Increases To Business Tax Based On Comparison Of Top Executive's Pay To Employee's Pay | California Primary Election | Change.vote
Is this race on your ballot?Ballots vary by address and election. Enter an address to see what's on yours.
Who's recommending a no vote on the Measure DOpposition to the measure includes the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Republican Party, and Chris Larsen, a local billionaire. Critics argue it could deter business investment and lead to job losses.
Backed by business interests
38Recommenders
Business
Advocacy Groups
Political Parties
Media
Elected Officials
Daniel Lurie
In 2024, San Franciscans — from labor and business to every mayoral candidate and the Board of Supervisors — came together to pass comprehensive business tax reform and boost our city’s economic recovery. But this June, and for the third time in five years, this same debate will be on the ballot once again. That’s a clear sign of a broken system that rewards insiders at the expense of everyday San Franciscans.
Neither measure moves San Francisco forward. They have no impact on the imminent budget deficit or federally imposed health care cuts we face right now.
We want to see San Francisco build more housing that works for their respective neighborhoods.
We cannot be complacent about our recovery, and dueling proposals that produce longer, more confusing ballots reward division over consensus––only benefitting those who know how to game a broken system.
It’s time to turn the page on a ballot system that obstructs the progress and accountability San Franciscans deserve. I will not support either of these measures, but I am taking steps to fix the broken system that got us here. This November, working alongside dozens of city leaders, voters will have the opportunity to fix our bloated City Charter and a deeply flawed initiative system, and keep San Francisco’s recovery moving forward.
Stephen Sherrill
I’m not supporting the CEO tax right now. I’m concerned it risks accelerating the loss of grocery stores and pharmacies, which we’ve already seen with Walgreens closures in my district. We also just made major changes to our business tax structure with Prop. M in 2024, and I don’t think it’s responsible to revisit that so quickly. We need to maintain a thoughtful, long-term approach that supports downtown recovery and keeps San Francisco competitive.
Matt Dorsey
I strongly oppose Prop. D, which is asking voters to approve the largest business tax hike in San Francisco history — in some cases exceeding 900%. At a moment when we should all be united to protect the fragile economic recovery we’ve finally got underway, this divisive proposal will incentivize large employers to leave San Francisco — and it will impose a powerful disincentive for retailers and other businesses to ever come back again. It will cause countless businesses to raise prices on San Franciscans at a time when we should be doing the exact opposite — trying to improve affordability — and it won’t reduce a single CEO’s compensation.
It’s just terrible public policy, and I intend to work hard to defeat it.
Rafael Mandelman
I am not supporting the tax. Less than two years ago I was part of the effort to develop and pass the Prop. M business tax reform. A main purpose of that measure was to encourage large employers to create jobs in San Francisco and to bring back our COVID-hollowed downtown. Prop. M was the result of broad consultation with stakeholders and involved a mix of tax cuts and increases to achieve revenue neutrality. This measure keeps the 2024 tax increases in place while reversing the tax cuts that were supposed to help revive our downtown. I share the proponents’ interest in finding additional revenue to pay for important services, but I don’t think this is the right way to do it.
Albert Chow
I will probably not support that one and probably vote for the other one that is a more gradual tax. I am not against billionaires paying their fair share, but it seems almost punitive. The way I see it, if anybody can pick up and move, it’s a billionaire or centimillionaire. If they have headquarters here and their workforce here and we do something that kind of in their mind says ‘this is the last straw, I’m done with this,’ I think that would end up hurting us more than helping us. We may get more tax in the first year or two but they may be thinking ‘I’ll move ot Austin.’ We’d lose the continued structural basis of our taxes in the long run. So, yes, they should pay their fair share, but we have to be measured in how we do it. They do have the ability to leave.
Catherine Stefani
Less than two years ago, San Francisco voters came together to pass Proposition M, a broadly supported overhaul of our business tax system backed by labor, business leaders, and community stakeholders. That measure reflected a consensus-driven approach to strengthening our local economy, one that I believe we must continue to pursue, and it is far too soon to rewrite it.
This June, I will be voting no on both business tax measures because San Francisco cannot afford another divisive ballot fight when what we need is stability, certainty, and follow-through on what voters already approved.
Scott Wiener
Our city, like our state, faces a financial crisis in part because of Trump’s massive health care cuts that are paying for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. I have a long track record supporting progressive taxation — for example, I support increasing the state corporate tax, the extension of California’s 2012 income tax increase, and elimination of most of the Bush and Trump mega tax cuts. I am also very focused on the regional and local public transit revenue measures that are so essential for our transit systems. I do not support Props C and D.
While I understand and respect the effort to generate revenue for city services, the gross receipts tax contained in Prop. D was brokered as part of Prop. M in 2024 — a consensus business tax reform that resulted from extensive negotiation, including by labor and business and for which I campaigned. I don’t support revisiting that negotiated tax measure.
Marie Hurabiell
We’ve already seen what happens when we layer taxes onto large employers: businesses leave, the tax base shrinks, and the programs we were trying to fund end up worse off. 2024’s Prop. M was a recognition that we had overcorrected. This measure risks repeating that mistake at exactly the wrong moment. I’m committed to finding durable, fiscally sound ways to fund mental health and emergency services; this isn’t the right vehicle. I do not support the CEO Tax.
SPUR
Federal budget cuts could impact as many as 50,000 San Franciscans who rely on Medi-Cal and CalFresh to access health care and food. Developing sound fiscal strategies to mitigate those budget cuts is critical. However, Prop. D could undermine San Francisco’s ability to attract private investment at a time when the city’s economy is vulnerable. Some retailers, including grocery stores and pharmacies, have plans to close their San Francisco locations if the measure passes. Furthermore, Prop. D would increase risk to the city’s revenues by relying on a small number of companies for business tax revenues.
The comprehensive reform under 2024’s Prop. M maintained a progressive tax policy that reduced the tax burden on small businesses while protecting the city and taxpayers from volatility and unpredictability. It was developed with rigorous policy analysis and won strong support from a broad coalition. Because the new tax structure only became effective in January 2025, it’s too soon to know what its impacts will be. SPUR believes that the efficacy of the newly adopted tax structure should be thoroughly evaluated, and further analysis should be conducted in partnership with business and labor before returning to the voters with a new revenue proposal.
Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board
Like the abovementioned Prop C, Prop D would adversely affect San Francisco’s post-COVID economic recovery. It increases taxes on large employers by 800%, which could bring in $300 million in revenue to the city’s general fund. But Mayor Daniel Lurie has staked his political capital on opposing Prop D, arguing that it would drive businesses out of the city, which already has a high business tax. (And we see that already happening in the state over the so-called billionaire tax measure expected on the November 3 ballot.) Lurie also warned that Prop D would raise the cost of goods, because businesses will pass the tax increase on to consumers. This could affect grocery prices, among others, which are already high due to President Donald Trump’s war in Iran.
At the recent No on C and D rally, Lurie said that neighborhoods in San Francisco are “coming back to life.”
“Our recovery is real but it is fragile,” he said. “I am deeply concerned that a massive tax increase right now is the wrong policy, at the worst possible time, that would cripple many small businesses.”
Gay District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who represents much of downtown, is also against Prop D. He noted in the voter handbook that office vacancies are still among the highest in the nation, return-to-office rates remain below 50% of pre-pandemic levels, and nearly one-quarter of San Francisco’s office space is still empty or available for lease.
Ted Egan, the city’s chief economist, issued a report May 14 that showed any employment gains in the public sector under Prop D would be wiped out by losses across the private sector that could be as high as 944 jobs in any given year over a 20-year average.
The economic costs would be too high under Prop D. Vote NO on Prop D.
Info sourced from public filings, verified media, and official campaign materials and summarized by AI. Learn more
A no vote will maintain the current top executive pay tax structure without implementing the proposed changes to tax calculations and rates.
The city will continue to assess the top executive pay tax based solely on San Francisco employee compensation, without the global pay ratio adjustment and the increased tax rates that the measure outlines.
A no vote will maintain the current top executive pay tax structure without implementing the proposed changes to tax calculations and rates. The city will continue to assess the top executive pay tax based solely on San Francisco employee compensation, without the global pay ratio adjustment and the increased tax rates that the measure outlines.
Info sourced from public filings, verified media, and official campaign materials and summarized by AI. Learn more
