16 ms·

It will work out well fiscally because giant companies will suck it up and pay, but it looks like a bad strategy from a forward-looking point of view. You want

It will work out well fiscally because giant companies will suck it up and pay, but it looks like a bad strategy from a forward-looking point of view. You want to incentivize future growth too, and you want to make sure that 20 years down the line, you have the new FAANGs of the world giving you millions in tax dollars, because history has shown that the largest of companies can eventually die out, and tech is full of graveyards. What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. This is akin to the boiling frog fable (yes I know it's fake but the point of the fable stands), except the city is the one putting itself in the cauldron and raising the temperature by chipping away bit by bit the things that make the bay area a good place to live and invest in.

xg15 6y ago
So they show do nothing about today's inequality because this will get them more taxes in 20 years? (Unless someone makes the same point 20 years in that they should better wait another 20 years)
- nhumrich 6y ago
  OC didn't claim they should do nothing. He just said that this specific way was short-sided.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Maybe a tax like this is not the only way to address inequality?
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  One thing I'd like to see them do is radically simplify the ability for regular people to start regular businesses. One thing we could do is pick some small industry and run experiments with it. An example might be food trucks. There's a lot of regulations around these today. As a thought experiment we could eliminate all sales tax, special licensing, etc. for food truck companies under a certain size (We don't McDonalds food trucks to count). We could see what happened, is there wide spread food poisoning? Are families brought out of the lower class? It doesn't have to be food trucks exactly, that's just an industry that people like in a business that's relatively simple and imo has low systemic risk.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Concentration of market power and lack of risk capital, not regulation, is the primary inhibitor to normal people starting businesses.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      If you could open up a "food truck" on the weekends with a Walmart camp stove and a trip to Costco you'd eliminate the concentration fo market power and lack of risk capital as problems.
      - chii 6y ago
        but then if you did so, and the food had issues, where do the customer complain and get compensation from? How do you prevent over-crowding of a location, and flow-on effect of crowds from said truck? How do you make sure the waste products are sanely disposed? And a million other concerns from third parties unrelated to the business, but is affected by its existence?
        Consultant32452 6y ago
        I don't believe I could provide any response that would persuade you.
      - pydry 6y ago
        That's one way of eliminating a market altogether. Without health checks every food truck becomes suspect (market for lemons dynamic) and people will eventually stop playing food poisoning roulette. Those that don't will expect a steep discount. Meanwhile those people who take the risk and it doesn't work out will still have bills and rent to pay.
        Consultant32452 6y ago
        Food stands in countries without licensing or oversight inform me that this isn't a real concern.
dontreact 6y ago
This assumes that the performance of companies is driven by the CEO much more than the employees. If the Bay Area has great FANG companies because of talented workforce here, then CEOs will gladly take a pay cut to be able to employ the best workers.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > If the Bay Area has great FANG companies because of talented workforce here The talented workforce is there because of the companies. Why would someone deliberately choose to live in San Fran when given the choice of many cleaner, nicer cities with a lower cost of living? I guess if you really like fog and hills
  - astine 6y ago
    San Francisco is a well known culture hub. The startup industry started source of it in Silicon Valley but shifted north because of the appeal of living in San Francisco.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
      True, but none of these things exist in isolation. Culture is created by people, it is not a geographical feature like mountains or lakes. The Silicon Valley wasn't nominated as the tech hub overnight, it became one through an organic process thanks to a mix of good weather, access to capital, a pool of talented employees etc. Don't take any of that for granted (well except the weather I guess, but with Global Warming and earthquakes who knows).
  - ponker 6y ago
    One thing about the world cities is that you find that they remain the world cities through thousands of years of civilization. London has been a city for 2000 years, Damascus 4000... San Francisco had appeal before the tech industry was here and will have it after it’s long gone.
- bduerst 6y ago
danans 6y ago
> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. How many startups are there where the executives make 100x to 200x the median employee pay? That only happens via stock-based compensation at public companies. If that's the case, they're not a startup.
- qppo 6y ago
  Is the tax assessed on options/grants even if there isn't a market to sell them?
  - dgoldstein0 6y ago
    It probably depends on how those options and grants vest. Earlier stage companies are more likely to set them up so that they vest at IPO.
  - danans 6y ago
    If there is no market, either because it is pre-IPO or unvested then the value is unrealized, and therefore not a form of compensation, so no. You don't own equity that haven't vested. They are just a contract between you and the employer to transfer them to you upon vest, which either party can probably walk back on if they choose to.
op03 6y ago
Cities consistently outlast Kings and Empires. But to build empire you have to be in denial of that fact.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Cities may stick around for millenia but their governments don't. Those come and go.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. Does it? Startups probably start out with a fairly small Executive Pay Ratio because they start out without a lot of low-paid grunts, and its already not common for them to open satellite facilities or move HQs for grunt work when they scale out to more jobs where they aren't trying to attract locally-concentrated elite talent. Because its triggered on the ratio between the highest paid managerial employee anywere in the firm and the median pay of employees in the City, it really just adds further incentives to do low-level gruntwork outside of the city, but doesn't seem otherwise to really change the structural incentives much for startups. OTOH, it does make it more expensive for any widespread organization whose headquarters and elite labor are elsewhere to operate a facility with mostly low-level labor in the City; a tech startup headquartered in the City might never be hit by it even as they scaled up if they are focussed on automation, as they might never have a low-paid workforce. OTOH, retail, etc., outlets, hotels, etc., of firms with highly-paid executives with their main executive and high-paid labor force outside of the city would be hit hard (as far as compared to other firms, I don't think the tax rate is ever high enough to really be "hit hard") by it on their operations in the City.
eloff 6y ago
I agree companies will just suck it up and pay it if they want to be in SF. But I don't think it will disincentive new companies starting out. They have a hundred other concerns more important than how the CEO will be taxed if they one day become huge and the CEO has extremely high compensation. It won't even factor into the decision of where to locate the company. Also, you should notice most highly compensated CEOs are not founders. Founders don't need to compensate themselves that heavily because they own a large chunk of the equity. Simple capital gains or dividends are the favourite forms of compensation for founders. Since founders, by definition, are the ones deciding where to found the company, they won't care at all about this law.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  The bill isn't about how CEOs will be taxed. It's about how their entire company will be taxed.
  - rattray 6y ago
    It's based on CEO pay, which doesn't apply to CEOs who are founders and get most of their "pay" in the form of appreciation of stock (rather than stock options/grants).
    - joshribakoff 6y ago
      Would it be different if they liquidated and exchanged for an index fund or publicly traded ETF? On the other hand, the law does cover gross receipts, so the act of “paying” the CEO in stocks is subject to taxation at the point in time the CEO receives it as part of their income.
      - filoleg 6y ago
        >the act of “paying” the CEO in stocks is subject to taxation at the point in time the CEO receives it as part of their income That is technically true, but this is where it gets tricky. If you joined a public company (this will work with private too, if you weren't the founder, but let's not thing about it for the sake of simplicity for now) as the CEO, this will work out perfectly just like you described. You got all those shares at joining, you pay tax on their value at the time. As you get more shares, you get taxed on their value as soon as you receive them. If you decide to sell those shares, you don't get taxed on the initial value of them (since you already got taxed on it when you received the shares), only on the profits you made at the moment of sale (or you get your taxable income reduced due to losses, in case the share price went down between the moment you received the shares and the moment you sold them). So far so good. If you started your own company, you initially hold the shares that are worth nothing, so you aren't really taxed on them. If you don't continue receiving new shares, but instead just hold onto the initial ones, you only get taxed on them when you sell them (since when you "received" them originally, they were worth nothing). Does Zucc receive more shares over time? I don't think so, he is just holding onto his original shares (while, no doubt, selling some and getting taxed on them), so this law will not affect him one bit unless he receives more shares. Not trying to discredit your theory, your overall point is correct, I just wanted to add more nuance. P.S. I am not an expert on this by any means, so if someone can correct me (especially on the "starting your own company" scenario), please do so. I find this a fascinating topic, and I try to answer as accurately as I can. But since I didn't experience that scenario myself, I can definitely be wrong or missing some details.
czbond 6y ago
People will attempt to prove the counter with theoretical, I have an actual to support your claim. Years ago, Denver placed a tax on companies that create software. By "magic", companies decided to found outside the county lines including Boulder. Boulder has an active software scene. Denver is getting there, but still not the advanced companies Boulder has. I believe Denver recalled the tax, but unsure.
- ag56 6y ago
  Also consider the inverse example of Twitter: SF offered tax breaks to companies setting up on mid market street, and low and behold startups moved in and gentrified the area.
- raegis 6y ago
  When looking to rent an office in the Los Angeles area, my wife discovered that the city of Beverly Hills taxes a percentage of your business income, so she decided not to locate there. If I recall it was a flat tax, not a "luxury" tax either. Yet plenty of businesses thrive in Beverly Hills. So this example is an "actual" which does not support the claim :)
  - czbond 6y ago
    While I don't disagree that my suggestion is what will happen - in speaking with many founders they cited the egregious tax (it was more than 0.5%) as a reason for setting up shop outside the city. Which leads me to believe it was impactful - the amount was 3.62%
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
strawberrypuree 6y ago
> You want to incentivize future growth too I would say that SF doesn’t want to incentivize future growth. That’s the source of the inequality, right?
- booboolayla 6y ago
  I'd say you're right - they're trying to make everyone equal, not to grow further.
burkaman 6y ago
What makes you think the very slight disincentive to future startups outweighs the hundreds of millions in health services funding? Remember that healthcare has a compounding positive effect, because healthy people have an easier time contributing to society, and unhealthy people are more likely to need public services.
- cheriot 6y ago
  It's dis-incentivizing future growth to make up for people and companies that barely pay any tax at all. The only thing this subsidizes are long time land owners.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    I'm saying that this will have benefits beyond finance, and people who "barely pay any tax at all" are worth helping.
    - cheriot 6y ago
      I think you're focusing on where the money goes. That doesn't change the fact that this is a uniquely bad way to raise it. Transfer taxes are not like capital gains or income taxes. There is no value being created when something is transferred. > people who "barely pay any tax at all" are worth helping Millionaire property owners are barely paying any taxes. Disneyland and every other large commercial building is barely paying any taxes. Why are they worth helping?
      - burkaman 6y ago
        Is there an economic term for the different types of taxes you're referring to? It's not obvious to me why income taxes create value but this tax doesn't, but I don't really know anything about economics. Similarly, while I do think everyone is worth helping, I'm not yet seeing how this helps millionaires and large landlords.
        6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs I suspect that this would collect a lot more money from today's Hiltons and Marriots than FAANGs; its not like FAANGs employ a lot of people at bottom-of-the-barrel wages in SF.
dpoochieni 6y ago
Could this work as a loophole, pay the CEO something nominally sane. Give them the rest in stocks held in a trust they are beneficiaries of?
TuringNYC 6y ago
>> It will work out well fiscally because giant companies will suck it up and pay I think that if companies do suck it up and pay, it will be declared an effective law and then...the there will be proposals to expand it. It might dip down to also include SVPs, then VPs, and so on
xienze 6y ago
> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. I think it’s gonna disincentivize FAANGs from making future investments in the city. This is BAAAAD timing for a tax hike like this, coming off tech companies doing a seven month experiment in whole-company WFH, and finding out it’s working pretty well.
- cam0 6y ago
  Does SF really need investment from FAANGs? SF was a pretty awesome city before the tech boom of the 90's + 00's, and currently none of the FAANGs have a major office presence here... FB in Menlo, Apple in Cupertino, Amazon in Seattle, Netflix in Los Gatos, and Google in MV.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    They certainly view the money brought in by FAANGs as theirs.
SllX 6y ago
We’re still waiting for the Census results to hit, but there have been some indications that California is going to lose some of the choicer parts of our tax base between the SALT deduction cap, all the new taxes we’re looking to implement, laws governing the makeup of board rooms and of course the pandemic. We shall see though, and hopefully sooner rather than later.
0goel0 6y ago
> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. So you're saying entrepreneurs wouldn't start companies in SF because some day their companies will pay 0.1% tax if they make 100x the average employee? That's all it takes for founders to get discouraged? Well then maybe they should not start up in the first place.
qgrgergfqgfev 6y ago
> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. Come on... There's a million reasons why new startups shouldn't start here, the salary of a CEO is not one of them.
ck425 6y ago
I ask this as a non American who has never lived in SF. Does SF need or even want FAANGs? From what I've read the tech boom has brought a load of issues driven by inequality and they're taxing so much to fix these issues. If the tax discouraged tech companies then might that actually help the issues? As I say I'm asking from ignorance. I also realise I'm likely to get somewhat biased answers to that view point on HN.

xg15 6y ago

So they show do nothing about today's inequality because this will get them more taxes in 20 years? (Unless someone makes the same point 20 years in that they should better wait another 20 years)

nhumrich 6y ago
OC didn't claim they should do nothing. He just said that this specific way was short-sided.
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Maybe a tax like this is not the only way to address inequality?
Consultant32452 6y ago
One thing I'd like to see them do is radically simplify the ability for regular people to start regular businesses. One thing we could do is pick some small industry and run experiments with it. An example might be food trucks. There's a lot of regulations around these today. As a thought experiment we could eliminate all sales tax, special licensing, etc. for food truck companies under a certain size (We don't McDonalds food trucks to count). We could see what happened, is there wide spread food poisoning? Are families brought out of the lower class? It doesn't have to be food trucks exactly, that's just an industry that people like in a business that's relatively simple and imo has low systemic risk.
- pydry 6y ago
  Concentration of market power and lack of risk capital, not regulation, is the primary inhibitor to normal people starting businesses.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    If you could open up a "food truck" on the weekends with a Walmart camp stove and a trip to Costco you'd eliminate the concentration fo market power and lack of risk capital as problems.
    - chii 6y ago
      but then if you did so, and the food had issues, where do the customer complain and get compensation from? How do you prevent over-crowding of a location, and flow-on effect of crowds from said truck? How do you make sure the waste products are sanely disposed? And a million other concerns from third parties unrelated to the business, but is affected by its existence?
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        I don't believe I could provide any response that would persuade you.
    - pydry 6y ago
      That's one way of eliminating a market altogether. Without health checks every food truck becomes suspect (market for lemons dynamic) and people will eventually stop playing food poisoning roulette. Those that don't will expect a steep discount. Meanwhile those people who take the risk and it doesn't work out will still have bills and rent to pay.
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        Food stands in countries without licensing or oversight inform me that this isn't a real concern.

dontreact 6y ago

This assumes that the performance of companies is driven by the CEO much more than the employees. If the Bay Area has great FANG companies because of talented workforce here, then CEOs will gladly take a pay cut to be able to employ the best workers.

core-questions 6y ago
> If the Bay Area has great FANG companies because of talented workforce here The talented workforce is there because of the companies. Why would someone deliberately choose to live in San Fran when given the choice of many cleaner, nicer cities with a lower cost of living? I guess if you really like fog and hills
- astine 6y ago
  San Francisco is a well known culture hub. The startup industry started source of it in Silicon Valley but shifted north because of the appeal of living in San Francisco.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
    True, but none of these things exist in isolation. Culture is created by people, it is not a geographical feature like mountains or lakes. The Silicon Valley wasn't nominated as the tech hub overnight, it became one through an organic process thanks to a mix of good weather, access to capital, a pool of talented employees etc. Don't take any of that for granted (well except the weather I guess, but with Global Warming and earthquakes who knows).
- ponker 6y ago
  One thing about the world cities is that you find that they remain the world cities through thousands of years of civilization. London has been a city for 2000 years, Damascus 4000... San Francisco had appeal before the tech industry was here and will have it after it’s long gone.
bduerst 6y ago

danans 6y ago

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. How many startups are there where the executives make 100x to 200x the median employee pay? That only happens via stock-based compensation at public companies. If that's the case, they're not a startup.

qppo 6y ago
Is the tax assessed on options/grants even if there isn't a market to sell them?
- dgoldstein0 6y ago
  It probably depends on how those options and grants vest. Earlier stage companies are more likely to set them up so that they vest at IPO.
- danans 6y ago
  If there is no market, either because it is pre-IPO or unvested then the value is unrealized, and therefore not a form of compensation, so no. You don't own equity that haven't vested. They are just a contract between you and the employer to transfer them to you upon vest, which either party can probably walk back on if they choose to.

op03 6y ago

Cities consistently outlast Kings and Empires. But to build empire you have to be in denial of that fact.

macinjosh 6y ago
Cities may stick around for millenia but their governments don't. Those come and go.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. Does it? Startups probably start out with a fairly small Executive Pay Ratio because they start out without a lot of low-paid grunts, and its already not common for them to open satellite facilities or move HQs for grunt work when they scale out to more jobs where they aren't trying to attract locally-concentrated elite talent. Because its triggered on the ratio between the highest paid managerial employee anywere in the firm and the median pay of employees in the City, it really just adds further incentives to do low-level gruntwork outside of the city, but doesn't seem otherwise to really change the structural incentives much for startups. OTOH, it does make it more expensive for any widespread organization whose headquarters and elite labor are elsewhere to operate a facility with mostly low-level labor in the City; a tech startup headquartered in the City might never be hit by it even as they scaled up if they are focussed on automation, as they might never have a low-paid workforce. OTOH, retail, etc., outlets, hotels, etc., of firms with highly-paid executives with their main executive and high-paid labor force outside of the city would be hit hard (as far as compared to other firms, I don't think the tax rate is ever high enough to really be "hit hard") by it on their operations in the City.

eloff 6y ago

I agree companies will just suck it up and pay it if they want to be in SF. But I don't think it will disincentive new companies starting out. They have a hundred other concerns more important than how the CEO will be taxed if they one day become huge and the CEO has extremely high compensation. It won't even factor into the decision of where to locate the company. Also, you should notice most highly compensated CEOs are not founders. Founders don't need to compensate themselves that heavily because they own a large chunk of the equity. Simple capital gains or dividends are the favourite forms of compensation for founders. Since founders, by definition, are the ones deciding where to found the company, they won't care at all about this law.

AlchemistCamp 6y ago
The bill isn't about how CEOs will be taxed. It's about how their entire company will be taxed.
- rattray 6y ago
  It's based on CEO pay, which doesn't apply to CEOs who are founders and get most of their "pay" in the form of appreciation of stock (rather than stock options/grants).
  - joshribakoff 6y ago
    Would it be different if they liquidated and exchanged for an index fund or publicly traded ETF? On the other hand, the law does cover gross receipts, so the act of “paying” the CEO in stocks is subject to taxation at the point in time the CEO receives it as part of their income.
    - filoleg 6y ago
      >the act of “paying” the CEO in stocks is subject to taxation at the point in time the CEO receives it as part of their income That is technically true, but this is where it gets tricky. If you joined a public company (this will work with private too, if you weren't the founder, but let's not thing about it for the sake of simplicity for now) as the CEO, this will work out perfectly just like you described. You got all those shares at joining, you pay tax on their value at the time. As you get more shares, you get taxed on their value as soon as you receive them. If you decide to sell those shares, you don't get taxed on the initial value of them (since you already got taxed on it when you received the shares), only on the profits you made at the moment of sale (or you get your taxable income reduced due to losses, in case the share price went down between the moment you received the shares and the moment you sold them). So far so good. If you started your own company, you initially hold the shares that are worth nothing, so you aren't really taxed on them. If you don't continue receiving new shares, but instead just hold onto the initial ones, you only get taxed on them when you sell them (since when you "received" them originally, they were worth nothing). Does Zucc receive more shares over time? I don't think so, he is just holding onto his original shares (while, no doubt, selling some and getting taxed on them), so this law will not affect him one bit unless he receives more shares. Not trying to discredit your theory, your overall point is correct, I just wanted to add more nuance. P.S. I am not an expert on this by any means, so if someone can correct me (especially on the "starting your own company" scenario), please do so. I find this a fascinating topic, and I try to answer as accurately as I can. But since I didn't experience that scenario myself, I can definitely be wrong or missing some details.

czbond 6y ago

People will attempt to prove the counter with theoretical, I have an actual to support your claim. Years ago, Denver placed a tax on companies that create software. By "magic", companies decided to found outside the county lines including Boulder. Boulder has an active software scene. Denver is getting there, but still not the advanced companies Boulder has. I believe Denver recalled the tax, but unsure.

ag56 6y ago
Also consider the inverse example of Twitter: SF offered tax breaks to companies setting up on mid market street, and low and behold startups moved in and gentrified the area.
raegis 6y ago
When looking to rent an office in the Los Angeles area, my wife discovered that the city of Beverly Hills taxes a percentage of your business income, so she decided not to locate there. If I recall it was a flat tax, not a "luxury" tax either. Yet plenty of businesses thrive in Beverly Hills. So this example is an "actual" which does not support the claim :)
- czbond 6y ago
  While I don't disagree that my suggestion is what will happen - in speaking with many founders they cited the egregious tax (it was more than 0.5%) as a reason for setting up shop outside the city. Which leads me to believe it was impactful - the amount was 3.62%

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

strawberrypuree 6y ago

> You want to incentivize future growth too I would say that SF doesn’t want to incentivize future growth. That’s the source of the inequality, right?

booboolayla 6y ago
I'd say you're right - they're trying to make everyone equal, not to grow further.

burkaman 6y ago

What makes you think the very slight disincentive to future startups outweighs the hundreds of millions in health services funding? Remember that healthcare has a compounding positive effect, because healthy people have an easier time contributing to society, and unhealthy people are more likely to need public services.

cheriot 6y ago
It's dis-incentivizing future growth to make up for people and companies that barely pay any tax at all. The only thing this subsidizes are long time land owners.
- burkaman 6y ago
  I'm saying that this will have benefits beyond finance, and people who "barely pay any tax at all" are worth helping.
  - cheriot 6y ago
    I think you're focusing on where the money goes. That doesn't change the fact that this is a uniquely bad way to raise it. Transfer taxes are not like capital gains or income taxes. There is no value being created when something is transferred. > people who "barely pay any tax at all" are worth helping Millionaire property owners are barely paying any taxes. Disneyland and every other large commercial building is barely paying any taxes. Why are they worth helping?
    - burkaman 6y ago
      Is there an economic term for the different types of taxes you're referring to? It's not obvious to me why income taxes create value but this tax doesn't, but I don't really know anything about economics. Similarly, while I do think everyone is worth helping, I'm not yet seeing how this helps millionaires and large landlords.
      - 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs I suspect that this would collect a lot more money from today's Hiltons and Marriots than FAANGs; its not like FAANGs employ a lot of people at bottom-of-the-barrel wages in SF.

dpoochieni 6y ago

Could this work as a loophole, pay the CEO something nominally sane. Give them the rest in stocks held in a trust they are beneficiaries of?

TuringNYC 6y ago

>> It will work out well fiscally because giant companies will suck it up and pay I think that if companies do suck it up and pay, it will be declared an effective law and then...the there will be proposals to expand it. It might dip down to also include SVPs, then VPs, and so on

xienze 6y ago

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. I think it’s gonna disincentivize FAANGs from making future investments in the city. This is BAAAAD timing for a tax hike like this, coming off tech companies doing a seven month experiment in whole-company WFH, and finding out it’s working pretty well.

cam0 6y ago
Does SF really need investment from FAANGs? SF was a pretty awesome city before the tech boom of the 90's + 00's, and currently none of the FAANGs have a major office presence here... FB in Menlo, Apple in Cupertino, Amazon in Seattle, Netflix in Los Gatos, and Google in MV.
- LanceH 6y ago
  They certainly view the money brought in by FAANGs as theirs.

SllX 6y ago

We’re still waiting for the Census results to hit, but there have been some indications that California is going to lose some of the choicer parts of our tax base between the SALT deduction cap, all the new taxes we’re looking to implement, laws governing the makeup of board rooms and of course the pandemic. We shall see though, and hopefully sooner rather than later.

0goel0 6y ago

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. So you're saying entrepreneurs wouldn't start companies in SF because some day their companies will pay 0.1% tax if they make 100x the average employee? That's all it takes for founders to get discouraged? Well then maybe they should not start up in the first place.

qgrgergfqgfev 6y ago

> What this does is, it collects money from today's FAANGs while disincentivizing future startups from starting here. Come on... There's a million reasons why new startups shouldn't start here, the salary of a CEO is not one of them.

ck425 6y ago

I ask this as a non American who has never lived in SF. Does SF need or even want FAANGs? From what I've read the tech boom has brought a load of issues driven by inequality and they're taxing so much to fix these issues. If the tax discouraged tech companies then might that actually help the issues? As I say I'm asking from ignorance. I also realise I'm likely to get somewhat biased answers to that view point on HN.