7 ms·

3 SF supervisors move to put tech tax on November ballot

24 points by ChrisBland 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago
Looks like the answer to the classification system is: "The measure identifies tech companies by the type of tax code they use under the Internal Revenue Service’s North American Industry Classification System. Companies classify themselves. They may face penalties if a government audit finds they are misidentifying themselves."
- keville 10y ago
  Thanks for this; am local and heard a bit about this tax yesterday but no news outlet seemed to think this detail was as relevant as we do.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    If I was a billionaire, I would create a news site called "Who, What, Why, and How" that answered all four questions in detail for every news item. No opinion (Lord knows you can get that elsewhere), just sourced facts and original documents. Pointers to previous articles via a timeline in the sidebar. Ahh, to dream.....
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The answer to "Why?" for real news items involving human action is always a matter of opinion. (Of course, you can have a "sourced fact" about someone's opinion or claim of what the "Why?" is, but mainstream news sources usually do that now.)
      - protomyth 10y ago
        I get what you're saying but, I'm thinking of a little simpler version of the why. In this article we have lawmakers who have introduced a tax, and the why is basically their opinion and reason for the introduction. You can say they are right or wrong, but the why of the bills introduction is their beliefs.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > and the why is basically their opinion and reason for the introduction. You mean, their stated rationale for the introduction? Because their actual beliefs and their actual reason for the introduction may be very different, and often is a matter of controversy.
        protomyth 10y ago
        Their stated rationale (since we aren't mind readers and we can only go by statements). If they're lying, well, it happens and I guess you might find it in a followup. Frankly, their why is often the least important thing on the list.
strictnein 10y ago
I keep wondering if SF will be the Detroit of 2035.
- xiphias 10y ago
  At least they get rid of the housing problem if companies move away
- superuser2 10y ago
  SF's position is that they were just fine before the tech companies moved in and want to return to that state. I'm not sure this is inaccurate.
joeblow9999 10y ago
"Hey, let's inspire all these mega-successful employers in our city to move to Oakland!"
- maxcan 10y ago
  Sounds like a wonderful plan.. But then again, I'm a homeowner in Oakland.
tomschlick 10y ago
The only way they are going to get lower housing costs in SF is to tell the NIMBYs to go to hell and allow developers to build more housing.
- illumin8 10y ago
  It's completely crazy that their first approach is to tax tech companies. In other modern cities, you're allowed to build higher than 3 story buildings.
- objclxt 10y ago
  David Campos, who is proposing this tax, is against all house building. So good luck with that happening. Campos's policies just defy rational thought. Last year he wanted to completely ban any housing construction in the Mission[1]. At the same time he's been actively campaigning and advocating for homelessness centers, and declaring a "state of emergency" for the homeless in SF[2]. I honestly can't reconcile how somebody can logically say "homelessness is terrible, we need to do something about it" followed by "we shouldn't build any houses". He wants to have his cake and eat it: complain about how the homeless are (in his words) "pushed into the Mission", and then refuse to allow any homes to be built that could potentially house them (via affordable housing requirements). This is a man who believes[3] that the recent spate of fires in the mission is a deliberate arson campaign by landlords to evict their tenants, rather than the actual reason, which is many of the buildings in the Mission are a) made of wood, b) old, and c) lack modern safety systems like sprinklers and good alarm systems. [1]: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Campos-wants-moratorium-on-new-housing-in-the-6244209.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Campos-wants-moratoriu... [2]: http://abc7news.com/news/sf-supervisor-declares-state-of-emergency-on-homelessness/1236534/ http://abc7news.com/news/sf-supervisor-declares-state-of-eme... [3]: http://www.sfexaminer.com/why-is-the-mission-burning/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/why-is-the-mission-burning/
  - bko 10y ago
    Consider the following: > Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agencys budget were cut, what would it do? It would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would most likely get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place. [0] By fixing the problem by allowing more housing, the politician would be able to extract less resources and power from the population. Never let a crisis go to waste. Or perhaps I'm being overly cynical in characterizing the political process. [0] http://www.heraldandtribune.com/oped/benedict-arnold-statues-not-needed/ http://www.heraldandtribune.com/oped/benedict-arnold-statues...
wwweston 10y ago
The general idea of taxes to support solutions to housing and infrastructure problems seems reasonable. Why a tech-specific tax, though? Seems like a general one would avoid the problem of line drawing, avoid the problem of causing resentment in specific industries, and spread the burden out more generally.
- Rapzid 10y ago
  The tech companies are a good scapegoat for their own city planning failures.
- lsaferite 10y ago
  Seems like a good way for the city to get sued for singling out tech companies vs. doing it across the board.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Taxation is the art of plucking the goose so as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. It always involves singling out somebody.
bko 10y ago
> ... but, in fact, San Francisco spends tremendous amounts of money on the problem. The city is allocating a record $241 million this fiscal year on homeless services, $84 million more than when Mayor Ed Lee took office in January 2011. But the city struggles to track exactly how all that money is being spent and whether it’s producing results. Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations, most of them nonprofits, that deal with homelessness. Perhaps the city should re-think on the effectiveness of such programs. My biggest problem with the programs is that they are indirect and empower bureaucracies rather than the people they are purported to serve. For instance, housing subsidies are incredibly inefficient. The programs (in NYC at least) often provide a housing subsidy in a very popular neighborhood. So for instance, market rent could be $4,000 but subsidized rent would be $1,000 for a net transfer of $3,000. If the landlord had an option of paying < $3,000 and being able to rent the apartment at market rent, he would surely prefer that option. As an alternative, if that family received a direct $3,000 subsidy, the family would likely only use a portion of those funds to pay for better housing. Too many transfer programs that allocate a particular good have that problem and are highly inefficient. I doubt an extra $100 mm would provide any meaningful changes to many. [0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
- housingthrow 10y ago
  What this doesn't take into account is the fact that california doesn't require renters to list their income from alimony or child support. There are a ton of beautiful lofts in Santa Monica, for instance, which are over 100% of the maximum allowable income as a section 8 renter. This means that they were only built for rich divorcees or otherwise subsidized women.
- joeblow9999 10y ago
  "The city is allocating a record $241 million " Sounds so effective and generous! I bet it's the best place in the world to be homeless no? But then we read: "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" Ah... it's a bureaucrat job program, nothing more. All that money not being spent on homeless people.
themartorana 10y ago
"Dubbed the tech tax, the proposed November ballot measure would impose a 1.5 percent payroll tax on technology companies. That would be a big shift. In 2012, 71 percent of San Francisco voters supported a measure to eliminate the city’s payroll tax and replace it with a gross receipts tax." "Hey, Bob, did you know the voters of SF reset the payroll tax to zero? We can totally tax it now!"
WWLink 10y ago
So are they going to put the 1.5% tax on doctors, lawyers, and other rich business people that have always been able to live in SF? Why is it when I the nerd finally get a job where I could afford to live in SF instead of some east bay suburb, they don't want me to live there and want to do everything in their power to keep me from doing so? XD

24 points by ChrisBland 10y ago

Looks like the answer to the classification system is: "The measure identifies tech companies by the type of tax code they use under the Internal Revenue Service’s North American Industry Classification System. Companies classify themselves. They may face penalties if a government audit finds they are misidentifying themselves."

keville 10y ago
Thanks for this; am local and heard a bit about this tax yesterday but no news outlet seemed to think this detail was as relevant as we do.
- protomyth 10y ago
  If I was a billionaire, I would create a news site called "Who, What, Why, and How" that answered all four questions in detail for every news item. No opinion (Lord knows you can get that elsewhere), just sourced facts and original documents. Pointers to previous articles via a timeline in the sidebar. Ahh, to dream.....
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The answer to "Why?" for real news items involving human action is always a matter of opinion. (Of course, you can have a "sourced fact" about someone's opinion or claim of what the "Why?" is, but mainstream news sources usually do that now.)
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I get what you're saying but, I'm thinking of a little simpler version of the why. In this article we have lawmakers who have introduced a tax, and the why is basically their opinion and reason for the introduction. You can say they are right or wrong, but the why of the bills introduction is their beliefs.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > and the why is basically their opinion and reason for the introduction. You mean, their stated rationale for the introduction? Because their actual beliefs and their actual reason for the introduction may be very different, and often is a matter of controversy.
        protomyth 10y ago
        Their stated rationale (since we aren't mind readers and we can only go by statements). If they're lying, well, it happens and I guess you might find it in a followup. Frankly, their why is often the least important thing on the list.

strictnein 10y ago

I keep wondering if SF will be the Detroit of 2035.

xiphias 10y ago
At least they get rid of the housing problem if companies move away
superuser2 10y ago
SF's position is that they were just fine before the tech companies moved in and want to return to that state. I'm not sure this is inaccurate.

joeblow9999 10y ago

"Hey, let's inspire all these mega-successful employers in our city to move to Oakland!"

maxcan 10y ago
Sounds like a wonderful plan.. But then again, I'm a homeowner in Oakland.

tomschlick 10y ago

The only way they are going to get lower housing costs in SF is to tell the NIMBYs to go to hell and allow developers to build more housing.

illumin8 10y ago
It's completely crazy that their first approach is to tax tech companies. In other modern cities, you're allowed to build higher than 3 story buildings.
objclxt 10y ago
David Campos, who is proposing this tax, is against all house building. So good luck with that happening. Campos's policies just defy rational thought. Last year he wanted to completely ban any housing construction in the Mission[1]. At the same time he's been actively campaigning and advocating for homelessness centers, and declaring a "state of emergency" for the homeless in SF[2]. I honestly can't reconcile how somebody can logically say "homelessness is terrible, we need to do something about it" followed by "we shouldn't build any houses". He wants to have his cake and eat it: complain about how the homeless are (in his words) "pushed into the Mission", and then refuse to allow any homes to be built that could potentially house them (via affordable housing requirements). This is a man who believes[3] that the recent spate of fires in the mission is a deliberate arson campaign by landlords to evict their tenants, rather than the actual reason, which is many of the buildings in the Mission are a) made of wood, b) old, and c) lack modern safety systems like sprinklers and good alarm systems. [1]: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Campos-wants-moratorium-on-new-housing-in-the-6244209.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Campos-wants-moratoriu... [2]: http://abc7news.com/news/sf-supervisor-declares-state-of-emergency-on-homelessness/1236534/ http://abc7news.com/news/sf-supervisor-declares-state-of-eme... [3]: http://www.sfexaminer.com/why-is-the-mission-burning/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/why-is-the-mission-burning/
- bko 10y ago
  Consider the following: > Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agencys budget were cut, what would it do? It would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would most likely get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place. [0] By fixing the problem by allowing more housing, the politician would be able to extract less resources and power from the population. Never let a crisis go to waste. Or perhaps I'm being overly cynical in characterizing the political process. [0] http://www.heraldandtribune.com/oped/benedict-arnold-statues-not-needed/ http://www.heraldandtribune.com/oped/benedict-arnold-statues...

wwweston 10y ago

The general idea of taxes to support solutions to housing and infrastructure problems seems reasonable. Why a tech-specific tax, though? Seems like a general one would avoid the problem of line drawing, avoid the problem of causing resentment in specific industries, and spread the burden out more generally.

Rapzid 10y ago
The tech companies are a good scapegoat for their own city planning failures.
lsaferite 10y ago
Seems like a good way for the city to get sued for singling out tech companies vs. doing it across the board.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Taxation is the art of plucking the goose so as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. It always involves singling out somebody.

bko 10y ago

> ... but, in fact, San Francisco spends tremendous amounts of money on the problem. The city is allocating a record $241 million this fiscal year on homeless services, $84 million more than when Mayor Ed Lee took office in January 2011. But the city struggles to track exactly how all that money is being spent and whether it’s producing results. Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations, most of them nonprofits, that deal with homelessness. Perhaps the city should re-think on the effectiveness of such programs. My biggest problem with the programs is that they are indirect and empower bureaucracies rather than the people they are purported to serve. For instance, housing subsidies are incredibly inefficient. The programs (in NYC at least) often provide a housing subsidy in a very popular neighborhood. So for instance, market rent could be $4,000 but subsidized rent would be $1,000 for a net transfer of $3,000. If the landlord had an option of paying < $3,000 and being able to rent the apartment at market rent, he would surely prefer that option. As an alternative, if that family received a direct $3,000 subsidy, the family would likely only use a portion of those funds to pay for better housing. Too many transfer programs that allocate a particular good have that problem and are highly inefficient. I doubt an extra $100 mm would provide any meaningful changes to many. [0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...

housingthrow 10y ago
What this doesn't take into account is the fact that california doesn't require renters to list their income from alimony or child support. There are a ton of beautiful lofts in Santa Monica, for instance, which are over 100% of the maximum allowable income as a section 8 renter. This means that they were only built for rich divorcees or otherwise subsidized women.
joeblow9999 10y ago
"The city is allocating a record $241 million " Sounds so effective and generous! I bet it's the best place in the world to be homeless no? But then we read: "Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations" Ah... it's a bureaucrat job program, nothing more. All that money not being spent on homeless people.

themartorana 10y ago

"Dubbed the tech tax, the proposed November ballot measure would impose a 1.5 percent payroll tax on technology companies. That would be a big shift. In 2012, 71 percent of San Francisco voters supported a measure to eliminate the city’s payroll tax and replace it with a gross receipts tax." "Hey, Bob, did you know the voters of SF reset the payroll tax to zero? We can totally tax it now!"

WWLink 10y ago

So are they going to put the 1.5% tax on doctors, lawyers, and other rich business people that have always been able to live in SF? Why is it when I the nerd finally get a job where I could afford to live in SF instead of some east bay suburb, they don't want me to live there and want to do everything in their power to keep me from doing so? XD