Dawg calls for Mariachi band at 16th and Mission

Friends,

They’re talking money over at Mission Local today and I had to add a story  …

Mission Local

Local news for a global city

• Donate
• Newsletters
• Advertise
• Sign In

Open Search

POSTED INCOMMUNITY

S.F. CEO tax could raise $300M a year, but might cost 900 jobs, controller says

by SARAH HOPKINSMay 14, 2026, 3:02 pm

Exterior shot of the San Francisco City Hall entrance on April 14, 2026. Photo by Zoe Malen

A new report from the San Francisco controller’s office says Proposition D, also known as San Francisco’s “overpaid CEO tax,” could bring the city hundreds of millions of extra dollars a year, but could also cost jobs and slow down the local economy. 

San Francisco would have 944 fewer jobs in any given year, on average, over the next 20 years, the report found, and $206 million less in annual gross domestic product. But it would also see up to $300 million in new city funds from taxes every year.

The projected loss of 944 jobs represents 0.1 percent of all jobs in San Francisco, according to Ted Egan, the city’s chief economist.

The findings come just weeks before the June 2 election, when voters will decide whether to sharply raise taxes on large companies with wide pay gaps between top executives and typical workers. 

Supporters, including labor groups, say the money is needed to help close the city’s $607 million budget deficit and protect public services. Opponents, including several billionaires and city corporations, say the measure could make San Francisco more expensive for major employers and push companies to move jobs elsewhere.

The existing tax — the Top Executive Pay Tax — applies to certain large businesses with wide pay gaps between top executives and typical workers. An analysis found that some of the firms fighting the tax had CEO-to-worker pay gaps up to 1,690-to-1.

Prop. D would raise taxes on some large companies where executives make far more than regular workers — including company workers outside the city. That change would also mean more companies would be subject to the Top Executive Pay Tax than are today.

The controller’s office estimates that Prop. D would raise $250 million to $300 million a year in direct taxes for the city’s General Fund. 

But the report says that added revenue would come with economic costs, namely an average loss of 944 jobs over the next 20 years and a decrease of $206 million in the city’s gross domestic product. 

According to the report, the higher tax would fall heavily on large companies in the information, retail and financial sectors. Those sectors have already been reducing their share of the workforce in San Francisco since the pandemic, a trend the controller’s office describes as evidence of a weakening business tax base. 

The report also cautions that its forecast may understate the economic risk, because it does not fully account for how large companies might respond. They might move more jobs out of San Francisco or shrink their local offices, for example, further weakening the city’s job base and reducing future tax revenue.

The analysis comes amid a broader political fight over how San Francisco should raise revenue as it faces budget deficits.

Labor supporters of Prop. D have argued that large corporations should pay more to help protect city services. Supervisor Connie Chan has made a similar case, framing the measure as a way to bring in money from companies with large executive pay gaps.

Business groups, meanwhile, are backing Proposition C, a competing June measure that would raise the overpaid CEO tax more modestly while expanding the small-business exemption. 

The fight over whether to raise the overpaid CEO tax also reopens a piece of the 2024 business-tax compromise known as Proposition M, which was supported by labor, business groups and city leaders, including then-Mayor London Breed and then-Board President Aaron Peskin.

That measure reduced the overpaid CEO tax as part of a broader tax overhaul. 

Prop. D would reverse that part of the deal, and puts the question back before voters.

Join the Conversation

 10 Comments

1. Chazsays:May 14, 2026, 5:52 pm at 5:52 pmThe job loss prediction looks highly speculative. I don’t buy it.+8-4votes. Sign in to voteReply
   1. Nixsays:May 15, 2026, 1:46 am at 1:46 amOf course it’s speculative. It’s a prediction with “could” doing the heavy lifting.I “could” be ok with 900 jobs or even 9000 going away if they’re with scummy exploitative companies the likes of which have plagued SF even before Ed Lee’s groveling and tax giveaways to same, because they “could” be replaced by 900 or 9000 workers for other, better local companies that may choose to give back to SF’s labor and act equitably. “Could” it be that if companies that are more interested in their boards and top officers being super-wealthy while their workforce toils for comparatively nothing, that those grifting corporate raiders really aren’t the future of SF labor we need to think about protecting, really?“Could” SF’s future be better than mindless greed from AI-chasing market goons? I think it could. Good riddance to bad actors. Tax those that remain at the trough, and at %’s of incomes proportional to those paid by the working class. THAT could work, long term.+10votes. Sign in to voteReply
   2. two beerssays:May 15, 2026, 9:25 am at 9:25 amDon’t tax the poor oppressed heroic overworked underappreciated ruling class billionaires! Won’t anyone think of the chiiiildren?!+10votes. Sign in to voteReply
   3. Danielsays:May 15, 2026, 6:06 am at 6:06 amCorrect, it’s FAFO time if this goes through.00votes. Sign in to voteReply
2. The 21st Street Trollsays:May 15, 2026, 2:05 pm at 2:05 pmEssentially the same tired arguments that that are always trotted out for things like minimum wage increase etc: “it’s going to cost jobs!”+10votes. Sign in to voteReply
3. h. brownsays:May 15, 2026, 3:06 pm at 3:06 pmDare them to leave !!The best friend of art is cheap rent.go Niners !!h.+10votes. Sign in to voteReply
4. Watchersays:May 15, 2026, 5:05 pm at 5:05 pmhttps://www.data-z.org/state_data_and_comparisons/city/sanfrancisco
   How does San Francisco government expect to pay its debts when less revenue is incoming due to bad past poor city management? Prop D is not the solution, but will be the result of less future revenues and telling large companies not to come here. There be more job losses, and small businesses that depend on larger businesses will close or move away to other nearby cities.00votes. Sign in to voteReply
   1. h. brownsays:May 16, 2026, 12:16 am at 12:16 amYour comment is awaiting moderation.Eleanor Roosevelt said: “I pay 94% of my earnings as taxes due to my husband’s laws.” She did too. Rich people used to have some class back then. They do know how to live it up with the money they save on taxes tho. Spend it on themselves !! Mayor Lurie’s ‘Tipping Point’ threw a party to celebrate and thank themselves just after he took office was the last as I recall but it was all closed streets and limos and gowns and tuxes enuff to fill a Casino exclusive to the hilt but free with the most expensive music to the Mayor and his crowd all paid for with your tax dollars. When I noted this in an email to him and asked if he’d pop for a Mariachi band at 16th and Mission for a Saturday afternoon I didn’t hear back. (I did get a hundred cops and other Security and deputized ? DPW workers) go Niners !! h.