Fast Food Tax in San Francisco?

If you thought our city has gone insane with new fees and existing ones going up the roof (like a $15 hike on a Muni Fast Pass), try this one for size: Would you pay a tax when buying food from a fast food restaurant?

Well, get ready San Francisco, you could be paying taxes for the "pickup" of the fast food trash.

The Department of Public Works wants to tax citizens for the litter on our streets, other than cigarette butts which will have a tax imposed soon for "cleanup," they claim it's the fast food.

In my opinion, I think it's a stupid idea to add additional taxes. We already pay 9.5% sales tax on the food we purchase at any establishment, so why the hell should I pay extra just because some irresponsible person littered their burger wrapper on the ground? If I bought something from a non-fast food joint, so I don't pay the tax?

Doesn't this just seem to just be a way to tell fast food establishments that they are not welcomed in our city? We don't welcome big box retailers in our city, and that plastic bag ban doesn't help too; so they spend their time opening up shop down in Daly City and Colma where the local government welcomes them with open arms, and also snatches taxpayer money from San Francisco citizens who decides it's better down south than in our city.

So what is the definition of a "fast food" chain that would be taxed? Could Costco's food court be in the same category as McDonald's, Burger King, and Carl's Jr.? How about Noah's Bagels? They serve their stuff fast and have multiple locations in the city.

OK, the city is poor. Do what you should be doing city government clowns, chase down those who didn't pay their property taxes, have multiple parking tickets, and start making your employees drink tap water instead of that bottled crap. And while you get a chance, why not take a bigger pay cut?

Hell, I'm doing all my business in Daly City. My office is just a few minutes away from the border.

A Bay Area Gas Tax or Fee to Benefit Public Transit?

We all know the facts about buying gasoline, we are practically the most expensive in the country. But we also know that Governator Arnold has been taking away tax money earned through the taxing of gasoline that was supposed to fund public transit, but instead been used to offset the state budget deficit. Because of the siphoning, transit agencies took a big hit on their funding source from the state.

An interesting article came from the Chronicle this morning about the local transit officials getting back their transit funding from the state, but what really struck me was a regional tax or fee dedicated to transit.

That sounds like an interesting concept. Add a few more cents per gallon to allow more funds to be dedicated solely to public transportation for our region only. Regardless if you buy gas in San Jose or Marin, you know that just a few pennies per gallon is helping to provide much needed public transit for everyone.

But... the MTC did say that there is a difference between a "tax" and "fee." In order for a tax to pass by voters, it needs at least a two-third majority, but if it's just a fee, it only needs a simple majority (50% plus one).

I think there should be some big restrictions to the money being raised: They should propose that this tax/fee can never be used for other purposes than public transportation. There will be no siphoning it to fix highways or bridges, just for the transit agencies. Maybe also make a rule that the money cannot be used to pay for salaries. Just because you get an extra several million dollars doesn't mean employees and unions can abuse that money to their advantage by demanding higher salaries, bonuses, or expensive overtime.

The San Francisco Restaurant Health Surcharge - It's Confusing

You might have noticed it on your restaurant bill, and maybe not at another place you visited... it's that 2-5% fee tacked-on to your meal. Restaurants call it a "health fee," others call it a "health surcharge" and others call it a "health tax."

It's really confusing, ain't it?

Since the City and County of San Francisco requires all employees to have some form of health insurance, some city restaurants decided to get all whiny about it by charging a percentage surcharge to every bill. Others have decided to obey the law by not offering a percentage surcharge and may simply just absorb that cost or just revise the prices on their menus.

Today, I'm going to target those pesky restaurants who sneak in that little surcharge.

--------------------

Here's the rules I do understand if a restaurant wants to do a health fee/surcharge/tax:

1. It must be clearly noted on every single restaurant menu (even if it's in small print). That's called informed consent; you have a right to know of any additional surcharges being tacked on, other than the sales tax. This is similar to the 18% gratuity charge for parties larger than 6 people and must be clearly noted on the menu.
   
2. The restaurant must clearly note this charge on their receipts.

Here's what I don't understand:

1. Can it legally be called a "tax" on the receipts and/or menu? For the consumer, it's pointless which phrase/word(s) used because you pay the same. But in a legal standpoint, it can be risky to call it a "tax" as it is only used for a government collection purpose.
2. How is the health percentage charge applied? Here's three possible examples of potential problems: (1) Using the subtotal, calculate the health percentage and the sales tax separately; add them together for the grand total. (2) Using the subtotal, calculate the health percentage, add the two together, and calculate the sales tax. (3) Using the subtotal, calculate the sales tax, add the two together, and using the new total, calculate the health percentage.

To understand the difference between taxes and surcharge/fee, here's a great example:

• California State University students pay "fees" but not "tuition" since California residents get their education tuition-free; legally, CSU campuses cannot use the word "tuition" unless the student is not a legal resident of California.

Here's an example of a restaurant that calls their health percentage charge a "tax:"

• McCormick and Schmicks in San Francisco charged my gift card a "SF Health Tax" of 62 cents, and this was calculated by using the subtotal of my food and beverage cost (pre-sales tax) and adding 3.5%. The sales tax was calculated using the food and beverage total (not including the health percentage charge) at 9.5%.

--------------------

I don't like these health percentage charges. It pisses me off when I'm being charged extra when I get my bill and they could have easily sneaked it into their menu by just charging a couple of dimes to the prices (or using cheaper ingredients). It's like the airlines advertising great fares, but not including the $20-$35 fees until you start booking it online.

Legal note: I am not a lawyer or attorney. This is not legal advice. Consult with a lawyer, city attorney, district attorney, or someone with a law degree for help. I may sound like some kind of lawyer, but I'm not one... I'm an Administrative Assistant.

Does San Francisco Need a Special Election?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering to raise taxes in order to fix the budget shortfall the city suffering through (like $576 million). But in order to pass some real serious taxes, the Board of Supervisors chose to have a special election. Eight wanted the special election, while the other three did not.

So the resolution passed, but Newsom did not like the idea. As expected, he vetoed the Board of Supervisor's resolution, but this news report shows that the Board have enough votes to override the Mayor's veto and therefore the "special election" will happen on June 2, 2009.

Although the news report mentions that there is nothing yet on the ballot, rumor has it that the sales tax will go up 0.05%. This sounds a little bit disturbing, and just another incentive to head off to a different county when buying a big ticket item (car, mega size TV, etc.).

Here's my view about the pros and cons of holding a special election:

Pro:

• If voters pass more taxes, this can help the budget shortfall.

Sorry, it's the only pro I can think of.

Cons and doubts:

• How much will it cost to hold this election? How many millions?
• If the voters decide to reject all tax hike proposals, the Board of Supervisors better start having a low profile, because I smell a recall!
• How much more in taxes will we be paying to the city?
• Can passing new taxes cause more harm than good? Example: Business may close down and move to a county with lower tax rates.
• Once the economy goes back up, will the tax rates go back down to today's rates?

Just something to think about folks!

AT&T Park (SF Giants) - America's Ripoff Joint

I love AT&T Park (aka: Pacific Bell Park, Pac Bell Park, SBC Park, and Telephone Park) because it is a beautiful stadium to watch games. Even sitting at the upper deck gets you great views of the park, the views of the water and East Bay, and doesn't require you to use binoculars to view the game.

But have you noticed that we are getting really ripped off? Like real badly...

Here's a list of things I think is terrible about the ballpark:

• Outrageous prices on tickets. They offer three levels of prices:
• Cheapest tickets are for games on Monday-Thursday.
• "Weekend" tickets are for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday games.
• "Premium" games are always against the Dodgers, New York teams, and some A's games.
• Then, the tickets for certain sections go for outrageous prices. Want the crappiest seats in the park? Go for the centerfield bleachers. Worst upper deck seats are the last five sections in left field. They sell for cheap, but who the hell can watch a game in those seats?
• The best seats, therefore the most expensive seats are in the "Lexus" dugout seats, equipped with padded seats, and you are so close to the home plate.
• Just how much for face value? It cost me about $125. This does not include any additional fees.
• The best seats for A's tickets is no more than $90. The cheapest seats for the A's is just $9! Come on AT&T Park.
  
• And how about those ticket fees? They try to nickel and dime you for every time you buy a ticket. If you purchase at a Giants Dougout location (except the ballpark location) or any tickets.com outlet, you get charged a 17% FEE. What the hell is this?
• The best time to buy tickets is when you visit the Dugout store at the ballpark or the advance ticket window. They have a much lower service fee.
• Here's an interesting fact, San Francisco Muni wanted to get a little more money to provide service to the ballpark. They wanted to propose an additional tax on game ticket fees. Hell no.
• To add insult to injury, Muni DOES NOT ACCEPT BART-TO-MUNI transfers when purchasing your ticket to return from the ballpark to BART. What little bitches! I get a 25 cent discount, and I WANT IT!
• And how about the food?
• These guys rip you off so badly. I can easily spend $25 at a ballpark for a half-assed meal. For that money, I can go across the street at Amici's and get myself a large New England Clam Pizza with a soda and possibly some pesto pasta!
• Why half-assed food? Here's something. I ordered a clam chowder in a bread bowl, and while the soup was OK, the damn bread was STALE! So dry, that the bread bowl soaked in soup was dry enough to make me cough for five minutes.
• And to add insult to injury...
• The Giants have now BANNED ALL OPEN BEVERAGES from entering the park, including bottles that have their seal broken.
• Their reply is that this is to prevent underage drinking.
• My answer: It is just another way to rip us off by making us fans purchase beverages that cost nearly three times its regular price at grocery stores and other places.
• Plus, I can't bring in my iced coffee drink from McDonald's

If the Giants wants to stop ripping us off with these outrageous prices, it's time for some changes.

1. Barry Bonds is gone, he was the star attraction, and now you are selling games with about 9,000 seats still available (this happened at last Friday's game). Also, the team is doing terrible. Reduce prices on admission tickets. Eliminate the SRO (standing room only) and use those prices to offer the hardest seats to sell (upper deck left field).
   
2. Lower food prices. It should not cost $4.00 for a Churro (Costco is only $1), and no little hot dog costs $4.50.
3. Cut back on some of these bogus "park safety" rules. Open bottles are OK, as long as it is not beer or liquor. Why not have the staff sniff the liquid? Alcohol has an obvious smell.
4. If you love watching them on TV, write to KNTV (aka NBC 11, the second worst local TV station in San Francisco) and tell them to give it back to KTVU, the ULTIMATE KING OF BASEBALL AND NEWS.
5. It is time to follow other major league parks and offer ALL YOU CAN EAT plans. Our neighbors, the Oakland A's have nosebleed top deck seats with all you can eat food and drink, like hot dogs, nachos, peanuts, popcorn, sodas, and ice cream. All for the starting price of $35 a ticket. AT&T Park management should use the upper deck left field seats (crappiest in park), and use them for all you can eat plans for a fair price. You'll get a great attendance boost, and with a good choice of food, will be extremely popular.

Well, there's my thoughts. Thanks for reading. If you have any comments on this, please post them on my blog site at: http://www.akit.org/2008/05/at-park-sf-giants-americas-ripoff-joint.html