Request for Reconsideration to Ballot Simplification Committee on Draft Language on Cannabis Tax/Online Sales Tax Measure

Discussion
1

This one is insidious, because it combines two very different types of taxes in what may skate by as simply being a tax on cannabis businesses (and mostly gives that impression in the current draft language). It would also, for the first time, tax online sales in SF by businesses without a physical presence in the city.

  Again I've attached my recommended changes to the Ballot Simplification Committee (BSC)'s draft language for the Voters Handbook describing this measure as an MS Word document, and also as screenshots for those with difficulty opening my antiquated version of MS Word.

  As previously, if you agree with these recommendations, please send a letter to the BSC secretary, Barbara Carr, at barbara.carr@... (preferably before the deadline, which is 3:00 pm today, not 5:00 pm as yesterday)!

  The next meeting of the BSC, where they will consider my requests for reconsideration, along with those submitted by others, is tomorrow at 9:00am in City Hall, Room 400. You can view the requests for reconsideration, along with the current draft summary language, the text of the measures, and other documents, at https://sfelections.sfgov.org/ballot-simplification-committee-information-–-november-6-2018-consolidated-general-election (under the "Information About Local Ballot Measures" tab).

Love & Liberty,
                             ((( starchild )))

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)

(Attachment Cannabis-OnlineTax-Screenshot1.jpeg is missing)

(Attachment Cannabis-Online-Tax-Screenshot2.jpeg is missing)

(Attachment Cannabis-Online-Tax-Screenshot3.jpeg is missing)

2

Starchild,

I have sent a message in support of your changes to the BSC Secretary.
Thank you for your diligence and attention to this.
Nick

(Attachment Cannabis-OnlineTax-Screenshot1.jpeg is missing)

(Attachment Cannabis-Online-Tax-Screenshot2.jpeg is missing)

(Attachment Cannabis-Online-Tax-Screenshot3.jpeg is missing)

3

Thanks, Nick! Your letter is nicely worded, although I did spot one typo – but no worries. My submissions haven't been my finest writing either, just trying to get something in on time that covered most of what I think needs addressing that they might conceivably revise. Hopefully they will see our point, which I do think is a very significant one. It actually didn't occur to me right away, while sitting in the in-person meeting, that the main effect of this measure could well be about taxing online sales, and that this could amount to a bigger tax bite than even the cannabis taxes, which would themselves no doubt be significant. I had succeeded in getting them to add the adjective "non-cannabis" before "businesses" in the section about the taxing of companies not physically present, to clarify that this wasn't just part of the cannabis tax mentioned earlier in the draft, but then they undid even that modest change, apparently feeling it was too clunky. But I didn't make the argument as well in person, and the full significance didn't really sink in until when I was writing something up at home.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))