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

711–720 of 754 posts

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

#711

Post by socmedia99 »

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…

This isn’t rocket science. When taxes were high American Main Street did well.

What’s pathetic is social media’s projecting ignorance and air gapped criticism. I see little to no alternative options offered, despite all the economic huff and puff and engineering wisdom supposedly possessed by that community. Same banal political speak.

A little less “Monday Morning quarterback” and a bit more connection to facts would be great.

America is a bit into sitting on its butt complaining at the screen though. IMO that’s the real credibility issue in this nation; so called exceptional, gritty people sitting around complaining about systems from afar.

You think they can’t figure it out? Or do you think more people are pushing protectionism of their luxury.

Portugal showed us how to deal with a number is drug issues. Where are the sustainable programs? Mired in American identity of absolute free choice, despite a heavily gerrymandered electorate.

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

#712

Post by skohan »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #706
skohan wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you looked at Marzahn? Or was that too unsafe for you? :)

No I live in a beautiful Altbau in Kreuzkoln, but I wish more of the housing built would be in this style, not luxury shoe-boxes.

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

#713

Post by tremon »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #493
proc0 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The housing options are there, just not the city option.

I have hired people in the farm who were getting homeless benefits. I have also hired juvenile girls who lived in a half way house as part of their rehabilitation. The homeless worker ..one of them..had more benefits than the young girls. I wish I could have worked more with them. People need help. The right help at the right time for the right people is more effective than blanket free for alls. He was living in his…

I read this as:

[The homeless worker] was living in his grandmother’s two million dollar Mountain View home

and I have a hard time imagining why anyone would consider that "homeless". Could you elaborate/clarify?

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

#714

Post by gpanders »

freeone3000 wrote: post #655
kortilla wrote: post #618

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. 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).

If you depend on public transit in Austin, you're not going to be able to commute reliably no matter where you live.

When I lived in Austin I took the bus almost every day without issue. Austin has the best public transit in all of Texas (though that’s admittedly a low bar).

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

#715

Post by LinuxBender »

TuringNYC wrote: post #362
LinuxBender wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was in the middle of Covid, around the time many businesses and renters were leaving SF. They would not give me specifics, but I assume it no longer made financial sense to be in that expensive high-rise, as all the parking was locked down, forcing all the customers to take BART. I am not sure what affect this new law will have for those that remain.

Another reason SF companies are leaving: restrictions mandating lower maximum elevator occupancy (e.g. 4 persons) is causing long lines at some high-rises, making it hard to get in and out of the building -- esp for quick breaks, food pickups, lunch, etc.

I noticed that as well. The building had really tiny elevators, but many of them. You could fit maybe 3 people in them. I had never seen anything like that in my life.

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

#716

Post by Consultant32452 »

pydry wrote: post #709
Consultant32452 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could open up a "food truck" on the weekends with a Walmart camp stove and a trip to Costco you'd eliminate the concentration fo market power and lack of risk capital as problems.

That's one way of eliminating a market altogether. Without health checks every food truck becomes suspect (market for lemons dynamic) and people will eventually stop playing food poisoning roulette. Those that don't will expect a steep discount. Meanwhile those people who take the risk and it doesn't work out will still have bills and rent to pay.

Food stands in countries without licensing or oversight inform me that this isn't a real concern.

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

#717

Post by mlrtime »

vondur wrote: post #445
mrits wrote: 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.

SF has a $360 million dollar a year budget for addressing the homeless situation. I'm not sure what funding they may also get in addition from the County and State Level.

360 Million is cute, NYC spends over 3 Billion and still hasn't cracked it.

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

#718

Post by mlrtime »

digitaltrees wrote: post #629
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/201…

And other cities are bussing their homeless to NYC as well. How can NYC fund the entire countries homeless population?

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

#719

Post by Consultant32452 »

chii wrote: post #639
Consultant32452 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could open up a "food truck" on the weekends with a Walmart camp stove and a trip to Costco you'd eliminate the concentration fo market power and lack of risk capital as problems.

but then if you did so, and the food had issues, where do the customer complain and get compensation from? How do you prevent over-crowding of a location, and flow-on effect of crowds from said truck? How do you make sure the waste products are sanely disposed? And a million other concerns from third parties unrelated to the business, but is affected by its existence?

I don't believe I could provide any response that would persuade you.

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

#720

Post by burkaman »

cheriot wrote: post #628
burkaman wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bar…

Is there an economic term for the different types of taxes you're referring to? It's not obvious to me why income taxes create value but this tax doesn't, but I don't really know anything about economics.

Similarly, while I do think everyone is worth helping, I'm not yet seeing how this helps millionaires and large landlords.

Post reply on HN