San Francisco voters approve taxes on highly paid CEOs, big businesses • Hacker News Board

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

#751

Post by mbesto » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

mrits wrote: post #733

mbesto wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Live in Austin. Yes that's BS, unless you're talking about a 5.5k sf lot out carved out of a rural farmland (which are plentiful right outside of Austin).

Odd thing to argue about that is easily provable with a Zillow search. Plenty of half acre lots that sold int he last year for ~$5K east of downtown but certainly before farm country. And capital metro goes past it all the way to the toll road.

Montopolis and McKinney are basically right before farm country (I ride my bike there all of the time). Where on earth are you seeing 5k sf lots being sold for $2k?!?!

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

#752

Post by loco5niner » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #743

loco5niner wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fear for my families safety just walking outside our front door because of rich people, I fear a homeless, drugged up person assaulting them.

Seriously? Do you have reason to be afraid of the homeless or are you simply experiencing prejudice? If the former is the case I recommend you move somewhere where there are fewer homeless. But this dichotomy of homeless vs. the rich is really silly. You have less to fear around the rich because they are rich, the homeless might be in a desperate situation and behave accordingly, or as put in the Movie Parasite : > K…

My last interaction with a homeless person, in the park next to my house: he yelled at me, and talked about grabbing his hatchet... while I was walking with my pregnant wife. So yes, I a have a reason to fear for my families safety around the homeless.

I live and work in the Portland, OR area. Homelessness is a real problem here, and they are moving out of the city into the suburbs.

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

#753

Post by asdff » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 7:01 AM UTC

rmk wrote: post #665

asdff wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prop 22 passing is what I simply can't square with the woke/liberal politics of CA. Workers' rights, whether they are cabbies, schoolteachers, government workers, construction crews, or really any other large workforce that can be unionized should be sacred to people of this persuasion. Yet, dispiritingly, it passed.

I don't blame them. I got texts from supposed "uber drivers" who really were paid actors (didn't even change their actual name for the advertisements, you can search for these actors websites yourself as I did) encouraging me to vote yes on 22. For people not keen on reading between the lines, this could have passed the sniff test.

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

#754

Post by claudeganon » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #567

hiphipjorge wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China does absolutely scare the crap out of both it’s own people and people abroad, but economically it’s clear they’ve done a lot of things right over the last 40 years. The US could learn a thing or two from the communists when it comes to Capitalism.

I don’t think they’ve done things right; they were granted access to the global trade network and had wages at pennies on the dollar from other countries. It would be almost impossible not to grow under those circumstances. Let’s see if their decisions are as effective when wages are more on parity and they are competing as peer economic levels.

> I don’t think they’ve done things right; they were granted access to the global trade network and had wages at pennies on the dollar from other countries. It would be almost impossible not to grow under those circumstances.

I’m guessing you don’t know that this was also true of America in the 18th and 19th centuries and a large part of how it became so wealthy. Especially when they kept using slaves long after it was banned elsewhere.