Tim

You know that's a cheap shot, don't you? How exactly would you suggest imposing a "windfall tax" on those with a billion? A wealth tax and an income tax are both illegal under State law.

Again, those billionaires didn't get that money by having a pretty face. You shrewdly omitted their names but in fact most if not all of them got their money by building successful businesses and employing lots of people, i.e. bringing money and jobs to the region.

Moreover, it is almost trivially easy for someone of means to move out of the City, County or State. Hell, even the country. So what on earth is the point in harassing them?

Finally, that 16 billion works out about $50 a person nationally. We could impoverish them all, give everyone a tax rebate and most folks wouldn't notice at all. Let them be.

If they're anything like 75% of America's wealthy class, they inherited some or all of their fortunes. That's called "Rolling Out Of The Right Birth Canal".

Tim isn't suggesting confiscating their riches, he is merely suggesting that they pay a tiny fraction of their lucre to defray the costs of the same society they've made their money off of--sounds like a fair deal to me.

This veneration of America's true aristocracy is a little sad, given that this was one of the freest economies the world ever saw. Hate to tell you this, but sucking up to the chosen few doesn't get you very far, not like that'll ever stop ya.

We tax just the billionaires?
I want to see more taxes but just pointing out that some rich people live here is not so productive, and more than a little divisive.
The bulk of the ones who made their money on that list and who have homes in SF made their own money, although they may have had an education advantage coming from middle class families. So I guess you could resent them for that (and no I am not sucking up to anyone).

identifying billionaires and implying they suck it up, pay some more in taxes, and take a hit like everyone else.

Tim

But again you ducked the question of how to actually tax the uber-rich.

You can't levy a wealth tax.

So you're limited to a State-wide hike in income tax rates. Which is a very inefficient way of taxing wealth since you really only taxing the interest on that wealth. and that is after their fancy accountants have offset their income with all the usual tricks.

While the City has even less options for taxing wealth. Even property tax, which essentially is a wealth tax, is limited by Prop 13.

Absent a viable suggestion for how to tax these folks, you are engaged in little more here than a little, mischievous, old-fashioned class warfare and the politics of envy.

I would like to think that most of the rich folks listed in the other comments freely contribute money back to local needy organizations. If I were to be ultra wealthy I know that contributing back to society is something that I would do without hesitation.
What ticks me off is when our local city government gets their hands on any amount of tax dollars they tend to spend it on some really stupid stuff. For instance, a subway to Chinatown or a bow & arrow on the Embarcadero. When a city is lacking funds for basic needs it shouldn't be spending stupid.

Once taxes reach intangibles they are no longer intangible!

-marc

There's plenty of income available to tax - the total personal income in the US was about 12 trillion dollars at last count (see www.wolframalpha.com) the top 1 percent of earners got 2.5 trillion of that - what we need is extended progressivity in the tax code, all the way up!

Repealing the Bush tax cuts on those making more than 200,000 a year (250,000), raising marginal rates from 35 to 39 percent is just a start - how about raising marginal rates on those making 500,000 a year to 45%, those making 1,000,000 a year to 50%, etc.

The Beatles song was about the then-actual taxation rates in Britain at the very top. you can argue that those rates were too high, but that's the point - we need to discuss how much the very, ultra, filthy, sickly, and deadly rich should be paying.

We proles made them rich by buying their crap.

And why should anyone be paying a higher percent of EARNED income as taxes, then the rich pay on all their capital gains? most of the income of the rich is NOT earned.

In 2005 SF had 20 billionaires. Look who's not on the list, the inventors of option ARM "Pick a pay" loans. In most countries they'd have been shot.

$1.1 billion -- Bernard Osher · Golden West Financial
$1.1 billion -- Herbert Sandler · Golden West Financial
$1.1 billion -- Marion Sandler · Golden West Financial

Greg,

You make a huge assumption there. You assume that money that is held in private hands really belongs to all of us and so that in order to have control of it, we should requisition it first and then let the voters decide what to spend it on.

A confiscatory policy like that has been tried in many countries but I near guarantee none of them are places that either you or I would want to live in.

Just because Warrn Buffett has 40 billion doesn't mean that that money is somehow magically ours as well, and that we should be able to seize it in the name of accountibility.

Your point is fine as it applies to money our governments have. It is far from fine to leap from there to a justification for requisitioning private resources on the grounds of "democracy". And in fact the voters generally do not vote to confiscate the wealth of the rich. Perhaps they have an American dream or something, that one day they too will be rich.

It doesn't surprise me that you share their mindset. If you have a million in equity, you could sell your home and not have to work a day in your life again. That's rich by most people's standards. You choose not to do that for your own reasons, but don't insult the 99% of Americans that aren't millionaires, on paper or in any other way, by claiming you're not rich.

In any case, we're not talking about taxing the equity on your home. But it wouldn't hurt to tax any income in EXCESS of a million dollars at 90%. I don't see how that would put anyone on the streets. It would, however, pay for a lot of needed social programs that would help others from being out on the street.

It's not about envy. It's about the recognition that there ARE no "self-made" millionaires. All millionaires got that way because they were able to take advantage of societal rules that allow them to rig the game in such a way as to profit off of other people's labor and talents and redistribute the wealth in their favor. Allowing them to stay wealthy, but imposing a strongly progressive tax structure that makes them give back to the society that's treated them so well, is more than fair.

@Greg.
The delusioal statements here are 'there ARE no "self-made" millionaires' and 'all millionaires got that way because they were able to take advantage of societal rules that allow them to rig the game in such a way as to profit off of other people's labor and talents and redistribute the wealth in their favor".
Rigged?
How about hard work, tenacity, risk, guts, brains and even honesty? These are some of the requirements of living in this country and being able to get ahead with few resources. It works, yet is rarely mirrored in other countries (and I've travelled to at least 25 ). The rewards are neither easy nor dreamy.
I grew up solidly 'lower class' with one parent, multiple siblings, few college educated relatives, no connections. My employees were never exploited; they worked along side me and were well paid, bought homes, had benefits. Sure, I profited, as did the 'other people' in my company. I made more because I worked longer hours, saved more, invested, risked, etc.
This story is repeated hundreds of thousands of times in the USA by people who have become rich, don't flaunt it, give a good deal away, live humble lives and don't call themselves 'rich' yet know that they are.
I wonder Greg, were you a spoiled middle class kid who watched too much TV or just made your money the old fashioned way - by inheritance. Because if you grew up poor, you never want to go back.

Good luck.

Billionaire throws music party for 600 thousand people.

So, how's that for a 'hint' to his fellow billionaires. Give more of it away and
the masses won't complain so much. San Francisco should be very thankful.

Warren for Mayor!