Welcome back to our “Meet the Candidates” series, where the congressional candidates respond to a question in 100 words or less. Answers are published every Monday.
CA-11, the congressional district that Connie Chan and Scott Wiener are running to represent includes most of San Francisco. Some southern neighborhoods (the Excelsior, Portola, Visitacion Valley and Ingleside) are a part of a neighboring district.
Raising taxes is topical in California and San Francisco: State voters will weigh in on the billionaire tax, Prop. 40, on Nov. 3. The tax would hit anyone whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. It is being fought tooth and nail by some of those targets, who have poured in tens of millions to sink the measure.
Back in June, the city narrowly rejected an “Overpaid CEO Tax,” which would have taxed the firms with wide pay gaps.
Arguments for both center on equality and funding city and state programs that have been decimated by President Donald Trump’s cuts; arguments against stress the economic impact and the fear of billionaire flight.
This week, we asked San Francisco’s congressional candidates: Both of you have expressed support for reducing wealth inequality. To raise federal revenue, which taxes would you raise or create? And who should pay more? The top 0.1 percent (by income)? The top 1 percent? Or the top 10 percent? Anyone else?
Scott Wiener
- Job: San Francisco’s State Senator
- Age: 56
- Residency: Homeowner, moved to San Francisco in 1997
- Transportation: Public transit and walking
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from Duke University, law degree from Harvard University
- Languages: English, Spanish
I strongly support progressive taxation and have a long history of advocating for it. Everyone, including the wealthiest, must pay their fair share to support essential needs, such as health care, housing, child care, and clean energy investments.
In Congress, I’ll fight to repeal the Bush and Trump tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations — tax cuts that have cost us nearly $10 trillion in federal revenue that supported critical needs.
I support Elizabeth Warren’s Ultra-Millionaire Tax, which will create a wealth tax for people with more than $50 million in net worth and a higher wealth tax for those … read more here.
Endorsed by: The California Democratic Party, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sierra Club, San Francisco YIMBY, Grow SF, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, North Coast States Carpenters Union, Dolores Huerta … read more here.
Connie Chan
- Job: San Francisco District 1 Supervisor
- Age: 47
- Residency: Homeowner, has lived in San Francisco since she was 13
- Transportation: Driving, public transit, and walking
- Education: Bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Davis
- Languages: English, Cantonese, Mandarin
Billionaires should not pay less in taxes than working families. They and the largest corporations should pay their fair share.
My Working People’s Plan would tax fortunes above $50 million, unwind Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, establish a corporate minimum tax, close carried-interest and offshore loopholes, and tax excessive CEO pay and companies that replace workers with AI.
Households earning $400,000 or less would receive expanded credits for childcare, education, healthcare and first-time home purchases. I’m also proud to be the only candidate in this race supporting Proposition 40, asking California billionaires to help offset Trump’s … read more here.
Endorsed by: Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, Congressman Ro Khanna, California Federation of Labor Unions, SEIU California, San Francisco Labor Council, Working Families Party, San Francisco Tenant’s Union … read more here.
Candidates are ordered alphabetically and rotated each week. Answers may be lightly edited for formatting, spelling, and grammar. If you have questions for the candidates, please let us know at io@missionlocal.com or yujie@missionlocal.com.
You can register to vote via the sf.gov website.
Interesting choice of question. I would instead have asked “How can we reduce taxes?”
You’re avoiding the question because you think the richest should pay less?
Prop 40 is a gimmick. Raise taxes on everybody. The left has abandoned tax positivity as a political message, instead converging on the safe, but morally cowardly, position of raising taxes just on the wealthy. However, broad, high, progressive taxation and well-funded, universal services are what bind us together as a state and as a nation. We should be coming together, supporting each other, and ensuring our shared prosperity. Increase my taxes, increase Marc Andreessen’s taxes more.
True/effective “progressive taxation” will only work at the national level.
State level attempts, e.g. Prop 40, are doomed to failure as their intended target, i.e., “the Billionaires” can simply move out of state, as many have already done (9 thus far; resulting in a $25 Billion long-term loss already), which defeats not only the object of the tax, i.e., to increase state coffers, but goes further by not only preemptively reducing receipts — as has already happened with only the threat of Prop 40 — but it also dissuades companies from locating in CA.
Accordingly, only Scott Wiener’s /Elizabeth Warren’s approach makes sense — whereas Connie Chan’s is a self-defeating “cut-of-your-nose-to-spite-your-face” one.
This seemed so idiotic that I had to use AI to double check it:
“Hey Claude, is this true?”
Mostly not. The direction of the argument is a real position, but nearly every specific in that passage is wrong or mislabeled.
**”Billionaires can simply move out of state”** — not for this measure. Prop 40 is a *one-time* 5% tax on net worth over $1B, keyed to a residency snapshot of January 1, 2026. Moving today does not avoid it. That snapshot is precisely the design feature meant to defeat the flight objection. The Tax Foundation does argue the residency provisions are leaky enough that people leaving during 2026 may escape part of it, so it is contestable, but “simply move out” is the objection to a *recurring* wealth tax, not this one.
**”9 thus far”** — no source I can find says nine. Hoover and Fortune document six public departures before the snapshot date (Brin, Page, Thiel, Kalanick, Spielberg among them). One outlet lists eight. Hoover concedes others may have left unannounced, which is an assumption, not a count.
**”$25 billion long-term loss already”** — this is the biggest error. The $25B is Hoover’s *projected* net present value loss **if the measure passes**, computed by treating lost future income tax as a growing perpetuity and netting it against ~$40B in one-time collections. Nothing has been lost. Hoover’s own departure-side figure is different: it says the six departures removed $536B from the tax base, roughly 30%.
**”Preemptively reducing receipts, as has already happened”** — no published evidence of an observed decline in California receipts attributable to Prop 40. That is an inference from the departures, not a measured number.
**”Dissuades companies from locating in CA”** — argument, not evidence. Hoover gestures at Tesla and Oracle, both of which moved years before Prop 40 existed and for stated reasons other than a wealth tax.
**The contrary case**, which the passage ignores entirely: the Galle/Gamage/Saez/Shanske report estimates ~$100B in revenue and notes California’s ~200 billionaires supply only about 2.5% of state income tax, roughly $3B/year. The LAO, which is nonpartisan, lands between the camps: tens of billions collected over several years, with a *possible* ongoing decrease of **less than $1B per year** in income tax. That is an order of magnitude below what the passage implies.
Fair version of the claim: Prop 40 triggered documented pre-deadline departures of at least six billionaires, removing roughly 30% of the intended tax base, and credible analysts disagree sharply on whether net revenue is positive. The stronger practical objections are the constitutional challenges and the drafting problems, not flight.
Sources: [2026 California Proposition 40 (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_California_Proposition_40) · [LAO ballot analysis](https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=40&year=2026) · [CalMatters voter guide](https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-40-billionaire-tax/) · [Hoover Proposition Lab](https://www.hoover.org/proposition-lab-proposition-40) · [Hoover press release on the $25B study](https://www.hoover.org/press/californias-proposed-billionaire-tax-will-cost-state-estimated-25-billion-hoover-study-finds) · [ITEP expert report](https://itep.org/expert-report-on-the-california-2026-billionaire-tax-revenue-economic-and-constitutional-analysis/) · [Tax Foundation](https://taxfoundation.org/research/state-tax/billionaire-tax-act-california-wealth-tax-ballot-measure/) · [Fortune on the six departures](https://fortune.com/2026/03/17/6-billionaires-left-california-billionaire-tax-newsom-brin-page-thiel-spielberg-revenue/)
One of the use cases of taxation is to reduce unwanted behavior. Billionaires per capita are by far the worst-behaved class of society. Kissing Trump’s ass should be reason enough to chase them away. If taxing them rids us of these Epstein Classholes, score that as a win.
By far, most jobs are at small businesses whose owners will never be billionaires. The number of jobs at companies owned by billionaires is rather small statewide. Even in the fortuitous event all the billionaires flee, many of the jobs at companies they have a stake in will stay in state. And please spare us the “job creator” myth. Billionaires mostly create speculation manias and economic bubbles, resulting in more debt and higher costs of living for the working classes.
The mere existence of billionaires is policy failure. Please don’t leave, Br’er Billionaire!
Be careful what you wish for “two beers”.
Accordingly, here is a little tutorial for you in Economic Base Theory.
You are correct that the vast majority of jobs in SF are provided by small businesses, and the overwhelming majority of these jobs are “service jobs” (i.e., food services, retail trade, personal & consumer services, administrative & local support, local health & education, etc.).
These jobs are defined as “Non-Tradable Jobs” and their viability is highly reliant upon “Tradable Jobs”, i.e., “basic sector jobs” which are the primary economic drivers of a region.
Examples of the latter are tech firms, biotech labs, AI and manufacturing plants. Fortunately, SF has an abundance of the first 3 and they, in addition to tourism, are the life blood of our economy.
If you run these “Tradable Jobs” out of the City — as you are rather cavalierly advocating to do — you will end up destroying the “Non-Tradable Jobs” (i.e, all of the small businesses you claim to value) that rely upon them.
Scott is the only truly progressive candidate in this race. He’s a great legislator and has the state government experience to be effective in DC.
What BS lol? He’s as “progressive” as the idea of using AI chatbots to lie with corporate donated dark money. London Breed’s buddy, Pelosi rejected him for a reason.
Is Connie Chan just stealing Elizabeth Warren’s tax plan and saying it was her idea?
Set. 21, 2026 Update:
None other than progressive stalwart, Katie Porter* says NO on Prop 40:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/prop-40-billionaires-tax-katie-porter-california-22433287.php
* Former three-term member of Congress representing California, a consumer advocate and long- time consumer rights attorney, and a leading voice in the Democratic Party for economic justice. She is currently a law professor at UC Irvine.
Wiener is the epitome of Democrat wankerdom, and hopefully people who consider themselves “left” can see through it. He’ll “fight” for something that has no chance of ever passing Congress, but he opposes a popular voter initiative that in state that has a real chance to become law.
You’re a wanker, Scotty.
Connor Johnston and AI lie-bots paid for with corporate dark money.
Vote Wiener, the Democratic version of Trump or something?