Looks like the answer to the classification system is:
"The measure identifies tech companies by the type of tax code they use under the Internal Revenue Service’s North American Industry Classification System. Companies classify themselves. They may face penalties if a government audit finds they are misidentifying themselves."
If I was a billionaire, I would create a news site called "Who, What, Why, and How" that answered all four questions in detail for every news item. No opinion (Lord knows you can get that elsewhere), just sourced facts and original documents. Pointers to previous articles via a timeline in the sidebar.
The answer to "Why?" for real news items involving human action is always a matter of opinion. (Of course, you can have a "sourced fact" about someone's opinion or claim of what the "Why?" is, but mainstream news sources usually do that now.)
I get what you're saying but, I'm thinking of a little simpler version of the why. In this article we have lawmakers who have introduced a tax, and the why is basically their opinion and reason for the introduction. You can say they are right or wrong, but the why of the bills introduction is their beliefs.
> and the why is basically their opinion and reason for the introduction.
You mean, their stated rationale for the introduction? Because their actual beliefs and their actual reason for the introduction may be very different, and often is a matter of controversy.
Their stated rationale (since we aren't mind readers and we can only go by statements). If they're lying, well, it happens and I guess you might find it in a followup. Frankly, their why is often the least important thing on the list.
It's completely crazy that their first approach is to tax tech companies. In other modern cities, you're allowed to build higher than 3 story buildings.
David Campos, who is proposing this tax, is against all house building. So good luck with that happening.
Campos's policies just defy rational thought. Last year he wanted to completely ban any housing construction in the Mission[1]. At the same time he's been actively campaigning and advocating for homelessness centers, and declaring a "state of emergency" for the homeless in SF[2].
I honestly can't reconcile how somebody can logically say "homelessness is terrible, we need to do something about it" followed by "we shouldn't build any houses". He wants to have his cake and eat it: complain about how the homeless are (in his words) "pushed into the Mission", and then refuse to allow any homes to be built that could potentially house them (via affordable housing requirements).
This is a man who believes[3] that the recent spate of fires in the mission is a deliberate arson campaign by landlords to evict their tenants, rather than the actual reason, which is many of the buildings in the Mission are a) made of wood, b) old, and c) lack modern safety systems like sprinklers and good alarm systems.
> Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agencys budget were cut, what would it do? It would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would most likely get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place. [0]
By fixing the problem by allowing more housing, the politician would be able to extract less resources and power from the population. Never let a crisis go to waste. Or perhaps I'm being overly cynical in characterizing the political process.
Campoes seems to derive policymaking inspiration from Chavez. What I mean is he aims to please and fulfill his constituency not by addressing the root of a problem, but by summoning an issue's boogeyperson.
Unfortunately, they may feel good or vindicate people's frustrations but do little to actually work to alleviate the issue. This is more of that tact.
The general idea of taxes to support solutions to housing and infrastructure problems seems reasonable.
Why a tech-specific tax, though? Seems like a general one would avoid the problem of line drawing, avoid the problem of causing resentment in specific industries, and spread the burden out more generally.
> ... but, in fact, San Francisco spends tremendous amounts of money on the problem. The city is allocating a record $241 million this fiscal year on homeless services, $84 million more than when Mayor Ed Lee took office in January 2011. But the city struggles to track exactly how all that money is being spent and whether it’s producing results. Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations, most of them nonprofits, that deal with homelessness.
Perhaps the city should re-think on the effectiveness of such programs. My biggest problem with the programs is that they are indirect and empower bureaucracies rather than the people they are purported to serve. For instance, housing subsidies are incredibly inefficient. The programs (in NYC at least) often provide a housing subsidy in a very popular neighborhood. So for instance, market rent could be $4,000 but subsidized rent would be $1,000 for a net transfer of $3,000. If the landlord had an option of paying < $3,000 and being able to rent the apartment at market rent, he would surely prefer that option. As an alternative, if that family received a direct $3,000 subsidy, the family would likely only use a portion of those funds to pay for better housing. Too many transfer programs that allocate a particular good have that problem and are highly inefficient. I doubt an extra $100 mm would provide any meaningful changes to many.
What this doesn't take into account is the fact that california doesn't require renters to list their income from alimony or child support. There are a ton of beautiful lofts in Santa Monica, for instance, which are over 100% of the maximum allowable income as a section 8 renter. This means that they were only built for rich divorcees or otherwise subsidized women.
Furthermore, a staggering 1 in 4 homeless (29%) in SF were bussed in by the homeless service industry from other areas, and then ejected on to the streets for bad behaviour[0] or other reasons.
I can understand why each step of this process (bringing people to services, ejecting those that are unmanageable in order to maintain the order required to help the others. As a systematic process, however, it's obscene: it protects the industry while fanning the flames of the crisis, which, in turn, builds support for more funds for homeless non-profits.
[0]"Ten percent (10%) of respondents reported they were living out of state at the time they lost their housing.
Nineteen percent (19%) reported they were living in another county in California. Six percent (6%) reported
they were living in Alameda County at the time, 3% San Mateo, 2% Marin, 2% Contra Costa and 1% Santa Clara
County."
Second, while 71% did have homes previously in San Francisco, it does not follow that the remaining 29% "were bussed in by the homeless service industry from other areas". SF is known for having stronger support for the homeless, so homeless might well actively seek to travel to SF from other areas -- that's especially unsurprising for those from other Bay Area counties, which make up nearly half of the 29%. Second, there've been recurring cases of cities shipping out the homeless (either in general, or indigent mentally ill, in particular) to other jurisdictions -- including, often, SF. (This is them being bussed by someone, but not the homeless service industry.)
"Dubbed the tech tax, the proposed November ballot measure would impose a 1.5 percent payroll tax on technology companies. That would be a big shift. In 2012, 71 percent of San Francisco voters supported a measure to eliminate the city’s payroll tax and replace it with a gross receipts tax."
"Hey, Bob, did you know the voters of SF reset the payroll tax to zero? We can totally tax it now!"
So are they going to put the 1.5% tax on doctors, lawyers, and other rich business people that have always been able to live in SF?
Why is it when I the nerd finally get a job where I could afford to live in SF instead of some east bay suburb, they don't want me to live there and want to do everything in their power to keep me from doing so? XD
29 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 70.5 ms ] thread"The measure identifies tech companies by the type of tax code they use under the Internal Revenue Service’s North American Industry Classification System. Companies classify themselves. They may face penalties if a government audit finds they are misidentifying themselves."
Ahh, to dream.....
You mean, their stated rationale for the introduction? Because their actual beliefs and their actual reason for the introduction may be very different, and often is a matter of controversy.
Campos's policies just defy rational thought. Last year he wanted to completely ban any housing construction in the Mission[1]. At the same time he's been actively campaigning and advocating for homelessness centers, and declaring a "state of emergency" for the homeless in SF[2].
I honestly can't reconcile how somebody can logically say "homelessness is terrible, we need to do something about it" followed by "we shouldn't build any houses". He wants to have his cake and eat it: complain about how the homeless are (in his words) "pushed into the Mission", and then refuse to allow any homes to be built that could potentially house them (via affordable housing requirements).
This is a man who believes[3] that the recent spate of fires in the mission is a deliberate arson campaign by landlords to evict their tenants, rather than the actual reason, which is many of the buildings in the Mission are a) made of wood, b) old, and c) lack modern safety systems like sprinklers and good alarm systems.
[1]: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Campos-wants-moratoriu... [2]: http://abc7news.com/news/sf-supervisor-declares-state-of-eme... [3]: http://www.sfexaminer.com/why-is-the-mission-burning/
> Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agencys budget were cut, what would it do? It would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would most likely get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place. [0]
By fixing the problem by allowing more housing, the politician would be able to extract less resources and power from the population. Never let a crisis go to waste. Or perhaps I'm being overly cynical in characterizing the political process.
[0] http://www.heraldandtribune.com/oped/benedict-arnold-statues...
Unfortunately, they may feel good or vindicate people's frustrations but do little to actually work to alleviate the issue. This is more of that tact.
Why a tech-specific tax, though? Seems like a general one would avoid the problem of line drawing, avoid the problem of causing resentment in specific industries, and spread the burden out more generally.
Perhaps the city should re-think on the effectiveness of such programs. My biggest problem with the programs is that they are indirect and empower bureaucracies rather than the people they are purported to serve. For instance, housing subsidies are incredibly inefficient. The programs (in NYC at least) often provide a housing subsidy in a very popular neighborhood. So for instance, market rent could be $4,000 but subsidized rent would be $1,000 for a net transfer of $3,000. If the landlord had an option of paying < $3,000 and being able to rent the apartment at market rent, he would surely prefer that option. As an alternative, if that family received a direct $3,000 subsidy, the family would likely only use a portion of those funds to pay for better housing. Too many transfer programs that allocate a particular good have that problem and are highly inefficient. I doubt an extra $100 mm would provide any meaningful changes to many.
[0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
Sounds so effective and generous! I bet it's the best place in the world to be homeless no?
But then we read:
"Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations"
Ah... it's a bureaucrat job program, nothing more.
All that money not being spent on homeless people.
I can understand why each step of this process (bringing people to services, ejecting those that are unmanageable in order to maintain the order required to help the others. As a systematic process, however, it's obscene: it protects the industry while fanning the flames of the crisis, which, in turn, builds support for more funds for homeless non-profits.
[0]"Ten percent (10%) of respondents reported they were living out of state at the time they lost their housing. Nineteen percent (19%) reported they were living in another county in California. Six percent (6%) reported they were living in Alameda County at the time, 3% San Mateo, 2% Marin, 2% Contra Costa and 1% Santa Clara County."
http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/sfgov.org.lhcb/files/2015%20San%...
Second, while 71% did have homes previously in San Francisco, it does not follow that the remaining 29% "were bussed in by the homeless service industry from other areas". SF is known for having stronger support for the homeless, so homeless might well actively seek to travel to SF from other areas -- that's especially unsurprising for those from other Bay Area counties, which make up nearly half of the 29%. Second, there've been recurring cases of cities shipping out the homeless (either in general, or indigent mentally ill, in particular) to other jurisdictions -- including, often, SF. (This is them being bussed by someone, but not the homeless service industry.)
It's 23% - still 1 in 4 - that were in homeless shelters in SF before they were homeless, that were formerly from elsewhere.
"Hey, Bob, did you know the voters of SF reset the payroll tax to zero? We can totally tax it now!"
Why is it when I the nerd finally get a job where I could afford to live in SF instead of some east bay suburb, they don't want me to live there and want to do everything in their power to keep me from doing so? XD