San Francisco

San Francisco Has Ditched Its Dumb 'IPO Tax' (For Now)

The tax was actually on much more than initial public offerings of stocks, and likely would have driven the next generation of startups to locate somewhere else.

|

The city of San Francisco will abandon a controversial plan to ask residents whether they wanted to tax tech startups going public for the first time.

The so-called "IPO Tax" (that's shorthand for "initial public offering") was slated to go on the city's ballot in November, but city officials pulled that proposal this week. Instead, a more generic tax on business revenue will be put in front of voters later this year. Both are attempts by the city government to capture a portion of the one-time windfalls that can occur when tech startups based in the city—think Uber, Pinterest, and other so-called "unicorns"—hit the stock market for the first time.

City Supervisor Gordon Mar, who sponsored the proposal, told Recode earlier this year that the 1.5 percent tax would net $50 million annually for city services. That money would provide for "shared prosperity," he said, suggesting that it could be put towards affordable housing projects in the famously expensive Bay Area real estate market.

But the proposal was never really a tax on IPOs at all. Instead, it would have hiked an existing city tax on stock-based compensation, meaning that all businesses who pay employees and executives with stocks would have been subject to the levy. Calling it an "IPO tax" was never anything more than clever marketing by city officials.

Ultimately, the city's besieged business community won out. For now.

Mar's spokesman told The Wall Street Journal that removing the tax from the November ballot was only a temporary setback and that Mar intends to have a similar measure ready for the 2020 ballot.

It's likely true that we haven't seen the last of city-level efforts to hit tech companies with new, higher taxes. Indeed, last month's announcement of the "IPO tax" was cheered by progressive commentators as a productive way to eat the newly rich of the tech world.

But San Francisco would be wise to leave the IPO tax in the trash can. For one thing, the city should look to its own history for a lesson. Tech companies dominate modern San Francisco because the city cut taxes to lure them there in the first place. Sure, some of the big ones might stick around now that they're established, but there is nothing that guarantees the next round of startups will set up shop in the Bay. Capital is highly mobile, and small tech firms—almost by definition—have the ability to locate anywhere. "Firms already hampered by the high cost of operations here will have another reason to expand or relocate elsewhere," the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board wrote in May.

Second, the tax wouldn't have done much to fix the city's housing and inequality issues. Solving that will require repealing loads of zoning codes and regulations so that more housing can be built. As Reason's Christian Britschgi has reported, San Francisco has held up the development of new apartment buildings for reasons as absurd as where shadows from the structure will fall.

Soaking tech startups won't fix that.

Kerry Jackson, a fellow with the free-market Pacific Research Institute, calls the IPO tax "outrageous and extortionate."

"When politicians see wealth being created in the private sector," Jackson writes, "they always find a way to get their hands on the dollars, though they never earned a cent of the income."

NEXT: Russian Researcher Plans To Gene-Edit Embryos To Cure Deafness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “That money would provide for “shared prosperity,” he said…”

    Taking something by force from the person it belongs to and giving it to someone it doesn’t is sharing?

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    1. Sharin’ Hood, of Sure Would Forest, vs Sharif MeNow.

  2. I don’t know it may have been brilliant. Get new startups to startup out of SanFrisco, lowering startup costs, ease SanFrisco’s housing shortage, and quite possibly lure residents to places where human feces isn’t plastering the streets. Sounds like a win, win, win to me.

    1. Except for the city these same idiots flock to next.

  3. I get the impression all the multi-billionaires residing in the SF area was against this tax because it hurts the tech stocks the most.
    Nevertheless, getting rid of this needless tax is a good start.
    Now all SF has to do is clean up all the turds the homeless produce downtown daily.
    But that shit is different.

  4. They are driving out new tech startups anyway. You’d have to be mad to found a company today in SF.

  5. Like a Marxist revolutionary, I really wish they would have passed this.

  6. I take this and other tax scams of the last few years as a good sign, overall. It’s a sign of how desperate the socialists are to find new sources of other people’s money. It means they’ve reached a practical limit from traditional sources.

    I mean this seriously. They have become so addicted to other people’s money that they can fantasize over the New Green Deal and its trillions of debt, and this is just another recent sign that fiscal reality us starting to pinch.

    I really do expect them to hit some cold hard stops in the next few years. Illinois and Chicago are in deep trouble. New York and California are going to be there soon. And grabs like this, or like the EU’s taxes disguised as $5B fines on US tech companies, are about their last hope. After this, it’s either dictatorship like Venezuela, or back off like Scandinavia.

    1. Now do payroll taxes

  7. There are no shadows in San Fran. It is always cloudy.

  8. Mar’s “IPO tax” faced criticism for targeting not just companies going public but all stock-based compensation. The businesses would pay the tax. Any People need Dreamhost Coupon Go Here

  9. Too bad. They could have been the next Detroit.

  10. Explain why? I’m curious.

  11. It’s an international problem. In my opinion, buildings and construction are the most important parts in a country. I care that very much, I can’t do anything because I have no right?
    But i can do business about Scaffolding: https://www.smscaffolding.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.