The measure would hike taxes on companies whose top executives earn vastly more than their median workers. On its face, it's the kind of populist red meat that plays well in a city where "eat the rich" might as well be on the welcome sign at SFO. But here's the problem: the city's own chief economist is waving a red flag, warning that Prop D poses a genuine risk to San Francisco's fiscal health.

Why? Because the businesses this tax targets are already leaving. Companies have been steadily cutting their presence in The City — shedding office space, relocating headcount, and in some cases pulling up stakes entirely. Layering on an additional tax burden aimed squarely at their executive compensation structures isn't going to shame them into staying. It's going to accelerate the exit.

This is Econ 101 stuff. You can't tax what isn't there. And every departure means a smaller overall tax base, which means less revenue for the very services San Franciscans say they want more of — housing, transit, public safety, mental health support.

Meanwhile, Congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti has been pouring six figures into supporting the measure, because apparently what San Francisco really needs is outside political money funding local tax experiments. Nothing says grassroots populism like a well-funded campaign telling a struggling city to squeeze harder.

As one SF resident put it, "We keep trying to punish companies into loving us. How's that working out?"

Look — income inequality is real, and the gap between C-suite pay and median worker compensation is worth discussing. But the answer isn't a tax that the city's own economist says could backfire spectacularly. San Francisco needs to be attracting businesses and jobs, not crafting new ways to repel them.

Prop D isn't fiscal policy. It's performance art with a price tag — and guess who ends up paying.