He doesn't want to pay his fair share.

A refund. Loopholes, tax credits...you know, rich guy breaks from his "friends" that woke up one day with a gunny sack of cash on their back porch.

The rich socialize their expenses and privatize their profit.

All states should charge a wealth tax. This is ridiculous.

Delaware pretty much survives on making it easy to incorporate there. While most companies are incorporated there, they mostly rely on registered agents that forward the mail to the actual corporate offices.

Companies incorporate in Delaware for its business-friendly legal system, including a specialized court (Court of Chancery) with expert judges for corporate law, a robust, predictable corporate code (DGCL), and investor preference for this stable environment, plus significant tax advantages like no corporate tax on out-of-state income and strong privacy protections. This ecosystem provides clarity, efficiency, and attracts capital, making it ideal for growth and investment.

I was looking into basing my LLC in Delaware a few years ago for this very purpose. I decided against it, but I still may if we restructure.

going to get our country on the right track.

FUCK THEM!

I like the sound of that a lot! Billionaires suck the life out of the rest of us, but don't want to put anything back.

The tax can help California, but if an exodus of some kind happens, it may hurt the state as well.

than when the tax was first implemented. That exodus was the fear, but it hasn't happened. Plus a few billion extra dollars have been deposited into the public coffers.

Massachusetts has a 4% surtax on household income above $1 million. The proposal in CA is a tax on wealth.

The highest tax rate in MA before the surtax is 5%, the surtax brings it to 9%. CA is already at 13.3%.

A tax on wealth is not the same as a tax on income.

And the fears of exodus that were raised in Massachusetts didn't materialize, which was my point, and prediction - the same might also happen in CA.

only effective for one year. So Page's antics are for naught. But it worked getting him out of CA which is something a lot of Californians are happy about.

As for Delaware: their corporate laws are so lax they might as well not exist. It's the reason most banks and other financial institutions register in Delaware.

Retroactive laws aren't inherently unconstitutional, but the U.S. Constitution strictly prohibits certain types, particularly criminal laws that disadvantage a person after the fact (ex post facto laws) and bills of attainder, found in Article I, Section 9. While civil retroactive laws are generally allowed, they must still respect Due Process (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments) and Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10), ensuring fairness and preventing unforeseen liability for past actions, with retroactive tax laws facing scrutiny for due process and equal protection.

Statutes that retroactively change civil rules (like tax laws or regulations) are permissible but must meet constitutional tests, particularly under the Due Process Clause.

Net result: less tax for the state.

A wealth tax will never work.

The insane transfer of wealth from the many to the few over the past decades is what is breaking us.

Yes, we need a more equitable federal tax system, but until we get that back again the states can at least try to limit the damage.

Elon, or Buffett and the like can simply take up residence anywhere for what is a trivial amount for them. There's only a certain point and once you get past that they will just leave.

Not a good assumption.

It was part of Reagan's mythology, along with welfare queens

If we tax corporations more it's harder for them to just leave. Billionaires and other wealthy individuals can do it for a fraction of their wealth.

It has nothing to do with some self centered would-be king deciding to move out of the state.

My entire point:
Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In other words if Sacramento taxes wealth (instead of concentrating on how to tax deferred income via the usual tricks CEO's use) the people they want to harvest money from will just move. I would if I had multiple millions. Not matter how nice California is, living here isn't worth 10 percent, or even 1 percent of my entire wealth every year.

There are things that would be equitable and effective in fiscal policy; taxing WEALTH of billionaires will simply result in less money.

If someone can't see the difference between that, and the back of a napkin theory that by lowering tax rates and a handwave we get more tax money, then that's their problem.

Don’t answer. It’s a rhetorical question.

They are parasites and as such, I'm sure they won't be missed in which ever state they leave.

and they will be forgotten.

The winner of the game pays the least in taxes and the entire economy suffers. Thanks for nothing you worthless blood suckers.

You'll still have plenty.

Oh, I see, it's not enough.
Well, FU, then.

now, we have our riches, we will leave you in the dust. /s

These f'g people, they really wouldn't miss this money and it would do so much good for people. I hope all these avaricious cretinous immoral people burn in hell.

its healthcare funding and/or a healthcare union. He might be avoiding the upcoming wealth tax possibility but he's also got other interests to pursue outside Google's subsidiaries.

But if you steal billions from tax payers and move to a place where you don't have to pay them, you're a "job creator".

Jurisdiction change for tax dodging is a mainstay of oligarchy.

The air is sweeter and the birds sing louder! Way to go, California!!!

He's a "taker" anyway. California will be okay without him.

Freeze his assets, confiscate them, strip him of citizenship, deport his ass to penguin Island.

living under a bridge if he stays in California. In fact, were he to stay, it would make no difference in his life or lifestyle at all, other than when he sees that his bank statement is just a tiny bit smaller than it would be otherwise.

He'd rather hang on to every last penny of his billions than chip in to a state that helped him become a multi billionaire.

Stories like this and men like this sometimes make me think there is no hope for the human race.

We are not peasants working on your estate.

These useless fucks have to be tamed and now.

Fuck you Larry Page!

Tech billionaires also have contempt for democracy itself. They are outspoken about replacing it with an authoritarian oligarchy.

This tax offends them because it implies they should be subject to laws passed democratically by ordinary citizens. They would prefer to rule over us without restraint.

It's not the small amount they would pay that is at issue - they object to being held the least bit accountable accountable by citizens.

They say so openly and at length. Writings urging the replacement of democracy have been openly published. For example Marc Andreesen's "Techno-Optimist Manifesto" :

...By late 2023, Andreessen, formerly a supporter of the Democratic Party, was said to have grown politically disillusioned with the Biden administration due to the volatility in the technology space for venture capitalists. The new environment was attributed to the imposition of antitrust laws on the tech sector and a renewed push for regulation of cryptocurrency, a sector in which Andreessen Horowitz was deeply invested in as a firm. The added scrutiny given to the tech sector in the wake of the Bankman-Fried scandal was also a contributing factor to Andreessen's newfound thinking. According to The New York Times, Biden's proposed "billionaire minimum income tax" led Andreessen to shift his political alliances to the Trump campaign.[8] In October, Andreessen composed his thoughts and posted the "Techno-Optimist Manifesto" essay online.[13] Dwarkesh Patel, who had previously interviewed Andreessen at the beginning of the year, responded to the manifesto with criticism and counterarguments, leading Andreessen to permanently block Patel on Twitter.
...
The manifesto pays homage to the Manifesto of Futurism (1909) by Italian poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (1876–1944), who would go on to co-author the Fascist Manifesto a decade later, which was used to describe the political platform of Benito Mussolini. In one part, Andreessen rewords Marinetti's manifesto[β] in the context of technology, writing "Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Technology must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man."[16] Andreessen ends the manifesto with a list of self-declared patron saints of techno-optimism, with Marinetti taking his place alongside philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the fictional character of John Galt, and the neo-reactionary philosopher Nick Land, among others

What a piece of shit.

Why don't you fuck off to one of the private islands you own, build your tech-bro utopia, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone?

He can quit sucking off the California taxpayers for his security

He can quit having the best weather with lovely people

They should be taxing the value of loans taking against financial assets (not the primary home) as ordinary income. Wealth taxes are messy and are ripe for fraud. Loans taken against assets, however, are unambiguous and MUST be documented. This strategy would signficantly curtail the "Buy, Borrow, Die" strategy employed by many of the ultrawealthy.