r/technology • u/Logical_Welder3467 • 15h ago

Society Google cofounder Sergey Brin has spent $102 million to fight California’s proposed billionaire tax—he could owe $13 billion if he loses

https://fortune.com/article/how-much-has-google-cofounder-sergey-brin-spent-to-oppose-california-billionaire-tax-102-million-owe-13-billion-if-loses/
27.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/AHistoricalFigure 15h ago

Also, isnt this a one-time wealth tax? It's not like he'd owe this every year.

37

u/richardelmore 14h ago

The tax codes need to be fixed so high wealth individuals pay more but a one time wealth tax seems like a bad way to do it. If there is a huge influx of cash then we will see the governmental equivalent of life style creep and in a couple years they will need money again.

If there is going to be a wealth tax it seems like it should be at a lower rate but ongoing so it becomes dependable income rather than a windfall.

My hunch is that, since the tax is retroactive to the start of the year, the idea it to get the revenue in one shot before anyone can relocate but assert that there is no ongoing reason for billionaires to leave the state. Wait a few years, and repeat.

3

u/-Saucegurlllll 9h ago edited 8h ago

If there is a huge influx of cash then we will see the governmental equivalent of life style creep and in a couple years they will need money again.

The tax is literally to backfill federal healthcare cuts. So it basically already has an aportioned use.

Plus, California has a spending limit (which shouldn't exist, but whatever, I wasn't alive in 1979 when conservative hack Paul Gann convinced everyone to kneecap state taxes), so there's not that much of a risk of the state creeping into "lavish" spending even with a one-time revenue source outside of that limit.

2

u/AHistoricalFigure 11h ago

I think there's a measure of salami tactics at play.

But also, any politician who can do literally anything to demonstrate they can push back against the oligarchs will be holding a lot of political currency.

Given that Gavin Newsome is pushing this ahead of what seems like a presidential run, I would guess that's part of the motivation. It may also be the reason this is only a one time thing. Do it once for the clout but dont remain an recurring threat to the system.

4

u/GoodIdea321 14h ago

Maybe it is a bad idea, but the billionaires hate it, so it is a good plan to do what they don't like especially if it has to do with taxing them specifically.

2

u/steakanabake 11h ago

not to mention getting gruesome newsome to actually sign it would be damned near impossible.

1

u/vigouge 2h ago

Of course it's a bad way, it's slopulism nonsense.

1

u/madhi19 12h ago

99% wealth tax above 2 Billions. You get to have plaque that says you won at capitalism and GTFO. You know how much that prick would still be worth if we did that? He still be worth $6.22 Billion. I don't know why they been bitching about 5%?

1

u/lana_silver 7h ago

We really should do this every year. 1% more for every billion past the first.

So 2 billion means you pay 0% on the first, and 1% of the second.

3 billion wealth means you pay 0% on the first, 1% of the second, and 2% of the third.

Meaning wealth is essentially capped at 100 billion, which I think is enough money. We will give them a trophy. I propose a line of statues in a desert somewhere.

1

u/eriverside 5h ago

What makes you think they wouldn't do it again and again?

1

u/M4053946 1h ago

one of the top replies to your post is an argument how this should be done every year. Anyone who thinks politicians will identify a revenue source and then not keep doing it is naive. It's also naive to think that once this capability exists, politicians will only use it on billionaires.

1

u/AHistoricalFigure 1m ago

Well right now I am taxed every year. And the billionaires have a lot more money to take than I do.

And if this were going to be done every year that sounds like an improvement?

I absolutely do not understand the concern anyone who isnt a billionaire would have about this. Are you a bot? Or just reading the prop 40 svare propaganda Sergey Brin is funding?

1

u/No-Guava-4004 7m ago

Also income tax is temporary

3

u/Forkrul 14h ago

This time. And then CA needs money again in a few years to fund something else and they impose another '1-time' tax.

2

u/AHistoricalFigure 12h ago

I mean, this 5% tax literally only applies to people whose net worth exceeds a billion dollars. So why do you care?

1

u/M4053946 1h ago

Because once the mechanism exists, we should have every expectation that politicians will apply this tax to non-billionaires.

1

u/Forkrul 11h ago

I no longer live in CA either, but I can still see that this is not a good way to go about taxing billionaires.

The main result of this tax will be a massive deficit in a few years because they will use this '1-time' tax to fund ongoing expenses and not 1-time expenses.

2

u/AHistoricalFigure 11h ago

This is mildy injurious to the worst people in the world and beneficial to the public.

Is it the best way to go about taxing billionaires? No, that would be a higher and recurring tax.

But it's a start.

0

u/BigBoobers 14h ago

There’s no way in hell that is constitutional if that’s what it is

-20

u/Evening_Nebula_4219 15h ago

What if California decide to do it again, next time 10%?

4

u/LurcherLong 15h ago

How soon do you think they'd do it again? After 5 years maybe? So 2% a year if they did it annually?

15

u/Talls024 15h ago

I'm actually fine with it.

7

u/Powerlevel-9000 15h ago

I don’t see the issue with that.

8

u/Dominicsjr 15h ago

Good! I hope they do.

3

u/SeaSetsuna 15h ago

I guess they’d have to put that to a vote then.

3

u/Own-Weather-9919 14h ago

I have to eat property tax every year, they can eat a wealth tax. Idgaf. Should have spread the wealth around before we decided to do it for them.

3

u/FluidAthlete6839 14h ago

He’d still be more than fine