Measure D: Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive's Pay to Employee's Pay

Prop C: Business Tax Poison Pill: No

Prop D: Overpaid CEO Salary Tax: Hell Yes!

Between Props C and D, only one can pass. Each has a poison pill that negates the other, so the one that gets the most votes over 50% will go into effect. 

Unions and community organizations put Prop D, the Overpaid CEO Salary Tax, on the ballot to fill the gaping hole Trump’s Big Bullshit Bill ripped in the City budget. Downtown businesses put Prop C on the ballot as a smokescreen to confuse voters and defeat Prop D. 

Prop D is not gonna hurt regular people. It’s not gonna drive companies out of the city. It only applies to companies with (a) top executives who earn 100 times their median workers’ salary, (b) over 1000 employees, and (c) over $1 billion in revenue. Prop D would generate an extra $300 million in revenue a year to pay for vital neighborhood services, like medical clinics and in-home health care for seniors, that are on the chopping block this year in yet another of Mayor Lurie’s “austerity budgets.” Prop D addresses the larger issues of systemic inequality that plague our city, and provides the resources to keep our city strong. SF voters overwhelmingly passed the first Overpaid CEO tax in 2018, but that tax was reduced in 2022 to help encourage economic recovery from the pandemic. Now that the city is seeing a return of the workforce, it’s time we ask the companies making the most to pay their fair share.

Sure, Prop C would help out those small-ish businesses making between $5 and $7.5 million in sales per year by exempting them from the city’s gross receipts tax. (Prop C would offset that revenue decrease with small tax increases to other businesses, leading to total estimated revenue of $30–40 million.) But it’s not really about small business. Prop C was cynically placed on the ballot by the  Chamber of Commerce to help some very large corporations; it’s got big bucks behind it from conservative wealthy donors, including billionaires Chris Larsen and Michael Moritz, and from Bill Obendorff’s notoriously reactionary Neighbors for a Better SF. 

If Prop C gets more votes than Prop D, big businesses will have torpedoed a truly progressive “tax the rich” opportunity, losing the City $260–270 million a year. Make sure you vote on both: Vote No on C and Hell Yes!!! on D.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/blog#PropD)

San Francisco’s government needs more money to deliver essential services. Because of the budget deficit, the Mayor is planning to cut programs and services (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-budget-faces-worrying-trends-amid-deficit-21941570.php) that are a lifeline for San Franciscans with the lowest incomes. The League of Women Voters believes our government needs more reliable, long-term revenue, so we strongly support Proposition D.
.
Proposition D restores a tax on large companies with the biggest gap between what they pay their top executive and their typical workers. Voters passed this Overpaid Executive Tax in 2020, but it was reduced in 2024. Proposition D builds it back up, raising about $250 million to $350 million more every year (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Prop_D_-_Increases_to_Business_Tax_Based_on_Comparison_of_Top_Executive_Pay_-__hxExvCe.pdf) for the programs and services San Francisco’s most vulnerable residents depend on.
.
The League supports taxation that is adequate, effective, and equitable, and Proposition D meets that standard. It only taxes large companies with the greatest income inequality, not small or struggling local businesses. It raises revenue fairly, from those most able to pay for it. Proposition D is a responsible step toward protecting government programs and services, and the communities that need them most.
.
It’s important for voters to know that Proposition D is a conflicting ordinance with Proposition C. If both pass, only the proposition that receives the most votes goes into effect.
.
Vote YES on Prop D!
.
Source: https://lwvsf.org/ballot-recommendations

Prop D is a measure that only applies to large corporations with at least $1 billion in annual revenue, 1,000 or more employees, and pays their CEO a wage 100x greater than that of the average worker. The tax is structured on a sliding scale, with modest rates that increase as executive pay disparities grow, reaching just over 1% for companies with ratios above 600 to 1. The tax is avoidable, as companies can reduce or eliminate liability by increasing worker wages or reducing executive compensation. The tax would generate approximately $200–$300 million annually to fund critically needed public services, including healthcare, transit, homelessness response, mental health care, and services for seniors and people with disabilities. So, Yes on D! No on C.

Source (https://www.milkclub.org/endorsements)

After careful consideration through research, interviews, and analysis of the projections from the Controller’s Office, SFWPC recommends No on Prop C and Yes on D.

The Controller’s office projected that Proposition C would result in a loss of $30-40 million (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Prop_C_-_Decreases_to_Business_Taxes_-_CON_VIP_Letter.pdf) in general revenue, while Proposition D would bring in $250 million to $300 million (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Prop_D_-_Increases_to_Business_Tax_Based_on_Comparison_of_Top_Executive_Pay_-__hxExvCe.pdf) for the general fund. San Francisco is facing a major fiscal crisis in the coming years, and budget cuts will severely impact services to women, immigrants, the LGBTQIA+ community, survivors of violence, as well as working-class and low-income San Franciscans. Beyond federal and state budget cuts, economic pressures are making it harder for everyone to survive, and we cannot in good conscience recommend measures that would lead to a substantial decrease in revenue, especially when cuts threaten core services ranging from healthcare and housing programs to food security, transit, and community safety. The funds generated by Proposition D would provide a safety net for core services we all rely on in a time of economic hardship.

Proposition D would change the existing Top Executive Pay Tax rates for corporations from .021% to 0.125% (2027 rate) to 0.183% to 1.121% for those paying Gross Receipts Tax. For corporations paying the Administrative Office Tax (a payroll versus gross receipts tax), the change would be from 0.083% to 0.499% (2027) to 0.75% to 4.47%. The larger the wage gap, the higher the tax.

Source (https://sfwpc.org/pac-recommendations-for-june-2026-election/)

YES, YES, YES

This one should be obvious: Donald Trump’s brutal cuts to things like healthcare have deeply damaged San Francisco’s budget. The biggest corporations and most grossly overpaid CEOs have saved billions because of the Trump tax reductions. San Francisco voters have a chance to take a little of that money back with Prop. D.

The measure would increase gross-receipts taxes on corporations with more than $1 billion in revenue and more than 1000 employees if the CEO makes more than 100 times as much as the median employee. It would bring some $300 million into the city’s coffers—not as much as Trump has taken, but a step in the right direction. That money could stave off some of the worse budget pain; it’s almost enough to cover the projected deficit.

Opponents say it will drive businesses out of town and undermine the city’s recovery, but that’s a lie and they know it. Doordash isn’t going to stop doing business in San Francisco because of a modest tax increase. Neither is Uber, Amazon, or Visa. PG&E has already moved its headquarters out of the city—and unless it wants to give up and sell the local grid to a municipal utility, it can’t stop doing business here. Same for the other giant corporations that would pay this tax.

If Uber or Amazon suddenly abandoned San Francisco, that would be a huge benefit to real cab drivers and small local merchants. But it won’t happen.

San Francisco’s recovery depends on its ability to provide essential services, not just on pandering to giant corporations. Layoffs of city workers create just as much economic damage as Big Tech layoffs. Don’t buy the lies and the hype, paid for entirely by billionaires. Vote Yes on D.

Source (https://www.sfbg.com/2026/05/06/endorsements-for-the-june-2-election/)

VIG listing; Increases business tax based on comparison of top executive's pay to employee's pay

This is a gross receipts tax on businesses that pay their highest-paid managerial employee more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco Employees. It will help rebalance a city where working people face soaring rents while top executives collect outsized compensation. Companies benefiting most from San Francisco’s economy should contribute more toward the public good, which can support services and housing investments that make the city more livable for everyone. For renters, it is a matter of fairness: when inequality drives displacement and instability, asking the wealthiest corporate leaders to pay more is a reasonable way to invest in the communities their businesses rely on.

Source (https://sftu.org/endorsements)

Prop D seeks to raise new revenue for city health services – hundreds of millions of dollars – that the federal government has threatened to cut. This is a large hole in the city’s budget and the solution comes in the form of Prop D, which restores the so-called “Overpaid CEO Tax,” quietly wiped from the books as part of an enormous tax code rewrite in 2024 (Prop M). The problem – that the federal government wants to punish us – is really large, and it requires large solutions. I discuss the merits of this particular solution in the longer story below but the tax isn’t new, it was passed with considerable popular support, and it’s right-sized to keep San Franciscans fed and healthy.

Prop D would tax companies if the CEO makes 100 times or more than their median employee. The Executive Board has endorsed Prop D, the Overpaid CEO Act, in alignment with the broader labor community. Unions are united behind Prop D because it can replace the city funds we lost to the so-called Big Beautiful Bill — and without it, the Mayor’s deep cuts go into effect, which will impact members and students. Prop D can make San Francisco more resilient and financially stable.

Source (https://www.aft2121.org/2026/04/photo-petition-props-d-c-gotv-4-connie-chan-may-1-save-the-date/)

VIG listing; Amends City Charter to expand eligibility for service on Police and Fire Retirement System Board and reduce meeting frequency

No on Proposition D: Increase SF Sales tax by 9x

This Proposition has been misleadingly marketed as a “CEO tax.” The main thing it would do is dramatically increase the cost of doing business in San Francisco by (a) multiplying the tax rates by a factor of ~9 and (b) making the tax rate depend on the ratio between executive pay and the median pay of all a business’s employees. It turns out we already calculate business sales tax rate (officially called “gross receipts taxes”) by the ratio of executive pay to the median pay of employees in San Francisco; the calculation change would for example raise the tax rate of a company that hired a lot of employees in a lower-cost-of-living foreign country, or lower the tax rate of a company that fired its American call center employees and contracted with a Filipino company instead.

It is projected to raise $250M-$300M of revenue, around 1/3 of the city’s budget deficit, but this is uncertain because businesses could move out of the city in response to the measure (Stripe and Square already left SF after a previous Proposition that hit fintech companies especially hard); it could also be challenged in court and have its funds locked up for years, according to GrowSF.

Join Mayor Lurie, SPUR, and GrowSF in opposing this measure, which would harm our city’s economic recovery just as it’s begun in earnest under the new Mayor and more moderate Board of Supervisors.

Prop D claims to target overpaid executives. It doesn't. It's a massive tax on grocery stores, pharmacies, and retailers that would be passed on to San Francisco consumers through higher prices.

Here's the problem: this tax is based on the ratio between a CEO's pay and their company's median employee pay. Companies with large numbers of hourly workers — cashiers, stock clerks, pharmacy techs — naturally have high pay ratios because the median employee earns $30K–$35K. Meanwhile, tech companies where the median employee earns $300K+ have low pay ratios and sail right under the 100:1 threshold.

The numbers tell the story. Under Dodd-Frank pay ratio disclosures (https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015-160), which we expect SF to rely on for public companies:

• Google/Alphabet: 32:1 ratio (median employee makes $331,894 (https://theunn.com/google-median-pay-rises-to-331894-in-2024-as-ceo-sundar-pichais-compensation-tops-10-7-million/)) — exempt
• Amazon: 43:1 ratio (source: AFL-CIO (https://aflcio.org/paywatch/AMZN)) — exempt (but see below)
• Meta/Facebook: 65:1 ratio, median employee makes ~$379K (source: Nasdaq (https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/meta-ceo-mark-zuckerbergs-2024-total-compensation-rises)) — exempt
• Walgreens: 410:1 ratio — 801% tax increase
• Kroger (Foods Co): 457:1 ratio, median employee makes $34,213 (source: AFL-CIO (https://aflcio.org/paywatch/KR)) — 801% tax increase
• Albertsons/Safeway: ~506:1 ratio, median employee makes ~$31,781 (source: Salary.com (https://www1.salary.com/ALBERTSONS-COMPANIES-INC-Executive-Salaries.html)) — 794% tax increase
• Starbucks: 6,666:1 ratio, median employee makes $14,674 (source: AFL-CIO (https://aflcio.org/paywatch/SBUX)) — 797% tax increase
• Lowe's: 659:1 ratio, median employee makes $30,606 (source: AFL-CIO (https://aflcio.org/paywatch/LOW)) — 797% tax increase

Amazon's low ratio deserves a closer look. Their CEO received no new stock grants in 2024 (https://www.geekwire.com/2025/amazon-ceo-andy-jassys-2024-compensation-tops-40m-driven-by-last-years-stock-surge/), which artificially deflated his reported compensation. In 2021, when the CEO received stock grants, Amazon's ratio was 6,474:1. Also note that Whole Foods is folded into Amazon's numbers, so while Safeway will have to raise prices to compete, Whole Foods gets exempted. The Dodd-Frank formula is easy to game if you structure executive pay the right way.

In other words, a tax marketed as going after overpaid tech CEOs would actually exempt tech companies and hit grocery stores, coffee shops, pharmacies, and retailers with an ~800% tax increase. Companies get a lower tax bill for paying their median employee $332K than for paying them $31K.

Consider what this means in practice. Grocery stores operate on net profit margins of 1–3% (https://www.fmi.org/our-research/food-industry-facts/grocery-store-chains-net-profit) — in 2023, the industry average was just 1.6%. An ~800% increase in this tax doesn't leave room for absorbing the cost, instead companies have exactly two options: raise prices or leave the market. So what do you think Safeway does? Raise prices and lose all their customers to Whole Foods, or leave the market entirely? We think there will be a lot more empty storefronts in San Francisco if this passes.

We understand the need for revenue. Federal Medicaid cuts from H.R. 1 are real and will cost San Francisco over $300M per year (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Prop_D_-_Increases_to_Business_Tax_Based_on_Comparison_of_Top_Executive_Pay_-__hxExvCe.pdf). But a poorly designed tax is worse than no tax at all. An ~800% rate increase across all brackets (/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-june-2026-election/measures/prop-d/legal-text/#prop-d-rates) is extreme.

The Controller's Office warns that actual revenue could vary significantly (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Prop_D_-_Increases_to_Business_Tax_Based_on_Comparison_of_Top_Executive_Pay_-__hxExvCe.pdf) because the tax applies to a narrow base of payers and businesses may relocate out of San Francisco. When the city's existing business tax structure was just reformed in 2024 with Proposition M (/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2024-election/#prop-m), piling on an 800% rate hike to one component sends exactly the wrong message to businesses considering whether to stay.

Prop C is also on this ballot and addresses the same tax with more modest rate adjustments and a higher small business exemption. If you want to strengthen the overpaid executive tax without driving grocers and pharmacies out of the city, Prop C is the better option.

Vote No on Prop D.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-june-2026-election/#prop-d)

The proposed measure would increase the rates for the Top Executive Pay Tax (one of the city’s existing business taxes, also known as the CEO Tax) by 800% to 900% starting in 2027.

Additionally, the measure would redefine the executive pay ratio as the difference between the salary of a company’s highest-paid manager and the median salary of all the company’s employees worldwide, rather than the median salary of the company’s San Francisco workers. The median salary for San Francisco workers is significantly higher than the global median. With this change, new companies would be subject to the Top Executive Pay Tax, and many would be recategorized into higher tax tiers. The new tax rate would apply to nearly any large company with at least $1 billion in San Francisco sales and more than 1,000 employees globally. It would therefore apply to a wide range of companies, including not only large technology and financial services firms but also retailers, including pharmacies and grocery stores.

The controller estimates that the measure would generate $250 million to $300 million a year for San Francisco’s General Fund.

The Backstory

Both Prop. C and Prop. D propose changes to San Francisco’s current business tax structure.

Current business tax structure

Bringing in about $1.3 billion annually, business taxes are San Francisco’s second-highest revenue source, exceeded only by property taxes. The Gross Receipts Tax, which accounts for 88% of business tax revenues, applies to businesses with more than $5 million in revenue. The Top Executive Pay Tax is an additional gross receipts tax applicable to businesses with at least 1,000 employees or $1 billion in sales that pay their highest-paid manager more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. The tax rate is tiered according to the ratio of the salary for a company’s highest-paid manager to the median San Francisco worker’s salary. The city collected approximately $130 million in revenues from this tax in fiscal year 2023–24, according to the controller.

Evolution of business tax policy in San Francisco

In 2012, San Francisco voters approved the city’s transition from the payroll tax to a gross receipts tax. Like an income tax rate, the gross receipts tax rate increases with gross revenue, making it more beneficial for small businesses than the previous flat payroll tax.

From 2018 to 2020, voters passed additional ballot measures to increase gross receipts taxes, including a homelessness gross receipts tax on large companies and a commercial rents gross receipts tax. In 2020, voters approved the Top Executive Pay Tax, which imposed an additional gross receipts tax on companies with a high compensation ratio between top executives and the company’s median San Francisco worker.

The rise of remote work after 2020 exposed the vulnerabilities of the city’s business tax structure. First, the city was overly reliant on a small number of companies for its tax base. In 2024, the top 10 taxpayers paid 28% of total business taxes. The Top Executive Pay Tax was even more concentrated, with the top 10 companies accounting for 61% of revenue. Second, the city’s “payroll apportionment factor” reduced business taxes for companies with remote workers, disincentivizing local job growth. Third, the city’s tax code had become convoluted, with 14 categories of business taxes.

To address these weaknesses, the city reformed its tax structure again in 2024. In an effort led by the Office of the Controller and the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, the city conducted analysis, engaged with employers and stakeholders, and finalized its proposed reforms in May 2024. Business groups, nonprofits, and labor organizations collected signatures for a November 2024 ballot measure to implement those reforms. The resulting Prop. M

• Changed the apportionment ratio to remove the disincentive for companies to hire more employees in San Francisco
• Reduced the number of business tax categories from 14 to 7
• Cut the top executive tax rate by 80% and exempted businesses with 1,000 or fewer U.S. employees and $1 billion or less in gross receipts
• Exempted small businesses with gross receipts of $5 million or less from all business taxes and fees

The new tax structure became effective in January 2025, and companies are just beginning to file under it. Therefore, the impacts of the new structure remain unknown.

Federal funding cuts and the city’s growing budget deficit

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), enacted in July 2025, will impose significant cuts to critical social safety-net programs nationwide. The controller has estimated $200 million in lost revenue annually due to these cuts, which will exacerbate the city’s fiscal deficit, estimated at nearly $169 million for FY 2026–27.

To fill that deficit, Supervisor Chan proposed raising the Top Executive Pay Tax and imposing new fees on ride-hailing companies. Chan’s measure, co-signed by supervisors Chen, Fielder, and Walton, was withdrawn when labor unions filed this voter initiative.

Prop. D was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign led by Service Employees International Union 2015, SEIU 1021, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass. A competing measure, Prop. C, was placed on the ballot in response to Prop. D. If Prop. C receives more votes, it would nullify Prop. D.

Equity Impacts

The federal H.R. 1 funding cuts will be devastating to low-income residents, immigrants, and people with disabilities, restricting their access to food, health care, and social services. The San Francisco Department of Public Health and Human Services Agency estimates that as many as 50,000 San Franciscans may lose health care coverage. The proposed measure would help offset those impacts. The departments/agencies that receive the largest discretionary General Fund expenditures are Public Health, Police, Human Services, Fire, Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and the Sheriff. If the measure helps the city close its structural budget deficit, resources for vulnerable populations would be protected.

Gross receipts taxes are more progressive than other types of business taxes because the rates increase with revenues, much like an income tax. The measure would preserve the exemption for small businesses with gross receipts of less than $5 million.

Pros

• Implementing this tax increase would generate between $250 million and $300 million in annual revenue to mitigate the drastic funding cuts under H.R. 1, which disproportionately impact low-income residents, immigrants, and people with disabilities.
• The tax revenue would go to the city’s General Fund, enabling greater spending and service flexibility and reducing the structural budget deficit.

Cons

• The measure would make it harder to project revenues by concentrating them in a smaller share of the employer base.
• High tax rates on businesses would make San Francisco less attractive to companies, which may choose to locate or expand elsewhere.
• Companies would have difficulty projecting their tax liabilities due to fluctuations in top executives’ compensation.
• Changing the business tax structure so quickly after Prop. M’s passage would undermine the predictability of doing business in San Francisco.

SPUR's Recommendation

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.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-06/sf-prop-d-business-tax-increase)

No on Proposition D: Increase SF Sales tax by 9x

This Proposition has been misleadingly marketed as a “CEO tax.” The main thing it would do is dramatically increase the cost of doing business in San Francisco by (a) multiplying the tax rates by a factor of ~9 and (b) making the tax rate depend on the ratio between executive pay and the median pay of all a business’s employees. It turns out we already calculate business sales tax rate (officially called “gross receipts taxes”) by the ratio of executive pay to the median pay of employees in San Francisco; the calculation change would for example raise the tax rate of a company that hired a lot of employees in a lower-cost-of-living foreign country, or lower the tax rate of a company that fired its American call center employees and contracted with a Filipino company instead.

It is projected to raise $250M-$300M of revenue, around 1/3 of the city’s budget deficit, but this is uncertain because businesses could move out of the city in response to the measure (Stripe and Square already left SF after a previous Proposition that hit fintech companies especially hard); it could also be challenged in court and have its funds locked up for years, according to GrowSF.

Join Mayor Lurie, SPUR, and GrowSF in opposing this measure, which would harm our city’s economic recovery just as it’s begun in earnest under the new Mayor and more moderate Board of Supervisors.

Prop. D - NO     Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison of Top Executive Pay to Employees Pay

• Impose Top Executive Pay Tax formula to change from compensation of all employees, not just those in San Francisco
• Increases Top Executive Pay Tax rates for most businesses to between: 0.183% and 1.21% of their San Francisco gross receipts
• Increase Top Executive Pay Tax rates who pay S.F. payroll expenses to between 0.75% and 4.47%.
• Controller. This ordinance would result in additional annual revenue to the City in the range of $250 million to 300 million. The ordinance would increase tax rates by approximately 800%. There is potential risk of business relocation.

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/6_2_26_endorsement_partial)

You may have heard that there’s a “CEO” Tax measure, Prop D, on the ballot for this upcoming June 2026 election. But here’s the dirty little secret - despite its name, it’s not actually a tax on CEOs.

Instead, the tax punishes companies based on pay ratios between their CEO and median employee, even if the CEO or workers are not located in San Francisco. This measure then would increase taxes on businesses by800% (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Prop_D_-_Increases_to_Business_Tax_Based_on_Comparison_of_Top_Executive_Pay_-__hxExvCe.pdf).
Prop D’s consequences are serious. If passed, this measure would raise taxes for businesses like grocery stores, pharmacies, and restaurants. Some of the companies Prop D would harm include Grocery Outlet, Target, Walgreens, Macy’s, CVS, Albertsons, Nike, McDonalds, Gap, Starbucks, Chipotle and more.

San Francisco is still recovering from the pandemic. (https://www.kqed.org/news/12067981/san-francisco-recovery-slumps-as-the-future-of-its-downtown-mall-hangs-in-limbo) Raising business taxes arbitrarily sends the wrong message and risks pushing companies to downsize or leave, as many (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/2nd-most-valuable-U-S-startup-to-leave-SF-as-14558067.php) have in recent years. Academic literature has observed (https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3906) even a 1 percentage point increase in business tax rates increases the likelihood of a business relocating its headquarters by ~17%. When businesses leave, jobs disappear and residents lose consumer options. At a time when our economy is rebuilding, making it more expensive to operate here doesn’t just stall our recovery - it sets it back.

San Francisco is also already an expensive city (https://sfstandard.com/2026/01/30/san-francisco-cost-of-living-2026/). Raising taxes on major businesses will only hurt residents. The reality is impacted companies will pass the additional costs onto us residents. Academic literature has found that 40% of business tax burden (https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2024/program/paper/SZREF4s6) ultimately falls on consumers. This means higher prices for goods like groceries, clothes, health items and other necessities. Raising costs on residents is the wrong move for San Francisco right now.
You may hear supporters claim the tax, projected to raise $250-300 million annually, is necessary to fund local healthcare programs.

But here’s the reality: the measure contains no legal requirement that the money be spent on healthcare.

There is no binding language directing the funds to clinics, patients, or specific health services. It’s even explicitly stated (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/20251114_Title_and_Summary_Changes_to_Business_Tax_Based_on_Comparison_of_Top__Ofxukb6.pdf#page=2) that the tax measure’s revenue would be “available for general governmental purposes.” That means the revenue could be used for virtually anything in the City budget including pay raises for City employees or politicians.

Voters are being told this is a healthcare fix when Prop D is really about giving City Hall a blank check to spend. And we shouldn’t be giving City Hall a blank check when it has a spending problem.
Prop D is the wrong solution to San Francisco’s budget crisis.

Supporters argue we need it to offset federal funding cuts. But when you look at the actual numbers (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Dec2025_Budget_Instructions_Update.pdf#page=5), the real issue isn’t a revenue collapse - it’s runaway spending. Even when factoring in federal cuts, City revenue is still expected to rise. (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Dec2025_Budget_Instructions_Update.pdf#page=5) The problem is that spending will grow even faster.

There’s also no actual guarantee that Prop D’s tax revenue would actually lead to higher business tax revenue for the City. As mentioned, the tax could drive away businesses, which could lead to lower tax revenue over the long-term. An 2023 City Controller report (https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/Business%20Tax%20LOI%20Response.pdf#page=11) even noted, “It is notable that, despite the adoption of higher Gross Receipts Tax rates in 2020, and a new Overpaid Executive Tax, overall business taxes owed to the City declined slightly between 2019 and 2022.”

The City simply can’t tax its way out of a spending problem. Higher taxes like Prop D won’t fix structural overspending - they’ll just make San Francisco more expensive for residents and businesses.

Source (https://www.sfblueprint.org/advocacy/ceo-tax-facts)

VIG listing; Increases business tax based on comparison of top executive's pay to employee's pay

Bottom Line: Prop D will significantly increase San Francisco’s “Top Executive Pay Tax” beginning in 2027, changes how the pay ratio is calculated (to include worldwide employees, not just SF employees, which means more companies will be paying the tax), and makes it much harder for the Board of Supervisors to decrease it later. At a time when big companies are still evaluating long-term office commitments, adding volatility and locking in high tax rates without flexibility is risky and unwise. VOTE NO.

WHY NO ON PROP D?

The Progressive camp and the measure authors from SEIU are not at all happy that Prop M blunted the corporate fleecing that Prop L (2020) provided, and they have hatched this new plan to try and compel companies to leave San Francisco.

Worse yet, Prop D would mean a significant increase in the Overpaid CEO tax, far beyond what was approved in 2020 and then subsequently lowered by voters in 2024.

Prop D is a no-brainer NO vote because:

While it may be fashionable to say that big companies need to “pay their fair share,” the reality is that San Francisco’s overconcentration on a small tax base of large companies increases fiscal instability. Furthermore, national and international companies are highly mobile and can easily move offices and headquarters out of the area. We cannot afford to give crucial tax-revenue-generating companies further reason to avoid doing business in San Francisco.

Supporters of this measure claim that a "NO" vote on Prop D will “protect the city’s wealthiest people” and that you will be choosing “greed” over “care.” Prop D does not in any way impact CEO pay, and the tax money raised would not go specifically to healthcare or any other program. Rather, it would go to the general fund, and we have no idea where that would end up.

Cooler heads must prevail. “Let’s Go, San Francisco!” is a meaningless phrase if voters don’t make decisions that actually allow San Francisco’s businesses to prosper. And, yes, that means even the big companies that pay their CEOs well.

Final note: The ease with which tax-related measures can be put on the ballot creates an unstable tax and regulatory environment for businesses and residents alike. Mayor Lurie is looking to change that (https://www.sfexaminer.com/lurie-will-go-to-voters-in-effort-to-remake-city-hall/article_fb2da73b-ff52-4f7d-919a-35d64ae8c047.html) in November.

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/ceo-tax)

VIG listing; Amends City Charter to expand eligibility for service on Police and Fire Retirement System Board and reduce meeting frequency

San Francisco’s recovery is still fragile. Prop D would significantly increase the Overpaid Executive Tax,  the same tax voters chose to scale back just last year with the passage of Proposition M.

The companies this tax targets employ thousands of San Franciscans. When large employers reduce their local presence, the small businesses that depend on their workers feel it first. Revenue projections are not guarantees, and the city has seen what happens when major employers leave.

Prop D would also remove the Board of Supervisors’ ability to adjust this tax without another ballot measure, eliminating the flexibility to respond if economic conditions change.

Mayor Lurie opposes this measure.

Vote NO on Prop D. Protect working families. Protect the City’s recovery.

Source (https://sfciti.org/june-2026-sf-citi-voter-guide/)