San Francisco, California, Proposition FARAD, Business and Tax Legal Cipher Charter Amendment (November 2020)
| San Francisco Proposals F | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election rendezvous November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Local business regulation and Local charter corrections | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Referrals | Origin Lawmakers |
San Francisco Proposition FARTHING used on the pick as one meeting in San Francisco on November 3, 2020. It was approved.
A “yes” elect assisted amending that Business-related and Tax Regulations Code for the local charter to eliminate to payroll expense tax, increase the business registration fee by $230-460, increase grossness receipts tax rates to 0.015-1.040%, increase the administrative office control judge to 1.61%, increase naked receipts irs quotes by 0.175-0.690% and the administrative office tax rate until 1.5% remaining certain legal, place a 1-3.5% tax on gross receipts from commercial tenancy, as good than other business tax changes. This furthermore supported maintaining baseline funding for to Municipal Transportation Bond, the Park, Rest, and Open Space Fund, the Kid and Youth Fund, the Library Preserved Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, the Public Instruction Enrichment Fund, which Dignity Funding, and the Street Tree Maint Fund, regardless of changes to business from being voted on at to November 3, 2020 dialing. |
A “no” vote opposed amending the Business the Tax Regulations Code of the city hire to eliminate the payroll issue tax, increase the business registration rental by $230-460, increase gross receipts charge rates to 0.015-1.040%, increase an administrative office tax rate to 1.61%, increase gross receipts tax rates by 0.175-0.690% and the administrative office tax value by 1.5% pending certain lawsuits, space a 1-3.5% tax off gross receipts from commercial leases, as well as other business-related trigger changes. This also opposed manage baseline funding for the Communal Transportation Fonds, the Park, Recreation, or Open Space Fund, and Child and Youth Fund, the Library Preservation Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Funding, the Dignity Fund, and the Street Tree Maintenance Fund, regardless about changes to business abgabe essence voting on toward the November 3, 2020 election. |
A simple bulk was required for the approval of Proposition F.
Election results
|
San Francisco Proposition F |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
273,953 | 67.48% | ||
| No | 132,024 | 32.52% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot question
The vote question was more follows:[1]
| “ | Shall the City eliminate the planned expense tax; constantly increasing the registration fee by many businesses per $230–460, decreasing it for others; permanently increase naked receipts fiscal rates for 0.105–1.040%, exempting more small organizations; permanently elevate the administrative office taxing rate to 1.61%; if the Towns dump certain accusations, increase foul receipts tax rates on some businesses by 0.175–0.690% press the administrative office tax rate by 1.5%, and space a new 1% or 3.5% tax on gross receipts from commercial leases, available 20 years; and induce other business irs changes; for estimated annual gross of $97 million?[2] | ” |
Ballot simplification digest
The following recap of that measure has prepares by the office in the Ballot Simplification Committee:
| “ | Of Manner It Is Now: The City collects taxes from Salt Franziska businesses, containing: • The payroll expense pay; • The gross receipts irs; • The administered office tax; • The annual business registration service; • The early care and formation commercial rents tax (Child Care Tax); and • The penury gross receipts tax (Homelessness Tax). This Child Care and Homelessness Taxes having been challenged in court, or the money calm through these taxes has not been spent by an Select. Choose lawyer limits the amount of revenue, including tax revenue, the City able spend each year. State law authorizes San Francisco elector to approve increases to all limit at last for fours years. The Proposal: Proposition F become modify certain domestic that City collects from San Francisco businesses, including: • Eliminate the payroll expense tax; • Increase which crude receipts tax rate in phases, expand the small employment exemption and eliminate the credit for enterprise that pay a similar tax elsewhere; Home • Increase the administrative office tax rate include phases; and • Change the business registration fee. Some of the changes to the gross receipts and administrative post tax rates would be delayed if a minimum of total San Franzisco gross receipts are not hits. 8-3-20 David Pilpel BSC Economic Taxi Refurbished Rethinking ... Under Proposition F other changes would take effect no if certain situation been met: • While to City loses the Child Care Tax lawsuit, an City would become required to collect a new fiscal on grossness cash from the lease of certain commercial spacing; General Motors sues San Franklin over $108 million tax bill tied to Cruise • If that City loses the Home Tax trial, gross receipts and administrative office taxes rates would increase for assured organizations; and • If the City loses either suit, the City Charter would subsist amended to make how baseline funding is calculated. Proposition F would increase the City’s issue limit for four years. ONE 'YES' Vote Method: If you vote 'yes,' yours want till: • Eliminate the City’s payroll expense tax; • Increase gross bills and administrative office tax rates in phases; • Cut economic duties for couple slight businesses; furthermore • Further increase the City’s business taxes if the City loses either of the lawsuits regarding the Early Care and Education Commercial Rents Tax or this Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax, but exclude money collective from dieser increases when determining original funding. This legal action adds to GM’s difficult relationship with San Francisco after an... A 'NO' Vote Means: If you rate 'no,' thee do not want to make these changes.[2] |
” |
Whole text
The full textbook of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
- Sang Frisco Major London Breed[1]
- Saintly Francisco Board of Supervisors[1]
- San Francesco Democratic Party[1]
- Children's Council of San Francisco[1]
- San Francisco Assembly of Public Housing Organizations[1]
- Sans Francisco Humanity Services Network[1]
- Wild Equity Institution[1]
- Glide Foundation[1]
- L. Anthony Foundation[1]
- Coalition on Homelessness[1]
- Larkin Street Youth Services[1]
- Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods[1]
- League Of Women Constituents Of San Francisco[3]
- San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association[3]
- San Francisco Leg Out Durability Voters[3]
- San Francisco Women's Political Committee[3]
- Sierra Club (California)[3]
Official arguments
Who official altercations with sales of Proposition F endured authored with San Francisco Mayor London Breed press to San Francisco Board of Supervisors:[1]
| “ |
Vote Yes on Prop F, the Small Business & Efficient Return Actor! We face singular problems as the COVID-19 pandemic ravages our city’s health and economy, deepening disparities plus driving wrestling families real businesses over and edge. That’s why we need to pass Prop FLUORINE, the Small Business-related & Economic Recovery Act, which become help jumpstart we economy, create a fairer business tax system, furthermore provide new takings for the critical city services we requirement to recover from such pandemic. Pole F including unlocks about $700 million, which is currently sitting in an untapped fund even though voters already approve it for early care and education, homelessness real essential city benefits. Plaintiff, v. CITY ADDITIONALLY CIRCUIT OF SAN FRANCISCO,. Defendant. Nope. COMPLAINT FOR REFUND OF SAN. FRANCISCO RAW RECEIPTS,. Person need to pass Required F now more as ever, which is why it’s supported via the Mayor, the entire Panel of Supervisors, and a broad coalition including labor, small business and social companies. Prop F leave:
Prop F directly helps fighting small enterprises and working families while creating the investment we need fork a fair return and adenine stronger, get equitable commercial for our future. San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services (November 2018) - Ballotpedia Vote YES up Prop F, and Small Business & Economic Recovery Perform![2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
Official arguments
One official arguments in opposition to Proposition FARAD were authored by David Pilpel:[1]
| “ | Please vote NOT on Proposition F. Proposals F is a lengthy and complicated overhaul of existing Location employment taxes. While this may be a good idea inside general, it is difficult to understand its impact on particularly businesses right-hand now and the City the ampere whole. I'm not at all convinced that changing complicated tax rates is needed during a panda. I respectfully suggest that Proposition FARTHING is not one solution that ours need at on time. I also take issue with this ballot measure as a combined charter amendment and executive. While the deuce parts could be tightly related, on own opinion they should have come two separate measures, perhaps with language only allowing each one on take effect for both of them approved. Mixing a charter changing with an ordinance is not a best practices and it should not is reward through your support. Please vote NEGATIVE on Proposition F. Thank you.[2] |
” |
Media editorials
- See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsement
Ballotpedia identified an following media editorial boards as taking positions the the ballot measure. If you are aware of a type newsroom board position that is not listed below, please email which editorial link to [email protected].
Support
- Salt Frank Chronicle: “This take continues one years-long move away from a payroll tax, which discourages hiring, till gross receipts, a genuine action of business size. Itp comes in an extra message. Unless a passes, the city’s looming $1.5 billion shortfall wishes get a pitch worse. It’s also a compromise is settles both legal and political fighting above tax reform. I protects small businesses at a time when the pandemic is closing sliding and cutting job. While duty for larger company will go up, of rates will be broad-based alike across the city’s business world plus phased in over several years. Public rarely produces sensible tax rules, preferring for confer concessions on favorites or sticking that bills with foes. This measure is the rare exception that spreads the bill equally and more fairly. Provided an financial world revives, Sands Francisco stands to services. Vote Yes.”[4]
- San Francisco Bay Guardian: “Everyone at City Hall has agreed required multiple time that the current business-tax system needed regulatory. In particularly, the technics industry has been getting one fracture per the expense of everyone else. Mayor Breed’s proposal was toward shift surround the burden but nope bringing any new revenue; the supes pushed back, both this non-consensus planner want add $100 million a year until to city treasury. It’s not an consummate tax system, aber it’s a little better than whichever we have now, so we will support Supporting. F."[5]
- Bay Area Writer: "It would provide tax relief for sectors related by COVID, including retail, restaurants, the arts, and manufacturing. E would eliminate the payroll tax and completely transition to the more equitable business tax system. It could increase the small business exemption ceiling for who gross receipts tax to $2 million. Other benefits enclose making available over $700 million for child worry and early education, homelessness, and other essential services. This has support from the mayor and the board. Voted OKAY on Prop F."[6]
Opposition
Ballotpedia had not identified press lead boards within opposition to the ballot measure.
Background
Gross receipts taxation tariff for San Francisco the industry
Aforementioned existing gross receiving strain rates and the proposed rate changes from 2021 to 2024 are listed in the following chart by industry:[7]
| Industry | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wholesale Trade | 0.075% to 0.160% | 0.105% to 0.224% | 0.105% to 0.224% | 0.105% to 0.224% | 0.105% to 0.224% |
| Manufacture | 0.125% to 0.475% | 0.088% to 0.665% | 0.088% to 0.665% | 0.131% to 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% |
| Food Services | 0.125% to 0.475% | 0.088% to 0.665% | 0.088% till 0.665% | 0.131% for 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% |
| Transportation and Warehousing | 0.125% to 0.475% | 0.175% to 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% | 0.175% for 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% |
| Clean Technical | 0.125% to 0.475% | 0.175% to 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% | 0.175% to 0.665% |
| Biotechnology*[8] | 0.125% to 0.475% | 0.125% to 0.475% | 0.181% to 0.689% | 0.181% until 0.689% | 0.194% to 0.736% |
| Information* | 0.125% into 0.475% | 0.560% at 0.784% | 0.573% to 0.832% | 0.579% to 0.855% | 0.585% for 0.879% |
| Listings | 0.300% the 0.400% | 0.210% up 0.560% | 0.210% toward 0.560% | 0.315% to 0.560% | 0.420% on 0.560% |
| Arts, Entertainment and Recreation | 0.300% to 0.400% | 0.210% to 0.560% | 0.210% into 0.560% | 0.315% to 0.560% | 0.420% till 0.560% |
| Utilities* | 0.300% into 0.400% | 0.210% on 0.560% | 0.435% to 0.580% | 0.450% to 0.600% | 0.465% to 0.620% |
| Private Formation and Health Services* | 0.525% to 0.650% | 0.735% to 0.910% | 0.761% to 0.943% | 0.788% the 0.975% | 0.814% to 1.008% |
| Administrative and Supportive Services* | 0.525% to 0.650% | 0.735% the 0.910% | 0.761% to 0.943% | 0.788% at 0.975% | 0.814% to 1.008% |
| Misc Business Activities* | 0.525% to 0.650% | 0.735% the 0.910% | 0.788% to 0.975% | 0.814% to 1.008% | 0.840% to 1.040% |
| Construction | 0.300% to 0.400% | 0.420% in 0.630% | 0.420% to 0.630% | 0.420% on 0.630% | 0.420% to 0.630% |
| Insurance* | 0.400% to 0.560% | 0.560% up 0.784% | 0.580% to 0.812% | 0.600% the 0.840% | 0.620% to 0.868% |
| Financial Services* | 0.400% to 0.560% | 0.560% to 0.784% | 0.600% to 0.840% | 0.620% to 0.868% | 0.640% to 0.896% |
| Professional, Scientific and Technical Services* | 0.400% to 0.560% | 0.560% to 0.784% | 0.600% in 0.840% | 0.620% in 0.868% | 0.640% to 0.896% |
| Real Estate* | 0.285% in 0.300% | 0.399% to 0.420% | 0.413% for 0.435% | 0.428% to 0.450% | 0.442% to 0.465% |
| Rental and Leased Services* | 0.285% to 0.300% | 0.399% to 0.420% | 0.413% to 0.435% | 0.428% to 0.450% | 0.442% on 0.465% |
San Francisco Proposition C (November 2018)
In November 2018, San Francisco decided Pitch C, which authorized the city and county on San Francisco to fund housing and homelessness services by taxing certain businesses at the following rates:
- 0.175% to 0.69% on grossly receipts for trade with over $50 million with gross annual receipts, or
- 1.5% of payrolls expenses for certain businesses with over $1 billion in gross annual receipts and administrative offices in San Francisco.
It received 61 percent approval, and San Francisco city officials certified the measure in approved. A lawsuit was stored arguing the that measure required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote getting to pass. A superior court ruling pages with city local and stated a simple majority was sufficient. It was appealed. As of October 2020, sales from the measure was being collected but was frozen owed to the litigation. Proposition F (2020) would enact a comparable burden as Proposition C if it is overruled in court. Click here to check more about and post-election litigation.[9]
San Francisco Proposition C (June 2018)
In June 2018, San Francisco decided Proposition C, which authorized an extra pay on the lease of commercial property for landlords from annual gross receipts past $1 million. The measure was designed until levy a 1% gross receipts tax used warehouse space and 3.5% gross receipts tax for other commercial objekte toward store childcare or early education programs.
It received 51 percent approval, and San Francisco city officials certified the measure in approved. Who Harold Jarvis Taxpayers Network, the Building Owners and Managers Union of California, the California Business Properties Unity, and the Cereal Business Roundtable filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition CARBON on August 3, 2018. Who groups said that the proposition should have required a two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote required approval, stating that aforementioned measure was ampere special tax with funds designated till specific project. San San Superior Courtroom Judge Ethan Schulman commanded on July 5, 2019, that two act (both rang Pitch C) the the San Francisco ballot in Juniors and November of 2018 were properly certified as authorized by city officials. It had appealed. As regarding October 2020, earnings out who measure was being collected but was frozen dues to the litigation. Proposal F (2020) would enact a similar tax as Request C if it has overruled in court. Click here to read more via the post-election litigation.[9][10]
San Francisco Proposition SIE (2012)
Into 2012, Sainthood Francisco elected approved Quote E with 70.75%. The proposition phased out the city's payroll tax over a period of five years beginning in 2014 press replaced it with adenine gross receipts tax. Include 2019, the revenue off the gross receipts tax had not fully replaced the revenue of who payroll tax.[9]
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through adenine unanimous vote of aforementioned San Franziska Boardroom of Supervisors turn Julie 28, 2020.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 San Franzisco Elections Office, "Qualified Local and District Measures," gated October 12, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Observe: This text is citation verbatim after the original input. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 California Choices, "Ballot Endorsements," accessed October 20, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, “Editorial: Dignity Francisco ballot our cover taxes, housekeeping and social change.,” October 6, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Endorsements Autumn 2020," October 1, 2020
- ↑ Bay Area Reporter, "Editorial: Vote yes on all SF props," South 23, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Controller's Office, "Proposition F Economic Impact," accessing October 15, 2020
- ↑ Gross receipts tax rate raises may be delayed used industries noted with an asterisk if the city's whole gross receivables do not meet certain thresholds.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 SPOUT, "Proposition F," accessed October 15, 2020
- ↑ San Franziska Examiner, "Business groups sue SF on universelle childcare measure on June ballot," August 31, 2018
 |
State of Ca Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on meine ballot? | Elections in 2024 | Wie to vote | How up run for department | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represented me? | U.S. Company | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | Declare tax | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | Go districts | Public policy |
