the stock comp exemption, the mid-market exemption and the shift to payroll from gross receipts were all negotiated around exactly the same time. Similar arguments deployed. Similar people involved.
Conversation
And we had nothing to do with shift from gross receipts which was also a few years earlier.
2
2
Ron was part of shifting away from payroll to gross receipts bc we were the only city in California to do payroll (and there was also lack of clarity as to whether payroll included stock comp, which you/Zynga raised)
3
17
The real policy question is do we want large companies outside of sf and will that reduce pressure on housing. Where are you on that?
1
4
my position has been pretty consistent for years. If we add jobs, we should add commensurate amounts of housing. At the same time, while building more housing is absolutely necessary, it is not sufficient for the lowest income quintiles, which still need public subsidy.
2
1
49
if Square/Stripe think the current gross receipts tax structure is unfair to them, they should take it up in whatever invariable 2020 gross receipts tax measure is run and make their case before the public. I don't think it was wise of them to oppose Prop. C.
2
1
31
I wonder if property taxes would make more sense since the companies may be more likely to leave than the people.
5
9
yessssssssss, property taxes make a lot more sense but that is controlled by an initiative the voters passed in 1978.
1
1
54
For perspective, the “Twitter” tax break totaled about $70M during its *whole* existence & is being phased out. But the “Jeff Bridges” property inheritance tax break takes away $80-100M *each* year from SF sftreasurer.org/sites/default/ latimes.com/politics/la-po lao.ca.gov/publications/r
5
34
127
If you think of land owners as share holders, residents/businesses as users, gov as operator, it makes a lot more sense to tax the shareholder than the user. “Twitter” tax deal was marketing/act spend. All ultimately to benefit land owners.
1
*act = acquisition