[kovar]

Yet, despite the taxes, companies keep starting up in San Francisco. Maybe some people in SF don't want a Google-plex in the city? If you want to argue that it is bad for the city, post commentary from someone who isn't an investor in startups.

[drusenko]

I am not an investor in startups, I'm running one. I have the same perspective: We are more than happy to pay San Francisco's unusual payroll tax, but this tax on employee options would force us to move out of the city in a few years.

If your argument is that you don't want startups in San Francisco, that's a very fair position to hold, but it's not what we're discussing.

[tptacek]

The likelihood that this tax would drive startups out of the entire SFBA seems very low. Meanwhile, the tiny city of San Francisco proper is likely to remain well stocked with upwardly mobile tech company employees whether their employers are in SOMA or San Mateo.

[drusenko]

> The likelihood that this tax would drive startups out of the entire SFBA seems very low.

Absolutely agree. The likelihood that it would drive startups out of San Francisco proper is very high. We are discussing what the city of San Francisco needs to do to not force companies to move out of the city.

> Meanwhile, the tiny city of San Francisco proper is likely to remain well stocked with upwardly mobile tech company employees whether their employers are in SOMA or San Mateo.

Also likely, although there won't be as many of them. Another big issue is that the city of San Francisco will lose out on significant tax revenue from companies based here, since they will be forced to leave.