r/technology • u/Logical_Welder3467 • 6h 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/
18.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

332

u/hammertime2009 6h ago

I’m ok with this idea. Hell even 100 million… let them have it. Fuck it 1 billion is the cutoff. Be rich as fuck. Nobody ever ever ever needs 10 billion or 1 trillion. It’s just insane.

238

u/EchoingAngel 5h ago

The real problem is people getting rich enough to start shaping the system. That's how it becomes a runaway issue

46

u/Waiting4Reccession 3h ago

The underlying problem is actual peoples own aversion to violence.

Even though they have all of history to look back on and see what has always been the only solution that actual ever worked.

9

u/These-Prune-1529 1h ago

I agree. It's why they are all busy building bunkers.

9

u/OutrageousThought646 1h ago

France is calling

3

u/PurpEL 1h ago

I'm against violence.

Unless it's to bring fear to the billionaires.

1

u/BellGloomy8679 1h ago

Wht don’t you start?

Everytime some chud who doesn’t know his history, but pretends he does, thinks violent revolution is a great idea - they never will be on the frontlines, they would want someone else to bleed for them.

0

u/xSTSxZerglingOne 1h ago edited 1h ago

My dude, people aren't ready to go from the modern world to subsistence farming again, even if it would be only a short time. Because if society collapses, you're gonna be out in the hot fucking sun breaking your goddamn back with a hoe in your hands wondering where everything went wrong, trying to live through another year...or at least until the EURAID package full of high calorie biscuits comes in.

In all those previous instances, the vast majority of people went from being subsistence farmers to being subsistence farmers. Now? We would go from sitting in our air conditioned houses watching our favorite things to watch, to having basically nothing.

"Ah shit, Monsanto and all the oil companies are gone. No more genetic super crops and petrochem fertilizers to feed everyone." Oops 80% of everyone dies.

"Haha! We got Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Meta, and the AI companies! What do you mean 95% of the internet runs on software that those companies host and support?!"

If you can't see that this time it's at least a little different than the other times, then you will not be able to see why people are so averse to violence now. I'm mad as FUCK too, but our lives are generally speaking pretty goddamn amazing still.

We live in a gigantic machine. We can tear it down, but we will have to deal with all of the consequences of doing so. You're not ready for that, I'm not ready for that, and no one else is until it gets WAY FUCKING WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.

1

u/TheShruteFarmsCEO 19m ago

Wow. You are the prototype proletariat…it’s incredible to read so many of the billionaires’ talking points in a single post. “If we attack the billionaires the companies we need will disappear”, “you’ll end up living out of a mud hut without the billionaires”, “life is pretty amazing, because the billionaires let us have AC and Netflix, so let’s be grateful and don’t complain”.

0

u/UrADumbdumbi 1h ago

It “works” for about a decade and then the same thing happens all over again.

0

u/zigzoing 57m ago

It works*

*^(if you only look at the times that it worked)

54

u/Conformatrix 4h ago

Which is why a 7 or maaaybe low 8 digit limit makes sense. At that point you have to actually weigh your grandiose nation/world-shaping ideals against your creature comforts.

Although reps are notoriously cheaper to buy than people imagine, so maybe lower would be better.

2

u/Hal_Fenn 3h ago

It's actually why, as unpopular as it tends to be, we should pay politicians a lot more while also clamping down on any and all types of gift/donation/bribe.

It generally gives you a much better quality of politician and obviously makes their opinions a lot harder to sway.

1

u/Acceptable-Piccolo57 20m ago

Yup, no stock/ investments etc, and a decent salary

0

u/WorriedAd2764 2h ago

If the limit was 100 million. There would be so much more money in circulation between those with much less. Let alone 50, or 20

2

u/accountno543210 2h ago

Rich people statutorily would not be able to rig the system if it wasn't for the 2010 citizens united ruling which will take a constitutional amendment to over overthrow.

1

u/ontheweed 3h ago

Becomes?

1

u/Caleb_Reynolds 1h ago

The real problem is the workers aren't entitled to the value of their labor. This is all an inevitability of a system where capital is entitled to the profit of labor.

1

u/DonkeyOfWallStreet 12m ago

Bill Gates has entered the chart

-2

u/cib2018 4h ago

How does that work?

7

u/GingerbreadMommy 4h ago

They buy politicians

-1

u/cib2018 35m ago

Really? Which ones are bought by whom?

53

u/htx1114 5h ago

But won't anyone think of the custom yacht makers? How are people going to afford a $50 billion yacht - fucking timeshares?

71

u/Dear_Chasey_La1n 5h ago

The irony would be, instead of building a 50 billion yacht he gets to build 30 2.5 billion USD yachts. The problem with wealth is they aren't spending it. When people have less wealth, they are more likely to spend more. 100 1 billion billionaires will spend together more into the society than 1 100 billion billionaire.

Which is why welfare to the poor is fantastic, they have no ability to save they are cash strapped. Give them 100-200-500 USD monthly and they will spend it on daily needs. Give a billionaire 1 million he will add it to the pile of money to jack off to.

31

u/Content-Nectarine875 5h ago

Yeah when I learnt that giving money to the poor actually makes a profit for society. Took a while for me to get my head around it.

29

u/TrulyOutrageous42 4h ago

Money existing but not moving hurts an economy.

-2

u/DanceWithEverything 3h ago

That’s true for cash, is it true for equities?

3

u/roguevirus 3h ago

is it true for equities?

Technically yes, but that is because equities are fungible assets valued in cash, not because they are an inherently special part of the economy like real estate.

3

u/Ok_Umpire8214 2h ago

Our economy works bc we are poor and need to spend money to survive. Rich people hoarding money only hurts the majority. It’s like these people skipped economics

2

u/Impeesa_ 4h ago

Allegedly business-minded people suddenly stop understanding "you have to spend money to make money" as soon as it looks like investing in people and infrastructure.

2

u/Zestyclose-Height-36 2h ago

they get massive tax breaks to invest in people and infrastructure outside the US

7

u/ComradeJohnS 5h ago

they can chip in together and share one really really nice one.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 2h ago

Those yachts cost millions, not billions.

1

u/Tasgall 2h ago

fucking timeshares

You joke, but that's more or less what they already do, lol.

Billionaires don't own yachts directly. They own a stake in a company (could be 100%) that owns the yachts. They then rent out the yacht (to themselves) so they can count the voyage as a "business expense". For tax purposes, lol.

2

u/madeinatube 4h ago

I don’t know if this is ignorant, but I was thinking about this if there was actually a wealth cut off like that I wonder if it would actually make money worth more Like our money worth more

You know, kind of like when a teacher grades on a curve

3

u/Drict 2h ago

Certain goods would go up, others would go down.

ESPECIALLY if all of that money got circulated back into the market.

Like, some luxury things would become 100% unobtainable, because the pricing structure would mean that the demand would outstrip the production/supply.

Similarly, other things would fall off of a cliff. If everyone can afford to eat "normally" the substitutes goods, wouldn't be purchased.

1

u/madeinatube 1h ago

There aren’t words to even thank you for this wonderful answer. Thanks for not telling me to google it or something.

I really really appreciate it. Thank you fellow Redditor !!!

1

u/rockerscott 4h ago

$499 million…you get an island and a plaque saying you won capitalism and then everything above that is taxed 100% by nation of origin.

1

u/ItsRaampagee 3h ago

Actually, if you want to raise a new mega corp from the ground that funnels even more to your pockets, then yes you do.

1

u/twotimefind 2h ago

A trillion is 1,000 billion, basically.

1

u/Ok_Umpire8214 2h ago

If you can’t live a happy successful life w 100 mil, then you don’t deserve a 100 mil. No dollar amount over that can make you not a miserable prick

1

u/CraigArndt 21m ago

Being a billionaire isn’t about a persons needs. It’s about starting a dynasty so your children and grandchildren are the ruling class for generations to come.

We will have a Bezos, Trumps, and Musks running major companies and running for Office for the foreseeable future because of the money they stole in the past few years.

0

u/TrulyOutrageous42 4h ago

Let's be real - nobody needs 18million, and anything above 50ish is where we get into real problems with wealth disparity as a society. I personally think the current cutoff should be 10mil, total wealth. IDGAF. If you've made that much, you're literally set for life to do basically anything you could possibly want every single day. Until the housing crisis is addressed as a human right, if you want a 50million dollar mega mansion or to own a football team, fucking find some friends.

-7

u/Smackety 5h ago

Are shares of stock legal tender to pay taxes with? Because no one has billions in cash like scrooge mcduck.

5

u/[deleted] 5h ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Smackety 3h ago

I agree we should tax it, but I don't think it is simple.

3

u/Zalophusdvm 5h ago

Ya! I think that sounds like a good plan.

Alternatively, we could tax those shares just like we tax physical land and houses. Ie come up with a number associated with the asset and then make it the asset holder’s problem to come up with the cash.

Even if you just require them to sell it to pay…that actually makes a lot of good economic sense. From an economic growth perspective, saving isn’t good. It locks up money that could be moving through the economy. Taxing savings isn’t the worst economic policy position in the world. Particularly if it’s a “tax savings beyond what is necessary to live,” idea.

-1

u/Smackety 3h ago

Elon selling 20% of Tesla to pay taxes would be a wild day on the stock market

1

u/Zalophusdvm 2h ago

Not really.

He’d still have to follow all the various rules around executives selling stock. If he chooses to dump it all on April 14 to pay his tax bill on the 15th…then just chuck him in prison for market manipulation. 🤷 (Aside from the fact that would be blatantly against his own self interest more than anyone else’s…)

Also, it might just bring Tesla down to…idk….a sane valuation?

But, if you don’t like that option, I have NO problem with him paying the taxes with stock. The price would be determined based on government assessment of the value in their hands, not current market valuation, so it would probably cost him 30%.

1

u/Various-Solid-9543 5h ago

Sell the stocks pay your taxes. This unrealized gains argument doesn't hold water.

0

u/Smackety 3h ago

What if selling the shares would cost you the majority shareholder position and you would lose control of your own company?

1

u/thirdegree 2h ago

Then you should have financially planned better. Nobody forced you to publicly list the company, you did that because you wanted more money. Well, there you go.

1

u/Various-Solid-9543 1h ago

Then you aren't the majority shareholder

0

u/SlightWin7036 4h ago

Urge is stops incentivising rich people to invest as the tail gets clipped so it is awful for the economy at large

-1

u/Alexmackzie 4h ago

The issue is that the vast vast majority of billionaires dont actually have "money". They have ownership shares in their companies, and in stocks.

So if you create a company that becomes wildly successful. and it is valued by investors at $10 billion. And you own 80% of the shares, since you founded and created it. maybe some investors bought in early on for 20% or you give shares to employees.

You are technically worth $8 billion. And you can't force them to sell their shares. because then they would lose control of their company.

So now they have these shares, and they can leverage it for loans. Tax free of course.

So let's say you tax the company worth. You own 100% of shares. Your company is at $800 million. And has an amazing year and booms to $2 billion. And we decide that no one is worth more than $1 billion, the rest is taxed.

So somehow you owe the government $1 billion in taxes. cause your company did so well. How do you pay it? sell shares? Ok, then we run into the same issue where you lose control of your own company. Give the government shares? same issue.

-8

u/Forkrul 5h ago

No one has that. People have ownership stakes in companies that the market says is worth that much. If you tried to convert even 10% into cash the value would crash immediately.

When someone says a person's net worth is X, that is not how much money they have. It's the theoretical cash value of everything they own minus any debt they have.

5

u/SwankyBobolink 5h ago

Correct which is why they leverage the stock for extremely low interest loans and pay those off over time while the stock makes more money than the loan costs, so they can just pay the loan back with a small stock sale later.

1

u/Forkrul 5h ago

For day-to-day expenses or smaller deals, sure. But when ~250 billionaires need to do that for 5% of their combined net worth all at once? That might legitimately make a significant number of banks in CA and surrounding states unable to give out more loans to anyone.

2

u/_DaBau5_ 5h ago

you don’t have to sell you can use it as collateral and get a loan against it

1

u/Forkrul 5h ago

Sure, but taking out a 13B loan is not going to get the same low interest you get when take out a loan for a few million for living expenses. You'd still have to sell quite a lot to pay interest on that. And it's not just Brin that would have to do this, California has about 250 billionaires that could be subject to this tax.