[hawkoy]

From: https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2020/11/san-francis...

> The tax will levy an extra 0.1% to 0.6% on gross receipts made in San Francisco for companies whose highest paid executive makes 100 times or more its median worker’s salary. The amount levied will increase in 0.1% brackets proportionally to the pay ratio. A company whose highest paid employee earns 200 times more than its median San Francisco worker will get a extra 0.2% charge on its gross receipts. For companies whose CEO makes 300 more, the charge jumps to 0.3% and son on. The tax caps at 0.6%, and only companies with gross receipts over $1.17 million will be targeted.

> Under the measure, gross receipts and CEO compensation will include money made from stock options, bonuses, tax refunds, and property, a caveat seen by many as a way to target the tech sector where CEOs are often compensated in non-salaried bonuses. Tech is expected to account for 17% of the tax revenues, according to an estimate by the city’s chief economist, while retail and financial firms are expected to account for 23% of the revenues each.

> The CEO tax is expected to generate between $60 million to $140 million per year.

Doesn't seem that big in comparison to what SF annual budget is.

From (because the article doesn't give exact figures on transfer taxes): https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Econo... ?

> Proposed legislation would raise the Transfer Tax rate on properties in the city that sell for more than $10 million. For properties selling for between $10 million and $25 million, the rate would rise from 2.75% to 5.5%. For properties selling for over $25 million, the rate would rise from 3% to 6%.

[aeternum]

I'd also be surprised if it brings in anywhere near the quoted amount since the SF supervisors have proven themselves incapable of considering second order effects such as companies contracting out their low-pay roles or simply leaving SF.

[jlmorton]

Pretty hard to claim this when Visa decided to massively expand their Global HQ in San Francisco after Prop C passed.

The pandemic has thrown things in a wrench, but prior to the pandemic, San Francisco businesses were constrained only by commercial real estate. There was literally no space left to put any new businesses.

We've been collecting Prop C revenues since March 2019, and they are exactly as forecast.

[MrBuddyCasino]

> SF supervisors have proven themselves incapable of considering second order effects

Correct. SF and its politics cannot be saved, just let them slowly eat themselves.

[gmadsen]

this is a tax on high pay roles, so I don't understand your concern. Also I hope and pray that it would cause companies to move, that is essentially working towards the same goal.

[gmadsen]

if it was profitable, it would have happened already.

[names_are_hard]

Additionally, tech companies use outsource their low paid labor. I don't see how they'll pay this tax.

[alexeichemenda]

>Doesn't seem that big in comparison to what SF annual budget is.

There are no singled-out pockets that you can tap into and make up SF annual budget. It's all about cumulating a lot fo long-tail small pockets + 1-2 large pockets.

[leetcrew]

sounds like a bunch of full-time roles are about to get converted to contractor positions.

[ed25519FUUU]

The bottom of the percentile graph will be outsourced to save in taxes for the top percentiles.

[zadkey]

Agreed, this is problematic if the executive is compensated primarily in stock options.

[whoisburbansky]

Why do you think it is problematic? According to my reading of OP, the measures includes stock options in calculating comp.

[dnautics]

Seems like the solution is directly compensate your CEOs very little and outsource executive services to a third party company that aggregates CEO compensation as a "contracted entity". This company will mostly be paying CEOs, so its median employee salary will be relatively high.

[URSpider94]

No board of directors anywhere is going to allow this.