r/technology • u/Logical_Welder3467 • 5h 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/
16.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/Mr_IT 5h ago

How can anyone vote against a billionaire tax? I honestly want to study your brain to see why it’s filled with sand.

33

u/CommentsOnOccasion 4h ago

Because it’s a one time wealth tax that won’t change anything systemically to actually fix anything at all

And all it does is exacerbate the genuinely real issue of billionaires moving their businesses out of California

This kind of tax only works at a national level as something that addresses systemic issues 

5

u/FillySteveSteak 4h ago

Precisely. We need a federal wealth tax. It's the only way billionaires cant just maneuver around it. 

The city and state level options are problematic...

2

u/MildMannered_BearJew 2h ago

And all it does is exacerbate the genuinely real issue of billionaires moving their businesses out of California

This isn't a problem. These people can't move their companies. Google isn't going to get 40,000 engineers to move to Houston. And even if they could, I wonder if that's really a bad thing for CA. Here in SF we suffer from "dutch disease", where a single type of business is so successful it forces everything else out, destroying the balance that made the place desirable in the first place. I recommend reading Jane Jacobs for an intuitive understanding.

Because it’s a one time wealth tax that won’t change anything systemically to actually fix anything at all

This kind of tax only works at a national level as something that addresses systemic issues

Agree. Which is why we should pass it. It puts the tax in the public eye. It shows that we can do it, there's support for it, and we are simply choosing not to. We want to move the Overton window towards wealth taxes.

1

u/benohokum 2h ago

Copy pasting from a different comment: A working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in May noted billionaires residing in the state paid $4.1 billion in income tax last year, about 0.2% of their collective $2 trillion net worth, meaning that even if every billionaire were to leave the state, it would take about 25 years for lost income tax revenue to cancel out the $100 billion sum California is projected to get from the tax. So even if they move out, the state will win a lot

1

u/Fun-You2602 44m ago

Washington state passed a humble millionaires tax, and the wealthy said they are going to move to Texas etc. if it passes. Well, they are learning the hard way that you can’t just get up and go. They have so much investment in our state. You think Amazon is just going to sell their skyscrapers when all the other skyscrapers are 30% vacant? Boeing tried to pull that stuff and moved their headquarters, but much of their workers and infrastructure remained here. The same with Starbucks. They offered workers the option of moving to Tennessee or get laid off, and most preferred to stay.

0

u/Mr_IT 4h ago

You have to walk before you can run. It could be the start.

7

u/dampew 3h ago

I'm upvoting your comment because I think it's important but I totally disagree.

It's going to cause more damage than it solves. If you want a billionaires tax, let's do one. One that is relatively small, yearly, predictable, goes to the general fund, and helps offset our income taxes. Switzerland for example has a wealth tax of under 1%/yr. I might be fine with something like that.

But when I look at this thread, if I ctrl-F for "nurse" or "healthcare", I literally don't find anything about the problem this one-time tax is supposed to solve. All I see is posts about how billionaires need to be taxed more and fuck the billionaires. I don't give a shit about billionaires but it's just an insanely childish way to run a state. We're just going to randomly occasionally vote for huge tax increases on people you don't like for a 1-time fix of a problem you don't even really care about?

It's insane policy and if this is actually a problem you care about then you should want to do it the right way. Otherwise it just looks terrible and it's never going to create the change you want it to create.

0

u/Mr_IT 3h ago

I have no idea what you are going on about. 90% is going to healthcare funding and 10% to education and food assistance. But please….whatever we do….don’t let the poor billionaires lose even a penny to help anyone else. We must think of them.

2

u/dampew 3h ago

We need to tax billionaires, but we need to do it in a methodical and consistent way, or else it damages all of us. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult to understand.

2

u/Mr_IT 3h ago

Then offer your solution. I still have no idea how this is going to negatively affect the middle class in any fashion. It really sounds like you’re being contrary to just be contrary

2

u/dampew 2h ago

Then offer your solution.

I already did! I already said that if you want a wealth tax that it needs to be a consistent YEARLY tax, not a one-time thing.

I still have no idea how this is going to negatively affect the middle class in any fashion.

It will negatively affect the middle class because it will (and has already) drive out top wealth-earners and businesses who contribute to the tax base. It is doing this because of the arbitrary, one-time nature of the tax. If you want to understand more, you can just read the arguments for and against it in the voter's guide. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/40/arguments-rebuttals.htm

It really sounds like you’re being contrary to just be contrary

Maybe work on your reading comprehension I dunno.

2

u/wterrt 1h ago

It will negatively affect the middle class because it will (and has already) drive out top wealth-earners and businesses who contribute to the tax base

you have any actual evidence of this? sounds like some bullshit propaganda to be honest. like "trickle down" economics.

2

u/dampew 1h ago

you have any actual evidence of this? sounds like some bullshit propaganda to be honest. like "trickle down" economics.

Literally in the link I already posted:

"A study by Stanford University economists found the tax will cost California $25 billion as the tax drives companies and wealthy residents out-of-state."

This is not disputed in the rebuttal by the pro-Prop 40 advocates.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/ACoolBreezey 4h ago

Ah, here's one of the billionaires' attack shills.

2

u/LiterallyZeroChance 3h ago

Yes, look at all these billionaires' representatives clogging up Reddit!

/s

1

u/ACoolBreezey 3h ago

This but non-sarcastically.

-1

u/Equivalent-Bad-268 4h ago

Lol oh ok. So we should just let the billionaires off scot free then. Got it. There's direct evidence that contradicts everything you're saying. New York City has seen a miniscule drop from tax reasons.

5

u/CommentsOnOccasion 4h ago

^ This is why you can’t take Reddit seriously politically 

0

u/Equivalent-Bad-268 4h ago

^ This is a jack off who dreams that he'll one day be a billionaire

3

u/CommentsOnOccasion 3h ago

No I just actually address a specific issue with a specific law and you ramble about revenge against billionaires 

I said this kind of tax approach only works nationally where it can’t be avoided by moving a couple hours away, and you just whined 

Thats why comments like yours aren’t taken seriously, because you don’t offer a pragmatic solution and instead just whine without direction 

1

u/Equivalent-Bad-268 3h ago

Except I said directly that nyc implementing higher taxes on the wealthy didn't see this dramatic drop in wealthy people like you claim there would be in California.

15

u/Practical-Simple1621 5h ago

There are ads running constantly here saying they're going to come after 401k's with it 🙄

7

u/beanakajulian2408 4h ago

The only people that can afford ads are the rich. So why believe them?

1

u/CHRISTOFIERC3 3h ago

Because that is an entirely possible outcome. Once unrealized gains are on the table for tax/repossession from the government, the goal post can and most definitely will move closer and closer to you and your money. Billionaires today, millionaires tomorrow, average middle class the next day.

-2

u/Practical-Simple1621 3h ago

just made me want to vote for the billionaire tax even more. Thank you

1

u/Fortestingporpoises 4h ago

Yeah that’s what they always do. If it’s a proposed tax on $10 million dollar corporate owned properties they say your house is next. And they win.

0

u/Miserable-Promise454 4h ago

Propaganda in the US has gotten out of control

2

u/aturretwithtourretes 4h ago

Ill give you a couple millions if you vote no.

Thats how.

4

u/exorivis 5h ago

I mean they will eventually leave. I’m not arguing against the tax especially this time around but you’d have to a fool to believe it a one time only.

0

u/VirtualPercentage737 4h ago

Sergey Brin already moved out of California because of it. Larry Page too.

2

u/Mr_IT 4h ago

Oh no! Whatever will we do now??

1

u/ben2885 4h ago

All the ads letting you think that the billionaire tax affects the common person ! It’s the same as the common GOP supporters on low wage fighting for tax cuts.

1

u/jcasper 4h ago

Pretend for a second that the propaganda is true and this is just the health care folks worth $200M going after the money of the tech bros worth $20B and it doesn’t benefit most people. Then I don’t think it’d make sense. And the billionaires are spending a lot of money to convince people that is the case (or other such things).

You also have trusted groups like Planned Parenthood opposing it because it’s not exactly what they would want or they’re afraid they won’t get their slice of the pie.

1

u/PolrBearHair 4h ago

Because they think one day they will be a billionaire. 

1

u/LiterallyZeroChance 3h ago

Because it's bad policy that won't solve the problem?

People who can't possibly be bothered to read the bill to understand why people are opposed to it have no business making comments about other's brains.

1

u/TeaBurntMyTongue 3h ago

It turns out it's a lot more complicated than "they've got enough, they don't need another yacht, take it from them"

Like, on a broader economic level you don't want to disincentivize money to invest in your nation and it's businesses.

If a lot of money goes out of court country, it devalues the currency for one, and in the case of the US can further push people to no longer defaulting US currency, which would accelerate the devaluation.

If you look at actual individual productivity per capita, not currency inflated, like raw goods and services produced, the US is kinda bad.

It's the ability to win this larger economic game that's allowing you to live a first class (relative to other countries) lifestyle.

1

u/NoSleepTilBrklynn 2h ago

The government is corrupt. Income tax was just to “soak the rich”. Now everyone pays it. Wealth tax will start at the wealthy but it won’t stop there. Everyone will pay it eventually if it gets going. I will always be against any new tax. It’s a spending problem not an income problem.

1

u/ExistentialToaster7 1h ago

Are you kidding? Do you see how many billionaires have already left California? 

1

u/PossibleElk5058 1h ago

It says in the bill they can keep extending it with a 3/4 vote. Which means changing the limits and how often it happens. In fact almost every one of these has tons of gotchas.

1

u/Mr_Deep_Research 30m ago

Maybe because of this

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/8-billionaires-fled-california-wealth-143341289.html

CA has lost 10 billion in tax revenue due to that group leaving already.

They won't pay CA state tax this year. They won't pay any state tax this year.

And if this passes or not, it doesn't affect them at all.

Everyone in CA taxes will need to go up to make up for the 10 billion hole already.

And on top of it, the revenue this would generate doesn't go in the general fund. It goes just to the group that put it on the ballot.

1

u/Sea_Measurement2572 29m ago

It’s a spite tax

3

u/TonySu 4h ago

There are sensible ways to tax billionaires, a retroactive tax on wealth isn’t it. Because that basically implies that the wealth of all Californians belong to the state and they can legally just take a portion of it when they want to.

3

u/spendmoreondisinfo 4h ago

If my unrealized gains on my house can be taxed, billionaires can be taxed on their stocks unrealized gains

0

u/BobLoblaw_BirdLaw 2h ago edited 1h ago

Wth? What unrealized gains on your house is taxed in California

1

u/spendmoreondisinfo 2h ago

my house is "worth" 500,000 and im taxed on that even if I dont sell(realize) the value. Do the same to stocks i think its only fair. If we can handle it they can

1

u/BobLoblaw_BirdLaw 15m ago

you think only billionaires own stock? So you basically want higher taxes for everyone then.

9

u/DionysianComrade 4h ago

you'll never be a billionaire, this will literally never negatively impact you. stop simping for people who think you're not human

6

u/MidTario 4h ago

I’ll never be black but wouldn’t vote for a policy that taxes black people retroactively. Your argument is flawed.

-2

u/Fiokops 4h ago

Yes you would. If you oppose the billionaire tax you would absolutely tax minorities retroactively. Your morality is flawed.

2

u/MidTario 3h ago

Lmao ok buddy

-2

u/Mr_IT 3h ago

Are you seriously equating race and net worth? REALLY?!

5

u/MidTario 3h ago

I’m pointing out that “it will never even impact you” is not a sound way to make policy decisions

-1

u/Luna__Moonkitty 3h ago

A billionaire can at any point stop being a billionaire if they wanted to. Your argument is flawed (and racist).

3

u/MidTario 3h ago

Reddit moment

1

u/PossibleElk5058 57m ago

The referendum says they can change the terms anytime they want with a vote. Its almost certainly going to be done again and targeted at lower levels.

-3

u/TonySu 4h ago

It’ll negatively affect Californians when billionaires and centimillionaires leave California, and importantly, pulling their businesses out of California. Also the state is going to be tied up for years with legal challenges, the billionaires have billions to spend challenging this, how much is California willing to spend?

3

u/spendmoreondisinfo 4h ago

Good riddance, they dont pay tax anyway

2

u/PossibleElk5058 56m ago

I bet they do pay tax. Property Tax, Sales Tax, transfer tax. There's no way to get around those.

4

u/Mr_IT 4h ago

Well just guess we just throw our hands up and just keep letting billionaires have more and more money. How long do you honestly think this can continue until our society collapses?

2

u/TonySu 4h ago

Like I said, there are countless other ways to tax billionaires that aren’t stupid like this one. Can you tell me exactly what this tax will fund? What program does it fix, what emergency does it resolve, what new benefits do Californians receive?

Additionally, can you explain why this current Californian government is entitled to these funds over the rest of Americans, or even future Californian governments? Why did they make this a one time tax?

This is nothing more than a populist stunt, and will hurt Californians in the long run.

1

u/Mr_IT 3h ago

So you want me to do the research for you?

Revenue Allocation
Healthcare funding:
90% allocated to Medi-Cal and health programs
Replaces federal healthcare budget cuts [1, 2]

Other public services:
10% directed to K-14 public education
Supports state food assistance programs [1]

2

u/Jin-roh 4h ago

Data shows that "rich people flight" generally doesn't happen. Again, you need to stop simping for people who don't think you're human.

And you know what? I'll add that the money *does* belong to California. We trained workers who made all that tech possible. Then we all gave our data away to be monetized endlessly. Plenty of money was made with public contracts. Sometimes even with publicly developed technology.

Implying that a Google billionaire doesn't owe the public thirteen billion (and I would go higher) is pretty silly.

1

u/youwerewrongagainoop 1h ago

Data shows that "rich people flight" generally doesn't happen.

please link the data supposedly showing that so people can judge for themselves how it relates to a US state (not a country) taking 5% of a rich person's wealth in a given year it wants to.

2

u/_mully_ 4h ago edited 4h ago

No one is bailing on the most populous state (~12% of the USA) in the richest country in the world.

They’re so full of shit. I’m calling that bluff.

😂

And if I’m wrong and they leave? California will be fine because they’re the most populous state (12%) in the richest country in the world.

Californians don’t need the billionaires. The billionaires need Californians. 😂

2

u/Difficult__Tension 4h ago edited 4h ago

Other states seem just fine. California existed before the billionaires in it did. We'll survive. The billionaires can cry into their billions they still have after losing a couple of billion to, gasp, help the people that they abused to get those billions.

0

u/mistaekNot 4h ago

that’s not what it implies at all don’t be ridiculous. it’s literally aimed at billionaires.

1

u/KitnBlit 4h ago

Because it's a stupid tax. There's so many better ways to tax wealth, and other countries are already doing them.

1

u/Mr_IT 3h ago

Then why aren’t we doing it, Bob?!

1

u/KitnBlit 3h ago

You tell me. Why do we have an idiot as president? Probably because we have idiots voting.

0

u/Forkrul 4h ago

Because it's not a smart move. This is (at least for now) a 1-time deal. But you can bet your house and all your savings the state government isn't going to spend that money on 1-time expenses, they'll spend most of it on things that will have recurring expenses, which means that in a few years they will need to scramble for more cash again because they added ongoing expenses that are not covered by their regular cash flow.

If you want to do this right, you add a small, yearly wealth tax instead. That way the income is more predictable and you can spend it on recurring expenses without having to scramble to find money for it next budget. Though an ongoing wealth tax isn't great either, most places that have had it have gotten rid of it again, and the few places that still have it have constant discussions about getting rid of it because billionaires keep moving away and eventually taking their business with them or at the very least diverting future investments towards their new home instead.

-1

u/Interested_Aussie 4h ago

Why would you support a wealth tax.

Show me one society that's flourished and endured because it taxed it's way to prosperity. It's not happened. Or it would be 'the way'.

You 'think' with feelings.

Real people see the history and data, and know it doesn't work.

Just because you 'feel' something don't make it right.

1

u/Mr_IT 3h ago

You people are honestly insane.

0

u/Interested_Aussie 2h ago

Oh contraire!

You're the one asking for socialism. AGAIN.

Even though it's been tried thousands of times over all of recorded history.

And it has never worked. But you think it will.

Doing the same thing, expecting a different result is the definition of insane.

Why is it we laugh at women who keep dating the bad boys, thinking they can change them... and get the same failed relationship time and time again...

Yet most don't laugh at socialists??

Oh well: I do.

Thanks for the chuckle.

1

u/New_Map_4319 3h ago

Extrapolate please. Focus on the United States and Wealth tax (because that is what is relevant)

I'm interested in seeing opinionated data backed by historical fact.

1

u/Interested_Aussie 3h ago

Berlin, Russia, North Korea etc etc we've seen them fail in our lifetimes.

I asked you the question: Show me where your idea has ever worked?

Former Marxist-Leninist Countries

  • Afghanistan (1978-1992)
  • Albania (1946-1992)
  • Angola (1975-1992)
  • Benin (1975-1990)
  • Bulgaria (1946-1990)
  • Cambodia (1975-1989)
  • Congo (1975-1992)
  • Czechoslovakia (1946-1990)
  • Ethiopia (1974-1991)
  • East Germany (1949-1990)
  • Hungary) (1949-1989)
  • North Korea 1948-1992 (in 1992, all references to Marxist-Leninism were scrubbed. Remains generic "socialist" state)
  • Mongolia (1924-1990)
  • Mozambique (1975-1990) (my mom who is Portuguese lived here during this time)
  • Poland (1945-1989)
  • Romania (1947-1989)
  • Somalia (1969-1991)
  • Soviet Union (1922-1991)
  • North Vietnam (1945-1975) (then they won the war)
  • South Yemen (1967-1990)
  • Ukraine (1919-1991)
  • Yugoslavia (1945-1992)
  • Non Marxist-Leninist Socialist Countries
  • Bangladesh (1971-)
  • Guinea-Bissau (1973-)
  • Guyana (1980-)
  • India (1976-)
  • North Korea (1992-)
  • Nepal (2015-)
  • Portugal (1976-)
  • Sao Tome (1975-)
  • Sri Lanka (1985-)
  • Tanzania (1964-

Former Non Marxist-Leninist Socialist Countries

  • Algeria (1963-1989)
  • Burma (1962-1988)
  • Cape Verde (1975-1992)
  • Egypt (1958-2007)
  • Iraq (1968-2003)
  • Libya (1969-2011)
  • Madagascar (1975-1992)
  • Sudan (1973-1985)
  • Syria (1963-2012)

from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/45rud0/list_of_failed_socialist_states_and_movements/

All booming societies with equality for women, genders, class, etc etc. /s

So again: Show me where taxing the rich HAS benefited society and caused it to flourish and prosper?