4 ms·

How? How many people would not come to the Bay Area because they might get taxed if they IPO?

by halflings 7y ago

hellllllllooo 7y ago
People move to SF to work. If companies decide to start elsewhere it spreads out demand for housing.
eanzenberg 7y ago
No, they would not move to SF when less SF jobs are created due to this law.
- davidw 7y ago
  Ah, the "North Korea" strategy to make San Francisco affordable. Yeah, that would probably work. Kind of a roundabout way of doing things with a lot of other bad consequences, though.
- perseusmandate 7y ago
  Great idea- let's just ban the jobs while we are at it and the problem will be solved
  - hellllllllooo 7y ago
    Supply and demand issues can be addressed at both ends. The US is a large place and only a few cities have these issues. What's wrong with the jobs being elsewhere in the US in cities with more capacity if people are moving to the jobs anyway?
jdavis703 7y ago
I moved to California despite the high taxes. In doing so I was able to go from earning $55k per year to $150k a year. No amount of tax cuts would have given me that income boost. As long as people can make more after-tax money in SF and California than everywhere else the place will remain competitive. Now, I’m not endorsing this particular tax proposal, just merely defending the general high tax policies here. Edit: I probably spend about $40/month on transportation. I do not own a car and bike to work and most other places. I spend $2700/month (market rate rent, no rent control) for a 1 bedroom apartment in a very walkable location. While the cost of living is higher, it's not so high as to make my life in the Bay Area worse than back home.
- kfriede 7y ago
  Simply knowing salary tells us almost nothing about the benefit(s) of your move. How much more/less do you spend on: * Vehicle Registration, Public Transportation, Gas * Housing (rent/mortgage) * Sales tax * Etc. The housing is a huge factor, given that 30% of $55k is $1300/mo (A decent house in most of America), yet 30% of 150k is $3750/mo (A nice cardboard box in the bay area)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - alain94040 7y ago
    Sure, but the numbers still favor the bay area if you are a software engineer: https://thestartupconference.com/2018/09/21/about-that-silicon-valley-job/ https://thestartupconference.com/2018/09/21/about-that-silic...
    - souprock 7y ago
      No, they favor the bay area if you are a software engineer who is willing to sacrifice quality of life. That article starts off with this horrific line: "rent a room and move in with some friends". OMG. That is the sad situation we might expect for an unskilled high school drop-out with a felony conviction. That article continues on with "Start a Family [...] It’s been 10 years". It is indeed common that people in high-cost areas feel unable to start families earlier, but that isn't something to just accept as normal. It is better to have kids when you have energy for them and when birth is safer. Starting earlier also allows for the possibility that you might end up wanting a larger family than you had initially expected. For example, I sure didn't imagine I'd be having 12, but that probably could not have happened in the Bay Area. In 10 years, one ought to have paid off a house. The article mentions college, which can be had cheaply, but neglects to mention private schooling. Normally this would be the larger expense by far. The "middle of nowhere" comparison also seems a bit low for salary. It might be right if you tossed a dart at a map of the USA to determine your location, but not if you chose a low-cost area with a suitable industry.

How? How many people would not come to the Bay Area because they might get taxed if they IPO?

hellllllllooo 7y ago

People move to SF to work. If companies decide to start elsewhere it spreads out demand for housing.

eanzenberg 7y ago

No, they would not move to SF when less SF jobs are created due to this law.

davidw 7y ago
Ah, the "North Korea" strategy to make San Francisco affordable. Yeah, that would probably work. Kind of a roundabout way of doing things with a lot of other bad consequences, though.
perseusmandate 7y ago
Great idea- let's just ban the jobs while we are at it and the problem will be solved
- hellllllllooo 7y ago
  Supply and demand issues can be addressed at both ends. The US is a large place and only a few cities have these issues. What's wrong with the jobs being elsewhere in the US in cities with more capacity if people are moving to the jobs anyway?

jdavis703 7y ago

I moved to California despite the high taxes. In doing so I was able to go from earning $55k per year to $150k a year. No amount of tax cuts would have given me that income boost. As long as people can make more after-tax money in SF and California than everywhere else the place will remain competitive. Now, I’m not endorsing this particular tax proposal, just merely defending the general high tax policies here. Edit: I probably spend about $40/month on transportation. I do not own a car and bike to work and most other places. I spend $2700/month (market rate rent, no rent control) for a 1 bedroom apartment in a very walkable location. While the cost of living is higher, it's not so high as to make my life in the Bay Area worse than back home.

kfriede 7y ago
Simply knowing salary tells us almost nothing about the benefit(s) of your move. How much more/less do you spend on: * Vehicle Registration, Public Transportation, Gas * Housing (rent/mortgage) * Sales tax * Etc. The housing is a huge factor, given that 30% of $55k is $1300/mo (A decent house in most of America), yet 30% of 150k is $3750/mo (A nice cardboard box in the bay area)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- alain94040 7y ago
  Sure, but the numbers still favor the bay area if you are a software engineer: https://thestartupconference.com/2018/09/21/about-that-silicon-valley-job/ https://thestartupconference.com/2018/09/21/about-that-silic...
  - souprock 7y ago
    No, they favor the bay area if you are a software engineer who is willing to sacrifice quality of life. That article starts off with this horrific line: "rent a room and move in with some friends". OMG. That is the sad situation we might expect for an unskilled high school drop-out with a felony conviction. That article continues on with "Start a Family [...] It’s been 10 years". It is indeed common that people in high-cost areas feel unable to start families earlier, but that isn't something to just accept as normal. It is better to have kids when you have energy for them and when birth is safer. Starting earlier also allows for the possibility that you might end up wanting a larger family than you had initially expected. For example, I sure didn't imagine I'd be having 12, but that probably could not have happened in the Bay Area. In 10 years, one ought to have paid off a house. The article mentions college, which can be had cheaply, but neglects to mention private schooling. Normally this would be the larger expense by far. The "middle of nowhere" comparison also seems a bit low for salary. It might be right if you tossed a dart at a map of the USA to determine your location, but not if you chose a low-cost area with a suitable industry.