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

#591

Post by mullingitover » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:24 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #557

vondur wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

California buses the homeless out as much as they're bused in. It's complicated[1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

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

#592

Post by LVTfan » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:26 AM UTC

huevosabio wrote: post #358

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…

Everyone works but the empty lot. I was not aware that Henry George was from San Francisco.

HG was born in Philadelphia (1839); arrived in San Francisco by 1860 or so, and lived in California until early 1880. He wrote "Our Land and Land Policy" and "Progress and Poverty" during that period, as well as owning and editing the SF Daily Evening Post for 4 years between those books. He then moved to NYC, where he lived until his death in 1897.

For an introduction to his ideas, see wealthandwant.com. For more contemporary references, see https://schalkenbach.org/introductionto-the-ideas-ofhenry-ge... and that entire site.

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

#593

Post by mypalmike » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:27 AM UTC

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.

The third option in west coast cities is probably more common than your startup option : working for an established company, possibly a FAANG, and accumulating enough wealth to retire early.

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

#594

Post by didibus » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

didibus wrote: post #414

primitivesuave wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to live in the Tenderloin in 2013 and it has actually improved a lot since marijuana was legalized and public restrooms added in - back then, there was a guy on every street corner trying to sell you something, and certain alleyways/corners where there was daily cleaning for piles of human waste. It's become much less dangerous but still quite depressing to walk through. I started talking to people living on t…

> or leave the city I would like it that we can as a society find ways to help homeless with their issues and manage their lives in a way that isn't just each city tossing them out. That said, I'm not against someone's honest decision to say, well I don't know how, and in the mean time, I want them out of sight so kick them out. But, and this is the but I feel is never discussed by those who propose that solution is…

To clarify, I don't consider these ethical options. I just want to point out that without a concrete way to "kick them out", this solution is easier said than done. And so I feel it lacks a path forward.

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

#595

Post by LVTfan » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:32 AM UTC

victor106 wrote: post #406

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…

I agree. And also in general I am not sure if it makes sense to tax millionaires or billionaires at the city or state. They'll just move some place else. Just ask New York[1]. After NY imposed a tax on the uber rich. All of them moved to Miami and maintain two residences. One in NYC and one in Florida. IF you tax its best to do it at the country level https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/nyregion/wealth-tax-budge...

If instead of taxing wages, we collect the rental value of the land on which their residences and businesses are located, it is highly unlikely that the land will leave town.

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

#596

Post by robertlagrant » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:33 AM UTC

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.

Said electorate is gradually moving elsewhere due to the issues and voting for the same policies that cause the same problems.

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

#597

Post by rmk » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:37 AM UTC

mypalmike wrote: post #590

rmk wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems is that every person wants to live in some trendy neighborhood in "The City". Naturally, that means landlords can get away with charging exorbitant rents (the bulk of the inventory is under rent control, which reduces incentives for folks to move out). Because of this, you end up with ridiculous startups that rent beds out to people, folks paying $2000+ for a small room in a small house, and so on…

Not everyone wants "nice suburban homes" or being a landlord. Many people like city life. It's really that simple.

I agree. A lot of this stuff is a function of age and marital status. Older people tend to get married and have kids, and once that happens they clearly prefer the suburbs.

There are many folks who prefer city life, but I bet they would be found in much greater numbers in the 'real' cities: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Washington D.C... San Francisco just feels like a slightly overgrown town with hardly any cultural amenities one would expect from a world-class city. It does have almost unparalleled access to very pretty coast, woodland, and desert all in three hours' range, though.

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

#598

Post by LVTfan » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:41 AM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #74

kmtrowbr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have lived in San Francisco since 2005. Over the time I've lived here, we've had the opposite problem: lots of highly paid tech firms moving into SF. This has changed the nature of San Francisco in a way that many dislike, including me. I was initially attracted to San Francisco because, it was chill, it was beautiful, and it had a lot of eccentric, really interesting people. Many of our good friends had to leave o…

Taxes tend to increase price levels, not reduce them. Costs are passed through to every level.

Likely true of most taxes, but not true of a tax on land value. Taxing land value heavily causes underused land to either be put to good use or sold, at a reasonable price, to someone who will build on it.

Taxing land value -- that is, collecting the lion's share of the annual rental value of the land for public purposes -- removes the speculative element, and makes it worth only what it is worth FOR USE.

That almost always creates jobs, first for construction, and then to utilize the space. It may create housing, and goodness knows, much of California is in desperate need of housing. And housing creates jobs -- houses and highrises don't maintain themselves.

Virtuous circle --- the opposite of the vicious one that Proposition has created (and which was easy to predict before it was enacted).

If you want jobs and housing, tax land value.

Otherwise, keep California doing what it does now.

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

#599

Post by rmk » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:42 AM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #596

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.

Said electorate is gradually moving elsewhere due to the issues and voting for the same policies that cause the same problems.

Yes. I have lived in the Bay Area for a long time now, but never really liked the general holier-than-thou attitude (interestingly, I keep meeting older people who have never turned conservative, but have instead turned even more rabidly leftist.) It's dispiriting to realise that moving elsewhere, to Texas, say, is no guarantee of being rid of this. The same cycle will likely be repeated, perhaps in the next decade or so!

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

#600

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 4:45 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #472

smsm42 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we have: 1. A lot of rich residents and rich companies which supply the city budget with sweet sweet tax money 2. A lot of programs and NGOs that draw large budgets to helping the homeless 3. Political climate that encourages spending money on helping the homeless without requiring anything from them, basically free money 4. Generous programs providing various freebies for homeless people, and no consequences for…

I downvoted this because as someone that has been what many consider homeless in San Francisco, I am a little insulted by this attitude. It comes across as someone that has never lived this life claiming that it is a good life and generalizing over the homeless population as freebies and criminals. If there exists a complicated social problem that involves thousands of human beings and someone on the internet claims…

I never claimed it is a good life. I never generalized anything. I am not sure where you found it. What I claimed is many of the people who spend billions of dollars on this problem have incentive to not have it actually solved (as in gone, no problem anymore) - for reasons both political and selfish. I also never claimed I have an explanation for the problem of homelessness. I only have an explanation for why the government of San Francisco does not appear to be able to make any progress in solving it despite spending a real lot of money on it.