4 ms·

I wonder what the impact of a marginal $150-250k/yr single person who lives in a high-rise and rides a company shuttle to work (or wfh) is, on city services. R

by rdl 13y ago

I wonder what the impact of a marginal $150-250k/yr single person who lives in a high-rise and rides a company shuttle to work (or wfh) is, on city services. Roads would be a big one, but if someone uses a company shuttle and/or drives at off-peak hours, it's not that big a deal. Mass transit and roads are sized for peak-time use. Water (although SF residents use about 10% as much water per person as people with lawns in the Central Valley), electricity (although at PG&E tiered rates, this is probably a profit center), garbage disposal (charged at cost-plus). Unlikely to depend on the "safety net" services in any way, and the marginal impact on police/fire is low as well (private security for the building, compliant with fire codes). Without children, there's no impact on schools, and I don't know of many 150k+/yr income friends who would send their kids to SF public schools. Indirect expenditure via the private sector seems like the greatest impact -- eating in restaurants, buying in stores, etc. -- but sales tax revenue should account for most of that impact, as well as increased profits for businesses, employment, etc.

supersystem 13y ago
Infrastructure generally doesn't scale linearly. So while one person doesn't have much of an impact, at some point you're going to have to invest a lot of money scaling.
- rdl 13y ago
  Yes, but it also usually has declining marginal cost across most of the curve. It's complex. It definitely gets expensive at the margin when growth requires new plant, but the big problem is when growth is unpredictable and may end; SF has a pretty safe long-term growth plan built in, so making 100 year investments (at muni bond rates!) is safe. I just don't see even 100k rich non-services-intensive people as being likely to cause a problem. What SF should do is get rid of the previous stupid payroll tax and Ron Conway/Ed Lee's even worse gross receipts tax and institute an income tax of n% on residents or those working in SF. Maybe make it progressive (just set it as x% of someone's California state tax bill?, maybe +10% so it'd be about 1% of gross income?). Then, having 100k people making ~$300k/yr (reflecting capital gains plus wage income) and consuming <$100/yr in city services in some towers along the eastern side of the city would be awesome. $300mm/yr in extra tax income would do a lot.

by rdl 13y ago

supersystem 13y ago

Infrastructure generally doesn't scale linearly. So while one person doesn't have much of an impact, at some point you're going to have to invest a lot of money scaling.

rdl 13y ago
Yes, but it also usually has declining marginal cost across most of the curve. It's complex. It definitely gets expensive at the margin when growth requires new plant, but the big problem is when growth is unpredictable and may end; SF has a pretty safe long-term growth plan built in, so making 100 year investments (at muni bond rates!) is safe. I just don't see even 100k rich non-services-intensive people as being likely to cause a problem. What SF should do is get rid of the previous stupid payroll tax and Ron Conway/Ed Lee's even worse gross receipts tax and institute an income tax of n% on residents or those working in SF. Maybe make it progressive (just set it as x% of someone's California state tax bill?, maybe +10% so it'd be about 1% of gross income?). Then, having 100k people making ~$300k/yr (reflecting capital gains plus wage income) and consuming <$100/yr in city services in some towers along the eastern side of the city would be awesome. $300mm/yr in extra tax income would do a lot.