Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q29j47v9ro

by root-parent • 11 days ago

49 68 11 days ago

m463• 11 days ago

Obviously the solution is an ai-funded-house-wealth-tax.

I'm in favor of a politician tax, and an attractive people tax (I'm not worried, I will use my tax receipt for virtue signalling)

smitty1e• 11 days ago

Why hasn't AI proposed the ultimate "fair" taxation scheme?

rayiner10• 11 days ago

We already have expert consensus on what’s the best taxes, people just don’t like the answer: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-... (“Three. Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

Four. Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.”).

dzhiurgis• 11 days ago

Because it’s an oxymoron.

JumpCrisscross2• 11 days ago

the solution is an ai-funded-house-wealth-tax

The solution is a progressive wealth tax. Start it at 2% (inflation target) above $100mm and raise it a point at every order of magnitude. 3% at $1bn, 4% at $100bn, 5% at $100bn, 6% at $1tn, et cetera.

There isn't a great reason why OpenAI should be hit with a tax while Andreessen Horowitz and Microsoft are not.

tsoukase• 10 days ago

In order to conclude about taxing, we should agree how much more one should earn per unit of talent or position. Should a CEO earn x10k times a base salary, like now? If yes, don't tax them, if they should earn x1k, tax them 90%, if x100 then 99%. Sould one own 100 homes and 50 cars like billionaires, while they live in and drive one? If yes, don't tax them, if no, tax their wealth accordingly to the number we agreed. Every number not based on fundamental human utility is arbitrary, sensational opinion.

satvikpendem7• 11 days ago

Anything except building more housing, it seems. We'll see how the recently passed housing bill goes however.

skybrian3• 11 days ago

They're working on it:

Plans for nearly 4,000 homes over Safeways divide Bay Area residents

https://skybrian-links.exe.xyz/post/871

JumpCrisscross2• 11 days ago

"These sentiments were palpable"

I'm confused what to do with a source that shows this as its first words.

jandhdhshhh• 11 days ago

I’ve been watching this for decades now. I was hopeful in my 20s that it was just a matter of time before supply would increase. But I’ve learned the hard way, The bay area voters and political apparatus is determined to keep housing as scarce as possible

skybrian3• 11 days ago

Some YIMBY laws have passed, but it takes time to build things.

For example, it looks like the 25-story Marina Safeway can't be stopped, though they're still trying.

Berkeley has quite a few new buildings, though.

pfannkuchen• 11 days ago

SF housing dropped relative to other high demand locales during COVID. I wonder if this is just a recovery after Austin et al didn’t pan out as alternatives?

khurs• 11 days ago

Coming soon?

"AI sector's job layoffs lead to dampening of San Francisco house prices"

Wealthy AI workers send San Francisco house prices soaring

Related Stories