U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:26 PM
 
Location: New to the BA & l o v e it
4,034 posts, read 997,026 times
Reputation: 2933

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
I'm unclear how "overpaid executives" who are fortunate enough to live in nearby enclave cities changes any aspect of this topic. The tax is/would be on their salary in SF, not on their residence in Half Moon Bay.





I could be wrong BUT isn't the overpaid executive tax on the company & not on anybody's salary? The guys making those salaries pay enough taxes IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:03 PM
 
2,072 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaPosh View Post
I could be wrong BUT isn't the overpaid executive tax on the company & not on anybody's salary? The guys making those salaries pay enough taxes IMO.
I haven't looked at the details, but absolutely no employer/employment tax I've ever seen had any provision for where the employee lived. It's where they work, both company site and their desk or whatever, that controls applicability.

So again, noting that while the very wealthiest might live right there in SF, Seattle or Manhattan, and the next tier down might live in "affordable" bedroom communities... is kind of neither here nor there on this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:52 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
3,905 posts, read 1,032,858 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
The tax is/would be on their salary in SF, not on their residence in Half Moon Bay.
The proposed 'OET' is a (progressive) business tax/surcharge in SF; it would not be on an individual's salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:30 PM
 
2,072 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
The proposed 'OET' is a (progressive) business tax/surcharge in SF; it would not be on an individual's salary.
Well, if you really want to get picky, it's on employee stock options, based on whether exec salaries exceed the 100X median limit. And it's not progressive, it's a flat 1.12% on option values.

So my "based on their salaries in SF" is more accurate than your version.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:18 PM
 
4,553 posts, read 3,917,213 times
Reputation: 10809
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
The proposed 'OET' is a (progressive) business tax/surcharge in SF; it would not be on an individual's salary.
But it is dependent on the assessed amount of an individual's compensation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:21 PM
 
6,914 posts, read 3,120,859 times
Reputation: 20917
California is literally doing their level best to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, aren't they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:29 PM
 
4,553 posts, read 3,917,213 times
Reputation: 10809
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
California is literally doing their level best to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, aren't they?
The goose is dead! Right now they're just nibbling the last bits of meat off the bones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:34 PM
 
Location: New to the BA & l o v e it
4,034 posts, read 997,026 times
Reputation: 2933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post

So my "based on their salaries in SF" is more accurate than your version.






You said the tax would be on their salary but it's not on their salary....cause it's a business tax like CorporateCowboy said. Your version wasn't right. I know nothing about it BUT even I knew you were wrong......so that says something about how little you know IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:09 PM
 
2,072 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaPosh View Post
You said the tax would be on their salary but it's not on their salary....cause it's a business tax like CorporateCowboy said. Your version wasn't right. I know nothing about it BUT even I knew you were wrong......so that says something about how little you know IMO.
It's based on — triggered by — executive salaries being 100X median; it's calculated on a percentage of stock options paid... which is parallel to salary.

I concede I wasn't completely clear but it's not just "a tax on the business unrelated to individual salaries," either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
California is literally doing their level best to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, aren't they?
I get scolded for not using exact terms, yet the conversation goes on that can't tell the city of San Francisco from California...

But yes, look for SF to completely empty out by 2022, leaving just the flying rats and the cable car gripmen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:38 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
3,905 posts, read 1,032,858 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Well, if you really want to get picky, it's on employee stock options, based on whether exec salaries exceed the 100X median limit. And it's not progressive, it's a flat 1.12% on option values.
My post #83 was simply in response to your incorrect statement (and I quoted you). It's not 'on employee stock options' either; you're running off in another (superfluous) direction; but rather, stock options are included in total compensation (as I outlined in posts #29 and #48 as part of another point) in determining this proposed surcharge.

That said, it absolutely is a progressive tax as the rate increases depending upon whether the CEO's (for example) compensation is determined to be 100 times, 200 times, or 1000 times greater than the median of the company's SF workers. In theory, as currently proposed, it would be .1%, .2%, and 1% of gross receipts respectively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
But it is dependent on the assessed amount of an individual's compensation.
In and of itself, the (highest-paid) individual's compensation is insignificant; it is determined by the difference between their total compensation and the median of other SF workers, specifically whether it is 100 times (or greater). Therefore, I simply needed to clarify your choice of words; as written, it appears to indicate an individual's compensation is 'assessed'. :-)

Last edited by CorporateCowboy; Yesterday at 09:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top