71–80 of 754 posts
"saying the tax is modest in comparison to the cost of moving a business." Basically admitting that the thought process is charging as much taxes as you can possible get away with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also be surprised if it brings in anywhere near the quoted amount since the SF supervisors have proven themselves incapable of considering second order effects such as companies contracting out their low-pay roles or simply leaving SF.
Pretty hard to claim this when Visa decided to massively expand their Global HQ in San Francisco after Prop C passed. The pandemic has thrown things in a wrench, but prior to the pandemic, San Francisco businesses were constrained only by commercial real estate. There was literally no space left to put any new businesses. We've been collecting Prop C revenues since March 2019, and they are exactly as forecast.
"Critics call the surcharge a blatant attempt at redistribution of wealth..." Um, yes? "Critics call John Travolta 'blatantly an actor, playing parts in movies.'"
that was my reaction too. I don't live in the US, so this is an honest question. Most of the comments here are disparaging about the policy. Is that because: 1. you agree with the principle of addressing wealth polarisation, but don't agree with tax as the mechanism? (in general or the proposed model specifically) 2. you don't agree that increasing wealth polarisation needs to be stopped/reversed? 3. something else?…
To be frank, as a supporter of capitalism - I generally support the notion of high taxes in europe because the populations who pay these taxes clearly see HUGE societal benefits as a result of half their income evaporating. There also seems to be more respect of the people's money from these gov'ts regarding how they spend taxpayer money is spent and with a clear aim to help the people NOT partisan goals, wars etc. I may be incorrect here (open to correction) but it seems like US politicians (federally at least) seem entitled to taxpayer dollars. Most forget that until WW2 the idea of federal witholding simply wasn't a thing and many middle class families were flushed with savings.
Unfortunately, both sides are at fault in the US. The only way this is going to change for the better is to cease the cycle of one political party only pandering to it's base instead of motivated and able americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely, this will just result in businesses continuing to leave San Francisco. The pandemic has given most companies a good reason to do so already and my bet is on most of them not returning to their overpriced San Francisco headquarters when this is eventually over.
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…
"saying the tax is modest in comparison to the cost of moving a business." Basically admitting that the thought process is charging as much taxes as you can possible get away with.
At this rate in 20 years California will be competing with Mississipi for the title of the poorest state in the country
This is coming from someone who's never voted for a single republican. Let's remember that [0] SF also just elected a DA who's parents were literally complicit in the Weather Underground bombings...
[0] - https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/san-francisco-voters-e...
San Francisco is the 16th largest city by population and has a budget of around 14 billion which is like 6 or 7 times larger than many cities with much bigger population. This is just a badly run city and throwing more money at their problems isn't going to help them.
For example, SF MTA is part of the SF budget, but LA MTA is a county agency, and isn't part of the LA city budget.
San Francisco is the 16th largest city by population and has a budget of around 14 billion which is like 6 or 7 times larger than many cities with much bigger population. This is just a badly run city and throwing more money at their problems isn't going to help them.
Even if you don't account for anything else, the high cost of living here translates to expensive city employees and expensive services. If you account for the "exchange rate" between San Francisco dollars and other city dollars, I wonder how the per capita spending stacks up. I expect it still doesn't look good, but I bet it looks a lot less ridiculous.
I wonder if the median CEO will start making more. The going rate will become 99x approximately the SF average salary of 98k, or just under 10mm.
"Critics call the surcharge a blatant attempt at redistribution of wealth..." Um, yes? "Critics call John Travolta 'blatantly an actor, playing parts in movies.'"
that was my reaction too. I don't live in the US, so this is an honest question. Most of the comments here are disparaging about the policy. Is that because: 1. you agree with the principle of addressing wealth polarisation, but don't agree with tax as the mechanism? (in general or the proposed model specifically) 2. you don't agree that increasing wealth polarisation needs to be stopped/reversed? 3. something else?…
The problem comes with policies of the form "We're going to tax [some wealthy group] and redistribute the money to [some other group]". There's a few sets of issues:
1. The money never gets to the downstream group. It gets eaten up by fees and processing, etc. Great for the middleman but not anyone else. If it does get to the downstream group, the total amount is gravely reduced.
2. You have to make a very strong case for taxing [some wealthy group]. Simply having wealth doesn't seem a good basis for taxation - "You're successful so we're going to charge you more taxes, maybe next time you won't be so successful" Obviously there are other arguments that can be made - the wealthy stole their money, or gained it illictly, etc - but those arguments tend to be individual cases and don't allow acting against an entire class of people unless you go into weird theoretical territory.
3. Solving "wealth disparity" isn't a meaningful goal. A thousand homeless folks all in the same campground have no wealth disparity - that doesn't mean you've improved their life. Simply funneling money doesn't solve problems, and making the end goal to shift around bits of paper is mistaking a process for a goal. If your goal is "We should provide a base level of healthcare to those who can't afford it" and can name an actual price for that, then that's a meaningful goal and you can tax appropriately if voters approve it.