4 ms·
> if SF wants to tax excessive income disparity, I say, fair enough. None of the billionaires here made that money from their salary. This will not touch them
by kansface 6y ago
> if SF wants to tax excessive income disparity, I say, fair enough.
None of the billionaires here made that money from their salary. This will not touch them at all.
> If they do leave, I don't see that as a bad thing.
Chasing away jobs and the tax base will not end well. There is a decent chance SF enters a financial death spiral from its pension obligations. At the very least, massive cuts are in order. SF will not be transformed magically back to the year 2005, but it could very well wind up back in the 70s.
- duhuh 6y agoThat’s fine. The SF people think is SF, that used to be SF, does really well with 700,000 people and everyone with a shitty job.
- singron 6y agoThe text of the measure refers to "compensation", of which it gives a specific definition that includes commissions, bonuses, and equity (specifically mentioning stock options). The $1 salary CEO isn't excluded if they also have a huge equity package. Although it doesn't mention capital gains, so if the CEO owns a significant part of their company already and doesn't have an additional vesting schedule, then they could make personal income from appreciation of the business that wouldn't be counted towards this bill.
- kangaroozach 6y agoPaper gains are not realized gains. So it’s all about timing. At what point in time do they check to do the math?
- kansface 6y agoOur billionaires are billionaires from their ownership stakes in the companies they founded. For instance, Jeff Besos only makes ~2 million per year in total compensation! He would pay no more in taxes if he were to move to SF (from this particular bill, anyway).