Why would a ballot measure regarding taxes only require a 50% vote in Nov. 2012? I'm not familiar with that issue.

In order to solve the pension problem, we need to address the drivers for rising pension costs. Those drivers are high salaries and the cost of paying pensions based on those high salaries.

First, cap city pay at $100K except for classroom teachers and doctors and nurses that see patients.

Second, cap pensions at $50,000 or 110% of median pension. If you can't make it on $50,000 + $20,000 social security, then that is not a problem that the taxpayers of San Francisco need to solve.

Do this all retroactively applied to current pensioners. It is not fair to have current city employees paying into a system to transfer resources to current retirees who did not pay in themselves.

The City might need to get state law amended to create a special kind of bankruptcy that would a bankruptcy court to alter contracts on pensions only, not touch anything related to the City's credit rating, where total benefits were capped at that $50,000/110% median number.

That's how we solve this problem by bringing progressive values to bear.

-marc

We are lucky to live in a city where our resident billionaire is Warren Hellman and not, let's say, Donald Trump. Hellman has given us Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, the best music festival under the sun. He's supported other arts organizations, and he's personable and amiable. And he recognizes, like Buffet, Gates and other "enlightened" capitalists, that the wealthy need to do more than their share.

To the guest comment above that says taxing billionaires won't make a difference, the Bush tax rate extension cost us $800 billion. That's something. Even to Warren Hellman!

I think you mean "consists," Lucretia, and I think I've explained this already numerous times. A progressive local tax program would tax large businesses at a higher rate than small businesses (probably by replacing the payroll tax with a gross receipts and commercial rent tax), would tax wealthy individuals more than lower-income individuals (income taxes instead of sales taxes, taxes on expensive cars instead of Muni fare hikes, higher taxes on real-estate transfers, higher development fees (to pay for Muni, schools, etc.). It's not rocket science.

It's a brilliant proposal Tim, which would benefit all of us in the long run, whether rich or poor. If the city can generate enough revenue to pay for infrastructure and essential services, it's a win-win situation for both business and ordinary citizens. The best way to go about this is to tax those who can most afford to pay. So, I'm buoyed to hear that Hellman has come out in favor of your plan.

I believe we can make it happen. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton won election on a platform that included plans to raise taxes on the wealthiest state residents. He has just submitted his proposal for permanent and temporary income tax increases on wealthiest residents to help close an estimated $6.2 billion gap. If Minnesotans can do it, we can do it too!

So now we are in surplus???

The San Francisco Office of Comptroller released its FY 2010-2011 six month budget status report which projects an ending General Fund balance of $89.2 million.

This strength versus the adopted budget is driven predominantly by a modest improvement in the City’s general tax revenues. Property transfer tax is significantly exceeding budgeted levels, driven by voter approval of a rate increase in November 2010 that was not assumed in the budget. Property taxes and business taxes are also projected to exceed budget.

-- San Francisco Office of the Controller FY 2010-2011 six month budget status report

Part of Prop B was to modify rules for collective bargaining, just like what is happening right now in Wisconsin.

Rachael Maddow said the the Wisconsin budget is now in surplus and the 140 million in benefits cuts happens to equal the 140 million in tax breaks the governor handed out earlier. Cutting collective bargaining is fallout from the "Citizens United" decision and an extention of the efforts that started against Acorn.

Here is the exact wording for Prop B:

"Proposition B: Shall the City increase employee contributions to the Retirement System for retirement benefits; decrease employer contributions to the Health Service System for health benefits for employees, retirees and their dependents; and change rules for arbitration proceedings about City collective bargaining agreements?"

As a tenant who has learned over the years as a matter of basic survival to be politically active, I see propositions in favor of tenants rights routinely sail through the most amazing opposition from the Mayor, corporate real estate interests, landlord groups, even two faced supervisors, and then pass a gauntlet of court challenges...I mean --not all the time. I mean EVERY time.

If the clowns who sponsored prop B can't even get the summary statement right there is no hope for them, regardless how many billionaires become involved.

From where I sit, the attempts to modify the collective bargaining process in Prop B look an awful lot like what is happening in Wisconsin right now. Our midwest looks like Egypt because of corrupt hedge funds and billionaires trying to steal public pensions.

As usual, it happens in San Francisco first....

Not only are rich people undertaxed, but according to the financial press most of them belong in jail.

Our political leaders have been unable or unwilling to raise taxes to keep up with the rising cost of running things. They have reverted instead, to raising the fees the public pays for everything. This has shifted the financial burden to the working poor. Taxes are implemented on a sliding scale, which we all accept as being fair. Raising fees are not done on a sliding scale and are more likely to rest on the less wealthy. Raising the cost of a parking permit 50% to 98 dollars, has a substantial impact on someone who makes less than that amount per day and to cut out something else to pay it. That increase has a much less detrimental effect on the person making ten times as much, and is also more likely to have a garage and therefore do not incur the cost. Similarly the increase in Muni fares affects the poor far worse than the wealthy. both because they are more likely to ride the bus, and also feel a negative effect from the rising price. The solution is to raise taxes not fees.