We get the frustration. We really do. But before we sharpen the pitchforks, let's talk about whether this tax is actually good policy — because "billionaire opposes tax" isn't automatically the same as "billionaire is wrong."

San Francisco's CEO tax targets companies where executive compensation vastly outpaces median worker pay. It sounds righteous on a bumper sticker. In practice, it's yet another reason for companies to relocate headquarters out of a city that has spent the last decade watching businesses leave. The tax doesn't raise worker wages. It doesn't improve city services. It just gives City Hall another revenue stream to mismanage.

And that's the part nobody wants to talk about. San Francisco already has one of the highest tax burdens of any city in the country. The city's budget has ballooned past $14 billion. Are streets cleaner? Are schools better? Is Muni running on time? You already know the answer.

The instinct to tax the rich feels good. But SF doesn't have a revenue problem — it has a spending accountability problem. Every new tax that passes gives supervisors cover to avoid the harder work of auditing what we're already spending. It's the governance equivalent of opening a new credit card instead of looking at your bank statement.

Now, is it a great look for a guy worth north of $100 billion to bankroll a campaign against a tax on executive pay? No. Another SF resident captured the mood well: "So because he has more money, he should have a louder voice? This insanity needs to stop." That's a fair concern about money in politics broadly, and one that transcends left-right lines.

But the question isn't whether you like the messenger. The question is whether adding another tax on top of San Francisco's already towering pile will actually make this city work better — or just give politicians more money to waste while companies quietly pack for Austin.

We'd bet on the latter.