to build lots of houses if there is demand.

The problem in California sounds like the landholders who are being rewarded are the ones who choose not to build more dwellings. Greedy landlords in high-demand areas would build more, because then they make more money. I'd rather rent to an apartment building of people than a wealthy middle class family. And they'd be making generational fortunes doing that.

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

#677

Post by pydry »

stainforth wrote: post #364
pydry wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concentration of market power and lack of risk capital, not regulation, is the primary inhibitor to normal people starting businesses.

What do you mean by risk capital? Legal shark loans?

Spare cash. Money you don't need for feeding, educating, clothing and housing your family.

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

#678

Post by mola »

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…

Why is homeless people in the tenderloin so bad? Is there a safety issue? Do they Rob or murder? (Genuinely asking) If not, than why is it so bad? Because you don't like seeing the poor? I mean sure people forced to homelessness is a problem from their view point. This is usually related to their upbringing and could be avoided if you have a strong welfare state that don't let children grow in crappy situations with bad education and poverty, with a sense of security in the future.

When you don't have that, most of the time, you'll grow up and be homeless, or your kids will be.

But the homeless of today are just a symptom of deep rooted problems, throwning money on taking care of them now won't make them disappear.

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

#679

Post by MperorM »

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.

if you spend some money one place, you can't spend that money elsewhere as well.

You could argue there's enough money to solve both problems, and a tax on the wealthiest would help accomplish that. that is a view I'm very sympathetic to.

But I think the comment you're responding to is making the first point, rather than the latter.

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

#680

Post by skohan »

haxney wrote: post #654
arcticbull wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> If you want rent to go down, allow more building. End of story. There's actually nothing else to it. There's actually another solution, but people don't talk about it: reduce demand. Break some windows. Have a few organized robbery parties. Hold monthly "Stabby Sundays" where you just stab people randomly. That'll drive down demand, and prices will drop like a rock. Obviously, I'm joking. Building more houses is th…

I would argue the solution is build a lot of affordable housing. I've noticed in Berlin, a lot of new development follows a pattern: small footprint apartments with luxury amenities. This is great if you're a landlord, and you want to maximize the revenue of your property. But it's terrible if you're just looking for a safe, clean place to live, and you end up paying double the rent because luxury units are the only thing available.
Post reply on HN