Wish he would leave earth! I know the natives of Hawaii are ready to throw him in an active volcano! What a terrible human being. I laughed when I saw Mets has to pay $25BN for lying about privacy.
I keep chumming the waters where he "surfs", one day he'll be in the water, the shark will be in the water, our shark, and he will be gobbled up like that Kintner boy.
California is the only safe place for someone so rich and famous and hated. Where his toxic culture is socially acceptable.
Like you in Hawaii, I live in a nice community with the kind of recreation and stuff he's into, he'd probably love it here. It's very safe with almost no crime.. but, someone would kill him as soon as they found out who he was.
Hahahahhahahahahha. Good one! I built a mansion for a former Facebook engineer and he said not to let my kids have any accounts associated with that company. That was over 10 yrs ago! How long before all those âgood jobsâ are outsourced to AI?
You're looking at this wrong lol. Meta jobs make good money and bring revenue to the state. They're also taxed and are contributors to how much funds the city has. Income tax. Less money = more problems.
Reddit loves slopulism, they just want to inflict pain on their perceived enemies and they don't care about what it would actually mean in the end. You'd think this sub would be safer from that line of thinking, but alas.
His Palo Alto neighbors will have a block party to celebrate. These billionaires are so useless. No community involvement or philanthropy*. A lot of yachts.
Chan Zuckerberg was ok while it lasted but once Trump came calling they stopped supporting many orgs and didnât honor their commitments. They promised funds and said âjust kiddingâ before delivery and fired the grant managers.
The proposed wealth tax and the pushback aren't just about the actual dollars. It's mostly about retaining voting control of these companies. The proposal includes a provision that could effectively tax founders based on their voting power rather than their actual economic ownership.
Bloomberg estimated that under a literal interpretation of the proposal, Sergey Brin could face a $59 billion tax bill, Larry Page $64 billion, and Zuckerberg $47 billion. That's an effective tax rate of roughly 19â22% of their actual net worth, not the advertised 5%.
These estimates are disputed, but that's the concern. People like Brin, Page, and Zuckerberg could potentially be forced to liquidate enormous amounts of stock to cover these liabilities, jeopardizing their voting control over the companies they founded. It's not simply a matter of whether they're wealthy enough to pay the tax. It's also about potentially losing control of their own companies. Hence Meta's class C shares.
What would happen if Brin and Page liquidated collectively $123 billion in Google stock and Zuckerberg liquidated $47 billion in meta stock in the timespan required by the bill?
Alphabet and Meta would face an immediate ~25% collapse in its equity value which would wreck havoc on its balance sheet, that doesnât seem like much of a problem to you?
I responded to you because you seemed to know more what you were talking about.
I was asking it as a serious question. I am curious what would happen in first order and downstream effects due to a large selloff.
It seems like an immediate sale that big would be a large shock, But I assume the details would depend on the wording of the bill, how the owners strategize, how the economy is doing overall, etc.
Fair enough! I think this is would in the short term cause market volatility as Wall Street reconfigures its valuation models due to introduced risk from forced sell offs and loss of voting control of these company founders. The sell offs from founders would likely trigger sell offs from institutional investors who will take some time to assess and come to consensus where the new market value truly is, and will almost certainly be pricing in the risk of this one time tax happening again. Downwards pressure on tech companies and anyone downstream of them would hurt most peopleâs portfolios, hard to say when they would bounce back.
They are going to need to pay a little more in interest rates for a couple of years, their fundamentals don't change because their market value went down.
Alphabet would still have revenues of more than $110B per quarter. They would need to cut a little in their AI capex, instead of using $50B per quarter, they probably would need to cut to $40B or $45B due to the extra cost on interest. The company only cares about their own value when they are getting loans or issuing bonds/stocks.
Its not their hundreds of billionaires of dollars, the vast majority economic ownership of these companies is not the founders, its investment funds and indexes which manage peoples wealth, 401ks, etc.
I'm sure they can figure out a way to separate the two... Or they can start giving dividends again instead of pumping share prices through buybacjs so the dividends can pay the taxes.
Instead of giving up on getting them to pay their fair share.
Imagine if the gov just gave up on property tax because you'd have to sell your stake in your house to pay it... That's right, they don't.
Senior Homestead exmptions, Senior Freezes, maximum increases, etc. are all ways the government gave up on collecting property tax where it could be seen as a burden on the homeowner.
This is the same issue for the business owner/controller with this wealth tax.
If they had just made it on the cash value of the shares I would have an easier time supporting it.
Prop 13 in California instituted a cap on the annual increase of the tax base for property taxes at 2%. Many people who bought property in the 80's/90's would not be able to afford their homes today and would have to sell if Prop 13 didn't exist. So not sure what your point is.
This assumes that these companies are making a profit to be able to do this, which is not always the case. Also, dividends are generally bad news for companies, it means they have stalled.
anyone that still has a billion dollars after paying taxes should stop complaining. Their hording wealth is actively harming the rest of the worlds prosperity.
The only way it gets to be worth that much is because of one person controlling it. You wouldn't have Amazon, Microsoft, SpaceX, or the internet without these kinds of people. Committees do not work.
If a company can't be successful without being run by narcissistic psychopaths with insatiable greed that would gladly destroy the planet and everyone on it for an extra billion dollars they don't need tacked on to their net worth, then those companies don't deserve to exist. The Bezos, Zuckerbergs, and Musks of the world are not special. The world will get along just fine if they did not exist.
Almost every feature of modern life you enjoy, like the computer you type this on, the servers reddit is hosted on, the vehicle you drive, is in large part because a billionaire built it.
What do you propose as the alternative? The government nationalizes every company and runs everything? You know we have historical examples to see how well that went?
You misunderstand what a public company is. It is not a state owned enterprise, which would give the public control over a it. A public company simply means its shares and dividends are offered on public markets, instead of private ones.
Its just the default method of ownership of corporations. As you can see in the case of these super voting shares, it is not tied to stock shares, they have special provisions.
Do these people even pay taxes in the first place? All they do is borrow against their holdings and rarely if ever sell anything. They donât even get a salary - or a tiny one. At this point, the only risk is if the entire company leaves the state, but even then itâs not really doable. The environment is too entrenched in Silicon Valley. Even Tesla keeps huge offices here despite moving to TX. So once again, whereâs the downside?
There is none. Big tech like Meta thrive on the talent pool in Silicon Valley, thereâs a ton of tech workers hopping between the big companies based on whoever will pay them most at that moment. Zuck can pretend that he will move FB to bufu Ohio but then he might have to pay talent quite a bit more to move out there. This might work for average engineers but I doubt would work for the top talent in AI that wouldnât want to give up exit opps of literal tens of millions.
They just do this to threaten away bills/have other states make counter offers to drive down whatever costs they would incur in original stateâŚsame as sports arenas.
Iâm assuming he wonât manage the company fully remotely, particularly now that theyâre getting into hardware. And if going to office in CA, an audit would easily prove his wealth is tied to the state. I say this as someone living abroad and while my state wasnât as aggressive as CA, they still came after me after 3 years of literally not living there (or in the country).
Itâs extremely difficult to divorce from the three big states, their Dept of Revenue is like IRS on steroids.
>Meta said Zuckerberg raised concerns to a special committee within the company that his potential relocation could be a risk to the company because it would âraise questionsâ about management among employees. In response, Meta negotiated a new stock deal with Zuckerberg to keep him in California in case the tax passes. The company added that it was important to keep Zuckerberg close to its Menlo Park headquarters, noting challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
> Zuck can pretend that he will move FB to bufu Ohio
He isn't threatening that. He is just saying he might move his own residency.
I'm for a wealth tax but the way this one is designed is kinda stupid and I doubt a state level wealth tax will work anyway, we would need a federal wealth tax (which is unrealistic at this time)
Yes, I was responding/supporting the comment above mine. Agreed that federal level is the only actual viable option and wonât happen unless Congress shifts dramatically with a supportive president in charge.
Sergey Brinâs fight against the tax shows us a couple things: they know they canât move residency/domicile that easily, and they realize this could get adopted by other states. No other reason heâd spend $130M fighting it.
The intangible part that most people miss - for someone this fabulously wealthy, there arenât many enclaves in US where they can find their âcommunity.â Maybe Sergey and Zuck donât care but they canât just take their wives and kids to middle of nowhere. This income bracket needs their private schools, organic farms producing foods, charity events and various dinners where they rub shoulders with their âequivalents.â If CA and NY adopt this tax, that kinda closes most of their relocation options.
> and wonât happen unless Congress shifts dramatically with a supportive president in charge.
It needs more than that, it would either need a constitutional amendment or 5 of 9 on the supreme court to agree that it isn't a 'direct tax'
> If CA and NY adopt this tax, that kinda closes most of their relocation options.
There is South Florida and Texas. Not as good as California and New York but for plenty of billionaires or multimillionaires (cuz there is no point in implementing something like this to just tax only those with over $1 billion) it'll probably be fine
"Sergey Brinâs fight against the tax shows us a couple things: they know they canât move residency/domicile that easily, and they realize this could get adopted by other states. No other reason heâd spend $130M fighting it."
Nah my roommate (and undergrad buddy) is a Stanford PhD grad and researcher. Weâre currently living in SEA and he keeps crying about not being in Bay Area because thatâs where heâd make the most/stay networked/stay competitive.
Sure for a big enough package heâd move anywhere (thatâs how we ended up here) but the demand for these researchers (particularly Ivies) is absolutely wild right now. Most of these guys want to get in on one AI lab/fund, line up the next one, wait till vest and leave immediately for a higher package, then do the same. Being in one geo is a massive advantage here to maximize overall compensation.
Engineering was the same during covid with a ton of cross pollination going on but AI and layoffs have slowed that down now, the researchers are what everyone wants and the difference could literally be hundreds of thousands per year not counting RSUs.
Im not through reading the full paper yet, about 40% done. However there are some issues I would like to mention about it. My opinion may change further into the paper, but I have to put it down for now and digest it.
I find their framing of unrealised gains and debt strange. It is common for many, even low-tier, wealth management firms utilise things like Security Backed Lines of Credit(SBLOC)s. Which is a form of borrowing using your investment portfolio as collateral for a line of credit and unless I missed it. They included things like fixed income, bank notes, and others, but the most popular vehicle for utilising your portfolio for liquid cash was absent. Maybe I missed their reference to this collaterised debt.
Do you not consider using your (the figurative your) HELOC as debt?
Either way, the paper so far has not grappled with the other piece of this which is wealthy individuals will utilise irrevocable trusts. Which again, is allowed by tax law, but significantly shift a tax profile. This isnât caught in their higher-level view and just kind of assumed away from what I can tell. Correct me if I am wrong obviously, because I havenât finished yet.
Now this next part I am using as an example because I feel the paper hasnât addressed this, at least to the point that I am at. Ultra wealthy individualsâ estates become quite complex obviously, but someone common in the majority of estates is how to transfer the tax burden to those with lower tax basis and ensure generational wealth while doing it. Asset freezes, CLTs, CRTs, ILITs are all utilised to benefit one, if not both, of those objectives.
At a high level view, I certainly see why the paper would reach the conclusion it has. As someone with credentials and experience in the field, I see a lack of understanding thus far in understanding the breadth of tools available to ultra wealthy individuals and am not confident in its opinion thus far.
I have raised these points because I would have included them into the data being provided in the material at this stage since similar vehicles were addressed.
This is a really popular talking point among a lot of billionaire bootlickers who never even read the article.
If you actually read it, it doesnt help your cause at all.
First of all, they make it a point to say much of their data is extrapolated from the survey of consumer finances and only covers household borrowing, while clearly stating there is no way to track individual borrowing through business entities that are not covered by the survey. They also omit data on the forbes 400.
I especially like how it clearly points out that income tax, or AGI, only captures about 60% of the total economic income of the top 1%. Only 16% of that is salary. The rest is business income, realized capital gains, and dividends and interest.
40% of their total yearly economic income is not taxed.
"
Over 2004â2022, for the top 0.1 %Â
(excluding Forbes), average tax rates drop from 24 % using AGI to 12 %Â
using economic income as the benchmark, while rates fall only from 10Â
% to 9 % for the 50-90th percentiles. Still, average tax rates as a share ofÂ
economic income rise across the wealth groups until the top 0.1 %, afterÂ
which average tax rates then fall"
Even this article shows that the ultra wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. It doesnt matter if they pay over half the total income tax. Based on their total economic income, they should be paying closer to 99% of all income tax. Thats how insanely rich they are.
It also states that although their "new economic borrowing" year to year is only 1-2%, their total borrowing over a lifetime is more than enough to cover their consumption levels.
"Since the top 1 %âs assets are 47 % un-
realized gains, their borrowing would have unlocked about $475 billionÂ
of unrealized gains if it displaced sales of average assets. The parallelÂ
figure for the next 9 % is unlocking $1.45 trillion of unrealized gains.Â
Likewise, new borrowing by the top 1 % is economically meaningful:Â
$62 billion in 2022, potentially unlocking another roughly $30 billion inÂ
unrealized gains. These findings align with Fox and Liscow (2024)âsÂ
conclusion that taxing ultra-wealthy Americansâ new and existingÂ
borrowing as a partial realization of their appreciated assets could raiseÂ
considerable revenue."
They borrow a lot, a little over 1 trillion per year, but compared to their total net worth, it only makes up about 2% of their total net worth. They simply are unable to spend their money faster than it compounds on itself.
Nevertheless, this 2% alone is more than enough to to cover their consumption levels.
You donât need loans to avoid paying taxes on your accumulated wealth. Itâs as simple as realizing less of your gains because they accumulate an absurd amount of wealth.
You can argue that they should be taxed more (Iâd agree) but itâs a separate argument from âtheyâre avoiding all their taxes by using loansâ
Youâre also misinterpreting âwould have unlockedâ as âdid unlockâ. Thatâs just a theoretical upper limit
No im not misinterpreting it. I understand it is theoretical.
Im just really tired of people posting this article without reading it.
Buy borrow die is still a tax avoidance strategy. The top 1% wealthiest borrow around 1 trillion a year against their assets to spend it on nice things and do not have to pay income taxes on it.
But compared to their total wealth accumulation, 1 trillion is such a small amount that it has minimal effect on the overall tax they would pay if all income was taxed equally.
Â
Yearly it could theoretically contribute another 400 billion to federal tax revenue which is close to 1/5 of our current deficit. That would be extremely helpful in slowing national debt growth
Youre not interpreting it correctly. Its not a dominant tax avoidance strategy because it only applies to a small % of their yearly economic income. Its still a tax avoidance strategy.
Read the whole article.
They dont NEED to borrow much because compared to the total amount they make per year, the amount they borrow yearly is only 1-2% of their total net worth, but still more than enough to cover all of their expenses.
So they they can borrow a small % of their net worth to live off on while their total net worth grows exponentially more untaxed.
Its still a tax avoidance strategy, it just is not dominant because it only covers a small percent of their wealth
Youâre not mad at the strategy youâre mad at not being able to tax unrealized gains. Which is just absolutely mind fuckingly stupid to be mad about.
Its not stupid to be mad about when they are raking in trillions of dollars of new wealth every year, while the government is actively and unecessarily stimulating the financial system and allowing inflation to stay elevated which is crushing people who actually do work for a living.
The national debt helped make them rich. There is a direct correlation between government debt growth and passive wealth growth.
And theyre seriously talking about taxing WORKERS more?!
Like i said. Fuck that. Stop stimulating the financial system and tax the wealth that was created by all this debt spending.
What would happen if we found new ways to tax wealth through financial transactions?
Literally what would happen? Not just your best guess.
What would happen if we reversed the Trump and Bush tax cuts? What would that do to the federal deficit?
The government collected 200 billion from capital gains tax in 2024.Â
But the stock market grew by 11 trillion in value. We only collected 1.8% of the new growth while we went over budget by 2 trillion.
It sounds to me like we are missing a huge opportunity to collect more revenue from the financial system.
This response just says that they borrow (which is true and undisputed). Buy Borrow Die is a strategy that asserts that they continually pay off existing loans with new loans perpetually until death, at which point the step up basis is reset for their beneficiaries and the government doesn't get the capital gains taxes.
You're likely to find that most of us agree that taxation on the rich is outdated and should be changed. But this specific theory is circulated constantly on reddit - that they are specifically avoiding paying taxes forever by simply borrowing money until they die. This assertion is unfounded and as stated in the article it is empirically uncommon.
The study basically says that although they do borrow money tax free and spend it, its no where near the total amount they accumulate as income per year and has a smaller overall effect on their theoretical tax burden than people say.
It doesnt make the argument wrong, it just minimizes the gravity of it.
Turns out the most significant way they avoid taxes is by just not spending a majority of the money. But its practically impossible to spend that much money anyway..
What i also like about it is how it replaces AGI with total economic income which highlights just how small a percent they actually pay compared to their total income and compared to the rest of us working losers.
Yes, I anticipated your extreme outrage in advance, that doesn't make the data less correct. Go ahead and shake your fist about whatever you'd like but that doesn't move the data one iota.
He had a pretty in depth critique and i think its interesting for you to just dismiss it out of hand because he used that phrase. To me, it seems like a cop out and suggests that you either didn't read your own source or don't understand what they are talking about.
Read the damn article before you jump to conclusions.
Its a damning article about just how little the top 1% pay in taxes compared to their total economic income and how outdated our tax system is compared to all the ways they are able to avoid paying.
Quite peculiar how people get so angry about this stuff. I think some people have somehow made their objectively incorrect beliefs about tax strategy into their entire personalities, and so they start mentally cracking apart when they see any data to the contrary. You are just one of a couple dozen repliers I've gotten who are currently in a state of total mental collapse with how much outrage they're feeling, just as I anticipated.
It's just taking on debt. Everyone can do this too. Just watch them take out 60% on their stocks then perpetually pay interest and worry about getting liquidated. Great hack lol
Wouldnât you consider Mark Zuckerberg to be an extremely wealthy person? Why is it so difficult to believe that he would take advantage of this extremely rare strategy?
He clearly isnât using the strategy as you can find him selling millions of Facebook shares to fund his life (vs taking loans like this strategy implies).
I donât disagree for their use case. I have personally used SBLOCs as part of my own financial planning.
I also agree that they donât just borrow and thatâs all there is. The utilise many tools to reduce their tax burden as I would encourage anyone to for tools that are available to them.
There is no reason his prearranged stock divestures exclude him from using tools like SBLOCs, asset freezing, and or the plethora of ways to help with their tax bill is my point.
Its much more complicated than just borrowing with collateral, but the financial engineering yields pretty solid results when it comes to taxes.
You get my downvote not because of your link. The article is genuine, a researched by Yale. You get the downvote because you're clearly doing the exact same thing, which is over-simplfying. To clarify, I agree with the findings that it's not like these billionaires are funding 90% of their living expenses through loans. But I can sum up why you deserve a downvote in 2 bullet points.
You claim it's just a myth. The paper you cited confirmed loans on stocks is a REAL mechanism. The issue with it not being as impactful as general public feeling is because it only accounts for 4% of the unrealized gains. That's a fair argument to make, but the way you phrased it made it sound like it's a made up story. That's misleading on your part.
You largely ignore the findings of the paper that shows why people are rightfully upset about the very ultra wealthy. I've said this in many many comments. It's not necessarily that I'm supporting the bottom 50% that don't pay federal income tax. I'm complaining about our effective tax rates precisely because high earners (most of us are W2's) pay a higher effective tax rate than the ultra wealthy. This is proven by the paper you cited. Note that top 1% (including top 0.1%) pay between 23.5-24.3%, yet the forbes 400 pay 20.1%?
I do not care about your upvotes or downvotes, in fact I think far less of you for investing even a syllable in explaining them, because reddit upvotes or downvotes do not affect the data at all. Data doesn't care and I don't either.
Shows that you started off citing a paper thinking you're intelligent. Then cannot come back with a single relevant counter argument. Typical redditor dismissing other redditors by claiming people don't like facts.
Anger? I laid out the analysis. You don't seem to care about facts, while bashing others for potentially not liking your fact (which is just a cited paper). You offered zero actual knowledge sharing.
Read my comment again. I only called out the downvote because you anticipated downvotes and I explained the why.
Provide data. Just saying it doesnt make it true. The Big Newsletter broke this down a few months ago and the data was pretty clear. Anyone who can do this IS doing this. The bills didnt pass these loopholes not to use them. The dude who owns Snapchat or some other social media platform just whined about how much debt he had and tried to pass off that all billionaires are in debt. Technically they are, but they get a no tax bill on that debt and capital gains and then also have loopholes for wealth transfer that minimizes estate taxes down to almost nil.
Actually we all do have a dog in this fight... I'm a top 10% earner and still feel ripped off. Here is why, from the paper. Notice how the VERY ultra wealthy pay lower than top 1%?
That's fine. The issue is average redditer who is against taxing billionaires always think it's only people who don't pay taxes or very poor people that want communism or something.
This is a good article, but it is import that they noted that the strategy is actually âbuy, save, dieâ and that the key part is the dieing. Iâd much rather they get rid of the basis reset than do a wealth tax.
Zuck is not in the "wealthy" group. He's multiple standard deviations above that level. The merely wealthy are relative plebes in this new era of wealth inequality.
Indeed, the mega, mega, mega wealthy are the hallmark of wealth inequality today, which has the highest degree of wealth inequality in American history. They are the difference between wealth inequality today and wealth inequality during the Robber Baron era. Our robber barons are richer now.
Properly reading this piece takes time I don't have but apparently you've read it.
The Conclusion section talks about the 1% and the 0.1%. Again, those groups are not Zuck's group.
In fact, in the borrowing section, 3.3, the piece states, "We do not have data on the Forbes 400, so we omit this group in our analysis of borrowing." Well, that's anti-helpful and goes against applicability here.
So why do you believe this piece has any relation to Zuck or his contemporaries when the piece appears to focus on a data set much, much, much poorer than him?
You can easily look up the history of Zuck selling off his shares of Meta (itâs a required disclosure). If heâs selling off millions of shares itâs pretty clear he isnât just borrowing money to not pay taxes.
Zuckerberg's frequent stock sales over the last few years and extremely high income make him one of the most unlikely users of this extremely rare strategy. I predicted in advance that you would be angry about this, but that doesn't make you less obviously incorrect about your kneejerk reaction to the data.
His name is "Zuckerberg," not "the Zuck cohort." There are no serious replies so far, and my previous reply adequately covers your objection in a way that you have no meaningful explanation for. You've omitted it entirely in your last outburst, which is how I know that you are currently more fueled by adrenaline and rage than by facts and evidence. Come back after you've taken some time to calm down.
Hilarious every article itâs brought up how they pay no tax. But just search SEC fillings or Google and youâll see itâs true. Undertaxed probably but they still pay the highest $ amounts.
Of course they pay taxes. I guarantee Zuckerberg will pay more money in taxes this year alone than I'll probably make in my entire life. Anyone who thinks they aren't actually paying taxes is ignorant.
The problem/question becomes though, is if they are paying the appropriate amount of taxes. If I'm in the 28% bracket for Federal taxes and Elon is only paying say 15% on a significantly larger sum of money, then obviously he isn't paying a commensurate amount. That's what needs to be targeted and talked about. Instead of just parroting the incorrect fact that they don't pay any taxes
This site says average rate is <5% while rest of us suckers are doing more like 20-30%. They should be paying more like 40% and survive in their remaining billions.
The issue with this statement/site is apparent from the first sentence in that link:
âBASED ON THEIR WEALTH GROWTH, 26 TOP BILLIONAIRES PAID AN AVERAGE INCOME TAX RATE OF JUST 4.8% OVER 6 RECENT YEARSâ
Wealth isnât income. The S&P grew by 86% between the same period this link mentions (2013-18). Half the top billionaires founded tech companies so itâs not surprising their wealth has grown.
Always my biggest hang up on the tax discussion. Yes wealth inequality is a massive problem that needs to be solved, but giving the government more money to throw into the incinerator isn't a great solution
I am conservative on economic issues. I am fine with the wealth taxes if the California State Government has a good record of doing anything good with it
Exactly, and framing the government as "what is it doing for us" on a dollar per dollar basis, Zuck paying $1b in taxes gets maybe $10m in government services, a 100:1 ratio. The median citizen is at 1:1 or even lower.
It's 2026 and you have access to the internet. You should almost never rely on someone else providing you sources. It's basic literacy to be able to find credible sources of information for yourself.
If you are unsure whether a source is credible, you can ask. But being unable to find basic information is a problem.
Buy Borrow Die isnt tax / interest free - (And Im NOT defending these freaks btw lol) they still have to pay the banks interest and they can't kick the can forever on that. Even if they die, they owe the bank interest, and the banks love these loans because they are zero risk, so they do give them a good rate.
They borrow against holdings for liquidity. They sell tons of stock for a reason. Theyâre not living their entire life on credit cards against stocks, despite what reddit would have you believe. One can easily know this by looking at massive stock sales.
He should leave Earth with his other billionaire friends. I would start taxing 100% of any income exceeding $999,999,999.99. To the argument that 'they don't actually have that money in cash,' my response is this: if they can use their assets as collateral to secure loans, then I would treat them like monopolies. Once their net worth reaches $1 billion, they would be forced to liquidate assets to ensure they never exceed that threshold. And that's just the beginning. Break them up!
"the only risk is if the entire company leaves the state, but even then itâs not really doable" why not? Why can't tech companies or any other type do it when most industrial production already moved continents?
Manufacturing also kept the offices initially, until it was all gone
It becomes even easier with remote work, and since most workers in tech in california are migrants, they'll just pack up and move again
They don't, that's why they're facing a wealth tax. I don't know if a wealth tax is the best way to go about closing this tax loophole, but it's certainly one possible solution.
They just donât want to see any movement against the wealthy. Even if the initial tax barely impacts them, itâs a sign that more will be coming in the future that will impact them, and they wonât take that sitting down.
This really has to happen at the federal level because these rich powerful fucks will find ways to punish individual states if itâs done at the state level.
They pay the taxes they're required to pay, which at the moment is nothing.
If we federally tax their assets, they would likely pay it, and there wouldn't be many ways to exit their positions without paying other taxes as well.
And yeah, they could leave the country, but the assets are in the country by definition and so could be seized if necessary.
Because you're listening to an anonymous Russian bot on the internet to get your info on how much tax they pay, rather than looking for a source that might know what they're talking about.
Yeah, nothing. They don't have any income, and that's the only thing taxed federally.
I suppose they pay a small amount of sales tax, but you don't pay sales tax when buying things like stocks or people, which is the majority of what they spend their money on
It's frustrating how the vast majority of people commenting on the sub now don't know about economics. They discuss political, social issues, morality, etc.
And they get angry when you try to articulate an argument (that can by all means be informed and influenced to some extent by your political, social or moral views) in purely economic science terms, and not political bickering with some mention of taxes, GDP, inflation or interest rates sprinkled in
I hate saying it but itâs the algorithm. Reddit just spams your sub to everyone who visits something remotely similar. I bought a house about 6 months ago and half my feed is about mortgages and home buyer stuff now.
Yeah I get the same for one of the smaller local area subreddits Iâm on. A random thread will get flooded with people from all over the west coast now if something remotely political pops up.
The Jerry Springer show at least aimed to be entertaining and different from what was on the other channels. This is more like muzak. About as boring and undifferentiated as can be.
You can have a debate over the economics of the billionaire tax or the unintended consequences of mark Zuckerberg leaving California for example. The problem is every sub just turns political.
This entire proposal is an interesting window into peopleâs thought processes and values. It seems likely that the threat of prop 40 passing have already cost the state $40B in PDV from billionaires fleeing, and take into no consideration any second or third order effects this would have on start up founders choosing California as their place of business. When confronted with this information, most responses Iâve seen are some variation of âbye Feliciaâ, which suggests to me that many supporters are less concerned with whether this policy will actually generate positive tax dollars and wonât impede economic growth in this state, and are more interested in how this will get rid of the billionaire classâŚ
so you should heed to billionaire class because they provide economic opportunities? sounds less like an economic argument but more like neoliberal argument on why conserving current practices of protecting billionaire class is good for the economy
you make it sound like we have tech because of billionaires, not because of the brilliant minds around silicon valley. itâs a typical neoliberal and conservative argument that billionaires are the reason why we have strong tech sectors. this argument provides 0 credit to employees and tech leaning education in california. it sounds like we should get in our knees to suck billionairesâ cocks because they created a whole industry sector (untrue)
Its a feedback loop, billionaires generate power law returns for investors who get rich, need to re-invest their fund, so they look for companies to invest in. Top talent is educated and moves to CA to find those investors, the investors invest in them, and some become billion dollar companies. Repeat.
So yes, what makes the CA tech sector special, is indeed the billionaires and their billion dollar companies. Smart people exist all around the world, but theres only one CA for a reason.
We have a lot of billionaires because of the tech sector. Computers, the internet, and mobile devices made it possible to develop services and apps and social media platforms which have made them rich due to tremendous scalability.
there is a lot of brilliant minds around the world. Europe has a lot of brilliant minds. Why is it that European technology companies lag behind their American counterparts ?
"Â tech leaning education in california."
What percentage of technologists are native Californians ?
Proponents arguments for this is that it would generate significant tax revenue and is a one time tax. If it leads to less revenue in present discounted value already, before it is even law, is that truly what the goal of prop 40 is?
Agree these discussions are... interesting... because people often talk about the "lost tax revenue" and other 2nd order effects of taxing the wealthy to the point of them leaving, but those very same people often simultaneously ignore the "extra costs" and other 2nd order effects of retaining said wealthy.
What extra costs are you referring to? Be specific. If the goal of prop 40 isnât to generate tax revenue long term, and to get rid of a class of people whoâs wealth and influence you dislike, thatâs fine but thatâs not how itâs being positioned and sold to the public at large.
It has 2nd order effects on a multitude of things, such as asset prices, resource diversion, politics, wages and talent acquisition.
I mean for hyperbole, just look at what happens to company towns where the company leaves the town... asset prices drop, and opens opportunities for the poor to acquire the assets and start businesses amongst each other.
And the inverse happens when wealthy move into a poorer area (aka gentrification) - the poorer people get priced out and suffer the brunt of the effects.
Read the paper. The authors want to emphasize on the point the billionaires will just leave and the state will lose out of the tax revenue. Prop 40 doesnât care if these billionaires move or not, they will be taxed based on their residency on 2026/1/1. Yes, the state may lose up to 3.9 billion per year if all the billionaires up and leave.
Prop 40âs argument isnât just tax revenue alone. California billionaires took advantages of subsidized workforce and healthcare to increase their own wealth. Over last three years, their wealth grew by 144%, thatâs over 350 billion a year. And they pay 3 billion per year over the last three years. Youâve gotten to be kidding if you think thatâs fair. Economically, it only further strengthens wealth inequality, a catastrophic failure of current policy and economic model.
Billionaires are not the reason why these companies are strong. If that was the reason, Apple should have collapsed long ago after Steve Jobs died. Their fundamental basis are the employees. California tech employees paid more in percentage of tax than the billionaires who employ them. Something is extremely wrong with society if you think that is remotely okay.
Prop 40 can drive away the billions and California can lose the billionaire class overnight and lose 3.9 billion per year after 2026. But how many billions would California will lose by subsidizing these billionairesâ lifestyles with social goods and services that make their companies significantly better? The authors of this paper are arguing unfaithfully. They are part of the issue with higher educationâs economics departments. They canât look further ahead than direct impacts on their friends and familiesâ pockets.
Who the fuck is Nic Carter? Maybe contribute to the discussion in Economics by offering a counter viewpoint, or anything other of substance on the topic?
People like these arenât serious people, the statements they make and the actions they perform are performative. Itâs a complete clown show and shouldnât be taken seriously. Donât expect serious discussions around people who are wildly unserious.
He threating to leave or is he threating to leave and relocate all his businesses in CA to Texas or Florida etc? Him leaving is no big deal really. However if he divests all his business stakes in California and forces all the employees to move, that is different.
It is not like he is "home" much. He does whatever social rotations Billionaires do. Pretty much the British Nobility from the peerage era is what they do. "Social Seasons". Nothing has changed in the past 1000+ years.
So leave. Leave the country even. Donât talk about it, be about it. California is one of the greatest places on Earth, and so is the U.S. Go on, git!
It seems like the Economics subreddit has devolved into dumb populism too, but NBER concluded the tax will be a net negative tax collector for the state. This is just a really bad law.
That's even if the law is Constitutionally sound, which is dubious. Court cases have already said that state's can't wholly target all "worldwide" income and this bill targets all wealth even wealth that's not domiciled in CA or has nexus in CA.
The retroactive nature of the tax too is legally dubious.
The valuation methodology for public stock and small company stock is arbitrary and potentially excessive which would violate the Constitution as well.
Hadn't even considered that, imagine if you owned a multimillion dollar property in a different country you have to of course pay property taxes on. Is CA going to include that in your wealth tax? The more you think about it, the more impossible it becomes.
That paper is written by two authors from the Hoover Institute which is widely regarded as a conservative thinktank. If you are citing biased resources as objective analysis, how much better are you than those you are critiquing?
Cite something to the contrary then, or address the actual paper.
You clearly think it's a gotcha to just claim bias without addressing any of the content, which it's just not. Who cares even if they come from a conservative think tank, that determines more about what they choose to study rather than the veracity of the claims.
itâs not good if they leave because we wonât be able to tax them again later. theoretically if every billionaire left we would line 3-5 billion in annual tax revenue according to his link do you acknowledge that that would theoretically be bad for working Californians or not?
It won't matter if he left. There's a date set a few years back that if you were a California resident then, the tax hits you. The "leaving" California narrative is propaganda and misinformation at this point.
The only billionaire who comes out as a good guy is Jensen, who said heâs okay with whatever tax rate is decided.
For the rest, how much money is âenoughâ and impossible to spend in one lifetime and what legacy they leave? Do you think anyone outside the yes men will respect them?!
But it's such a cop out to say that. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have said it for years because they know somebody is going to prevent it from happening or work behind the scenes themselves. There simply are no good billionaires.
Bill Gates is no angel, but he has given away billions. Same with Warren Buffet. They arenât all bad. At least when it comes to doing philanthropic work.
Definitely not as black and white as you suggest. They arenât all some sort of shade of grey. Some are darker than others.
Sure, that's true. I'll give Gates that. However, his foundation has been a primary source for billionaire tax avoidance since its inception. Which I personally haven't been able to overlook
Is it really tax avoidance if he literally gave billions away for the greater good of society? His foundation has done some seriously great work. And I seriously doubt that Bill's tax bill would have been smaller than the billions he gave away freely.
Yes it is absolutely tax avoidance. There are "charitable giving" loopholes that allow anyone to jam money into "Donor advised funds," and that money can, and does, just sit there, tax free, until the person that gave that money says "yeah, donate it here."
I am not sure I see your point. Yes some taxes werenât paid, but they donated a ton of money to presumably good causes. If I donated $10k to a good charity to save $1k in taxes, is that really tax avoidance? I mean, technically I avoided some taxes. But I paid more than the taxes to do so, theoretically doing some good for the world in the process.
Warren Buffet has also been fairly vocal about how he doesnât like the fact that his marginal tax rate is lower than many of the people who work for him. I havenât followed Bill G close enough to know if he feels the same.
Look at a real leader like Jonas Salk. He sacrificed billions of dollars by refusing to patent his drug so more people can gain access to the Polio vaccine.
Jensen is not bad at all. He donated $75M to Vanderbiltâs new Bay Area art college, $50M to Oregon State for computing, and quite a few smaller donations to local organizations like the Monterey Aquarium.
The bar is at people relocating to another state to avoid taxes, others funding elections to avoid taxes to the tune of $200m. Yes in that light, positively an angel, but I also respect Mackenzie Scott for her philanthropy, and Gates/Buffett in those terms.
Oh no! He may have to move to his property in Hawaii, or his property in Florida, or his property in Washington DC, or his property in Ireland, or his super yacht all to avoid this billionaire tax. Damn you billionaire tax! Targeting these ~~poor~~ sad people.
Of course he will leave. Probably go to the Miami area.
The only way you will get significant taxes from billionaires is a national tax not a state tax. Even then some may leave the US.
Ever wonder why gains and profits are privatized and debt is nationalized? Because of dirt bags like this and Elon. Especially when companies like Tesla use government funding to grow and scale up but god forbid they fail only the few end up winning.
Who wouldn't? I mean, seriously. Anyone sticking around for what could end up 5% coming out of their portfolio every year isn't really thinking straight.
I'd hedge my bets that Zuckerberg knows that his doomsday bunker plan is as good as a piece of wet paper and is just bluffing about it to look cool and tough.
I wonder if other billionaires have "bluffed" and taken their assets elsewhere (Musk and Tesla, 2021). Boy would California love to have that revenue back.
To prempt the expected "yeah but", give New York a look and the recent exodus of millionaires to miami who were also "bluffing". Even Governor Hochul public ally calls for them to come back lol. But sure, keep basing your economic stance on normative beliefs unsupported by anything realistic...
Edit: ironic that I would be downvoted for being honest, but if I had started a fight, I would have probably garnered up votes from the polarized crowd
This can be a concern to the States, NJ had a very wealthy investment firm owner leave the state over a tax issue, and he single handedly reduced the States revenue by (i think) 90 million, and that directly impacted a program for schools.
David Tepper left to be closer to his family in Florida according to CNBC, and he never said he left for tax reasons. We don't know how much tax revenue him leaving cost, because his taxes were never publicly disclosed. And he didn't leave because of an increase in NJ taxes, we've had the same top income tax rate since 2010 and he left in 2016; he just... left. And I looked it up, I can't find any story about a specific school program being affected.
When he left, The Star Ledger, which was the major NJ newspaper, right on a front page article, said it caused a $150 Million shortfall for the state. So it was disclosed to someone.
You might be right, my bad. Frank Haines testified under oath about the 1% drop in tax revenue, they just couldn't literally say "David Tepper leaving causes $150 million" because state tax records are confidential.
The same zuckerberg who had multiple interactions with epstein? For example in this picture epstein took:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1qy2nzh/found_a_photo_of_zuckerberg_musk_and_others_in_a/
Thieves always run. It's not like they pay taxes anyway. How much revenue is lost when these thieves flee their obligations? Honestly, they should focus on closing loopholes to make sure billionaires pay even this nominal sum
California should be so lucky. While the rest of us pay our fair share, billionaires find ways to avoid most taxes. The working class have no choice. Taxes come out of your pay and directly to the government. We need a flat tax paid by everyone. No loopholes, no exceptions.
Why do we care where he lives? When he lives here it's not like he contributes a lot either. The same goes for Sergey Brin and Larry Page and others.
They don't have any income to tax with hence the proposed billionaire tax. Unless they were buying everybody's dinner, we don't really lose anything if they move. In fact it's probably even better for housing market.
Their company still can't leave, and that's the only thing that matters.
A wealth tax is not a bad idea but also hard unless you assets are tied up in physical assets like land.
A better strategy imo is aiming to tax their consumption at a higher level. You want to live in California with your jets and yachts etc. That's fine but you will pay through the teeth to own those things here.
Such a consumption tax is still a wealth tax because then keeping their play things there still taxes them. And they won't exactly fly into lax in commerical so you get them more often. Want to look good or stay in a nice place while you are here you pay a premium.
Like imagine if you just did 100% luxury tax on any item that's a certain price or value above the standard cost of something.
Or you need to go after their IP. That's the other thing people don't understand. Billionaires get a lot from the law as an institution.
Capitalism(property rights) only works with the law or some way to enforce the rights. They technically pay very very little for such huge benefits.
The amalgamation of social capital within California is immense. If Mark Zuckerberg and all his businesses were to leave California, he would have a hard time finding the same level of talent in other states, such as Tennessee, Wyoming, Florida, or Texas.
These leeches benefit so much from everything the state provides in terms of infrastructure, education, national defense, and research spending and they refuse to pay more in taxesâŚfor what exactly? To have slightly more to pass on to their heirs? Itâs grotesque.
The modern economy makes me very sympathetic to Robespierre.
Is the concern that the one time tax can be repeated? My knowledge of Prop 40 is embarrassingly low since I feel modern wealth tax proposals are usually just spite based and not productive.
Even with that though, I wonder if this was a genuine concern for Mark or more of a bargaining/PR thing?
FFS leave then. Who actually cares where a billionaire lives? Why does everyone pretend like billionaires are some massive boon to a state economy? Whatâs the point of pretending they even pay taxes?
These people are fucking nuts. I genuinely can't imagine using tax rate as a reason to upend my and my family's lives and move to a completely different state / province, and yet it could actually make a meaningful difference to me earning six figures. Just utterly bizarre to do it when you're one of the richest guys in the world.
It's not about tax rate, it is about what is taxed.
They don't have the money on hand to pay what is asked - and trying to cash out their shares would result in disastrous losses not only for them but to other investors too - investors like pension funds.
$76 trillion US stock market value is based on $50 billion daily trade volume and brings in only several percentages in profit margins. That's very small amount of liquidity that can be taken out daily.
I'm just sayin...if you are for a wealth tax, why on earth would you want the government to have that money. In this specific case, the insanely corrupt government of California will be the only people who will benefit from a wealth tax. The Public won't see a penny, in fact, taxes will probably go up...again.
For services, duh. It worked great until dumbfucks voted Reagan in and trickle down economics became the thing. We need it again. Too much money concentrated into too few hands is a recipe for disaster. As weâre seeing now.
I agree, too much money in too few hands. But that also applies to the few greedy hands at the top of the California government. And getting rid of Billionairs in that state eliminates the competition.
Antifa-AF | 4 hours ago
Wish he would leave earth! I know the natives of Hawaii are ready to throw him in an active volcano! What a terrible human being. I laughed when I saw Mets has to pay $25BN for lying about privacy.
B00marangTrotter | 3 hours ago
I keep chumming the waters where he "surfs", one day he'll be in the water, the shark will be in the water, our shark, and he will be gobbled up like that Kintner boy.
Dun dun
#đŚ
Chunkylover666420 | an hour ago
That pretty much sums up the issue for him.
Where is he gonna go?
California is the only safe place for someone so rich and famous and hated. Where his toxic culture is socially acceptable.
Like you in Hawaii, I live in a nice community with the kind of recreation and stuff he's into, he'd probably love it here. It's very safe with almost no crime.. but, someone would kill him as soon as they found out who he was.
impoverishedwhtebrd | 20 minutes ago
Mark Zuckerberg has a 2300 acre property on Kauai .
Chunkylover666420 | 7 minutes ago
So he'll hole up in his Hawaiian bunker for the rest of his life and not be able yo leave into the local community?
epochwin | 3 hours ago
The poor shark! Thatâs animal cruelty!
shadowylurking | 29 minutes ago
Itâs Harambe all over again!
Least-Blackberry-848 | 3 hours ago
Yep! Fuck Zuck!!
sck178 | 3 hours ago
Cuckerberg
lifegrowthfinance | 3 hours ago
Should have been the entire 250B.
Unhelpfulperson | 2 hours ago
> Wish he would leave earth!
Isn't this Peter Thiel's plan?
Fickle_Junket1109 | an hour ago
I think this is why we have several billionaires trying to accelerate progress in the rocket industry
milky_mouse | 3 hours ago
Hawaii now itâs your turn lmak
brownieandSparky23 | 3 hours ago
𼰠Agee
angry_wombat | an hour ago
So that's the secret then. Hawaii just needs to pass a wealth tax for real estate owners and he'll leave
planetofthemushrooms | 2 hours ago
Metas profits in 2025 was $60B on revenue of $200B
krazyboi | 3 hours ago
Guys. Meta jobs are good jobs and good for the state. I don't think you understand what you're saying.
Antifa-AF | 3 hours ago
Hahahahhahahahahha. Good one! I built a mansion for a former Facebook engineer and he said not to let my kids have any accounts associated with that company. That was over 10 yrs ago! How long before all those âgood jobsâ are outsourced to AI?
krazyboi | 3 hours ago
You're looking at this wrong lol. Meta jobs make good money and bring revenue to the state. They're also taxed and are contributors to how much funds the city has. Income tax. Less money = more problems.
Also you sound like a bot
Smackdab99 | 2 hours ago
Until your laid off. Â Meta is well known for hiring and laying off constantly. Â That ridiculous metaverse cost a lot of jobs.
krazyboi | 2 hours ago
It is still a net positive to have meta in California.
Smackdab99 | 2 hours ago
Meta isnât leaving, mark is and thatâs fine.
Necessary_Cost_9355 | 2 hours ago
They arenât taxed enough to offset the damage done to the country, so youâre kinda missing the forest for the trees
Antifa-AF | 2 hours ago
Bub bye!
IMitchIRob | 2 hours ago
I bet this changed their minds
Jabjab345 | 2 hours ago
Reddit loves slopulism, they just want to inflict pain on their perceived enemies and they don't care about what it would actually mean in the end. You'd think this sub would be safer from that line of thinking, but alas.
PlantedinCA | 3 hours ago
His Palo Alto neighbors will have a block party to celebrate. These billionaires are so useless. No community involvement or philanthropy*. A lot of yachts.
Chan Zuckerberg was ok while it lasted but once Trump came calling they stopped supporting many orgs and didnât honor their commitments. They promised funds and said âjust kiddingâ before delivery and fired the grant managers.
WeAlmostAlwaysAlmost | 59 minutes ago
What neighbors? At one point he was buying up all the houses around him so he wouldnât have to have any, just like he did in Hawaii.
PlantedinCA | 34 minutes ago
Not as easy in Palo Alto.
https://people.com/mark-zuckerberg-purchased-11-palo-alto-homes-in-14-years-for-110m-11789071
deadbeatsummers | 2 hours ago
He can just go to his Hawaiian compound lol like bye
UnclePsilocybe | 4 hours ago
Meta agreed to issue mark new shares to give him breathing room? you're telling me the 6th richest person in the world is struggling right now?
Workreddit1234567 | 3 hours ago
The proposed wealth tax and the pushback aren't just about the actual dollars. It's mostly about retaining voting control of these companies. The proposal includes a provision that could effectively tax founders based on their voting power rather than their actual economic ownership.
Bloomberg estimated that under a literal interpretation of the proposal, Sergey Brin could face a $59 billion tax bill, Larry Page $64 billion, and Zuckerberg $47 billion. That's an effective tax rate of roughly 19â22% of their actual net worth, not the advertised 5%.
These estimates are disputed, but that's the concern. People like Brin, Page, and Zuckerberg could potentially be forced to liquidate enormous amounts of stock to cover these liabilities, jeopardizing their voting control over the companies they founded. It's not simply a matter of whether they're wealthy enough to pay the tax. It's also about potentially losing control of their own companies. Hence Meta's class C shares.
ants_are_everywhere | 2 hours ago
What would happen if Brin and Page liquidated collectively $123 billion in Google stock and Zuckerberg liquidated $47 billion in meta stock in the timespan required by the bill?
Fenris_uy | 2 hours ago
Alphabet Market cap would be 3.0T instead of 4T. Not that much of a problem.
Probably the same for Meta, they would go from 1.7T to 1.3T.
If the fundamentals are that the companies are worth their current market share, then the value would go up again.
Semper-Veritas | 2 hours ago
Alphabet and Meta would face an immediate ~25% collapse in its equity value which would wreck havoc on its balance sheet, that doesnât seem like much of a problem to you?
ants_are_everywhere | an hour ago
I meant more what would happen to people's retirement accounts
Semper-Veritas | an hour ago
Might have replied to the wrong person, I think anyone who is invested in any broad market index fund would be in for a rude awakening though
ants_are_everywhere | an hour ago
I responded to you because you seemed to know more what you were talking about.
I was asking it as a serious question. I am curious what would happen in first order and downstream effects due to a large selloff.
It seems like an immediate sale that big would be a large shock, But I assume the details would depend on the wording of the bill, how the owners strategize, how the economy is doing overall, etc.
Semper-Veritas | an hour ago
Fair enough! I think this is would in the short term cause market volatility as Wall Street reconfigures its valuation models due to introduced risk from forced sell offs and loss of voting control of these company founders. The sell offs from founders would likely trigger sell offs from institutional investors who will take some time to assess and come to consensus where the new market value truly is, and will almost certainly be pricing in the risk of this one time tax happening again. Downwards pressure on tech companies and anyone downstream of them would hurt most peopleâs portfolios, hard to say when they would bounce back.
ants_are_everywhere | an hour ago
okay thanks I appreciate it! that's a useful framing
pacman2081 | 53 minutes ago
Also insurance companies, pension funds will be hit. that would be a second order effect
Fenris_uy | 2 hours ago
They are going to need to pay a little more in interest rates for a couple of years, their fundamentals don't change because their market value went down.
Alphabet would still have revenues of more than $110B per quarter. They would need to cut a little in their AI capex, instead of using $50B per quarter, they probably would need to cut to $40B or $45B due to the extra cost on interest. The company only cares about their own value when they are getting loans or issuing bonds/stocks.
matjoeman | an hour ago
Alphabet would still be up from its price 1 year ago
pacman2081 | 54 minutes ago
" Alphabet Market cap would be 3.0T instead of 4T. Not that much of a problem."
A whole bunch of us have money in S&P Index in retirement accounts
ArtificialOrthodox | 55 minutes ago
Oh no! Their hundreds of billions of dollars would be reduced to mere hundreds of billions of dollars!
growaway9172 | 48 minutes ago
Its not their hundreds of billionaires of dollars, the vast majority economic ownership of these companies is not the founders, its investment funds and indexes which manage peoples wealth, 401ks, etc.
GrumbleAlong | 3 hours ago
This. The proposed bill targets ownership and control of the founders of these large tech corps
falooda1 | 3 hours ago
I'm sure they can figure out a way to separate the two... Or they can start giving dividends again instead of pumping share prices through buybacjs so the dividends can pay the taxes.
Instead of giving up on getting them to pay their fair share.
Imagine if the gov just gave up on property tax because you'd have to sell your stake in your house to pay it... That's right, they don't.
needaname1234 | 3 hours ago
This is theor way to separate the two, issue new shares....
snark42 | 2 hours ago
> That's right, they don't.
Senior Homestead exmptions, Senior Freezes, maximum increases, etc. are all ways the government gave up on collecting property tax where it could be seen as a burden on the homeowner.
This is the same issue for the business owner/controller with this wealth tax.
If they had just made it on the cash value of the shares I would have an easier time supporting it.
Spooner71 | 3 hours ago
Prop 13 in California instituted a cap on the annual increase of the tax base for property taxes at 2%. Many people who bought property in the 80's/90's would not be able to afford their homes today and would have to sell if Prop 13 didn't exist. So not sure what your point is.
growaway9172 | 43 minutes ago
> start giving dividends
This assumes that these companies are making a profit to be able to do this, which is not always the case. Also, dividends are generally bad news for companies, it means they have stalled.
cyrilio | 3 hours ago
anyone that still has a billion dollars after paying taxes should stop complaining. Their hording wealth is actively harming the rest of the worlds prosperity.
VoidAndOcean | 3 hours ago
Its not wealth until they sell. Its just voting power over a company.
content_enjoy3r | 2 hours ago
When you can use it as collateral to take out millions or billions in loans to live off of forever, yes it is.
Seaman_First_Class | 2 hours ago
Should I lose control of my company simply because other people decide itâs too valuable?
matjoeman | 2 hours ago
...yes? If it's worth 10s of billions probably it shouldn't be controlled by just one person.
growaway9172 | 46 minutes ago
The only way it gets to be worth that much is because of one person controlling it. You wouldn't have Amazon, Microsoft, SpaceX, or the internet without these kinds of people. Committees do not work.
content_enjoy3r | 42 minutes ago
If a company can't be successful without being run by narcissistic psychopaths with insatiable greed that would gladly destroy the planet and everyone on it for an extra billion dollars they don't need tacked on to their net worth, then those companies don't deserve to exist. The Bezos, Zuckerbergs, and Musks of the world are not special. The world will get along just fine if they did not exist.
growaway9172 | 23 minutes ago
Almost every feature of modern life you enjoy, like the computer you type this on, the servers reddit is hosted on, the vehicle you drive, is in large part because a billionaire built it.
What do you propose as the alternative? The government nationalizes every company and runs everything? You know we have historical examples to see how well that went?
FindingRelevantInfo | 2 hours ago
Yes and it's not their company, it's a public company.
If they wanted to retain control so much, they should not have gone public.
growaway9172 | 47 minutes ago
You misunderstand what a public company is. It is not a state owned enterprise, which would give the public control over a it. A public company simply means its shares and dividends are offered on public markets, instead of private ones.
Best_Change4155 | 42 minutes ago
>not their company, it's a public company
And a member of the public owns controlling shares.
VoidAndOcean | an hour ago
Its not hoarded or allocated is it? That loan is all that you have. Tax the loan not the stock.
growaway9172 | 46 minutes ago
The loan is taxed, the person making interest on it has to pay taxes on that income.
Solid_Owl | 56 minutes ago
I have a hard time caring. If we want to consider their ownership and influence in these companies as part of their wealth, fine.
I like that it raises the question of why we tie control to stock shares. Maybe we should take another look at that.
growaway9172 | 42 minutes ago
Its just the default method of ownership of corporations. As you can see in the case of these super voting shares, it is not tied to stock shares, they have special provisions.
bhenghisfudge | 3 hours ago
Sounds great!
WingerRules | 2 hours ago
No one understands the burden of being wealthy.
Mrikoko | 4 hours ago
Do these people even pay taxes in the first place? All they do is borrow against their holdings and rarely if ever sell anything. They donât even get a salary - or a tiny one. At this point, the only risk is if the entire company leaves the state, but even then itâs not really doable. The environment is too entrenched in Silicon Valley. Even Tesla keeps huge offices here despite moving to TX. So once again, whereâs the downside?
Econmajorhere | 4 hours ago
There is none. Big tech like Meta thrive on the talent pool in Silicon Valley, thereâs a ton of tech workers hopping between the big companies based on whoever will pay them most at that moment. Zuck can pretend that he will move FB to bufu Ohio but then he might have to pay talent quite a bit more to move out there. This might work for average engineers but I doubt would work for the top talent in AI that wouldnât want to give up exit opps of literal tens of millions.
They just do this to threaten away bills/have other states make counter offers to drive down whatever costs they would incur in original stateâŚsame as sports arenas.
Hawk13424 | 3 hours ago
He doesnât have to move Meta. He just has to move himself.
Econmajorhere | 3 hours ago
Iâm assuming he wonât manage the company fully remotely, particularly now that theyâre getting into hardware. And if going to office in CA, an audit would easily prove his wealth is tied to the state. I say this as someone living abroad and while my state wasnât as aggressive as CA, they still came after me after 3 years of literally not living there (or in the country).
Itâs extremely difficult to divorce from the three big states, their Dept of Revenue is like IRS on steroids.
kernelangus420 | 3 hours ago
This was mentioned in the linked article:
>Meta said Zuckerberg raised concerns to a special committee within the company that his potential relocation could be a risk to the company because it would âraise questionsâ about management among employees. In response, Meta negotiated a new stock deal with Zuckerberg to keep him in California in case the tax passes. The company added that it was important to keep Zuckerberg close to its Menlo Park headquarters, noting challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
justins_dad | 2 hours ago
Wait this changes the entire context lol
Emergency-Style7392 | 2 hours ago
Like 83% of tech workers were not born in california lol, and like 2/3 are foreigners, they'll just move to another place again
morbie5 | 3 hours ago
> Zuck can pretend that he will move FB to bufu Ohio
He isn't threatening that. He is just saying he might move his own residency.
I'm for a wealth tax but the way this one is designed is kinda stupid and I doubt a state level wealth tax will work anyway, we would need a federal wealth tax (which is unrealistic at this time)
Econmajorhere | 3 hours ago
Yes, I was responding/supporting the comment above mine. Agreed that federal level is the only actual viable option and wonât happen unless Congress shifts dramatically with a supportive president in charge.
Sergey Brinâs fight against the tax shows us a couple things: they know they canât move residency/domicile that easily, and they realize this could get adopted by other states. No other reason heâd spend $130M fighting it.
The intangible part that most people miss - for someone this fabulously wealthy, there arenât many enclaves in US where they can find their âcommunity.â Maybe Sergey and Zuck donât care but they canât just take their wives and kids to middle of nowhere. This income bracket needs their private schools, organic farms producing foods, charity events and various dinners where they rub shoulders with their âequivalents.â If CA and NY adopt this tax, that kinda closes most of their relocation options.
morbie5 | an hour ago
> and wonât happen unless Congress shifts dramatically with a supportive president in charge.
It needs more than that, it would either need a constitutional amendment or 5 of 9 on the supreme court to agree that it isn't a 'direct tax'
> If CA and NY adopt this tax, that kinda closes most of their relocation options.
There is South Florida and Texas. Not as good as California and New York but for plenty of billionaires or multimillionaires (cuz there is no point in implementing something like this to just tax only those with over $1 billion) it'll probably be fine
pacman2081 | an hour ago
"Sergey Brinâs fight against the tax shows us a couple things: they know they canât move residency/domicile that easily, and they realize this could get adopted by other states. No other reason heâd spend $130M fighting it."
There are 8 states without state income tax
Amish_Rabbi | 2 hours ago
I canât remember which state it is (say the YouTube video a while ago) but there is one that has a wealth tax (Michigan maybe)
pacman2081 | an hour ago
most of top talent is not native Californians. In fact they are not even native Americans. they will go where the money is
Prefer_Diet_Soda | 4 hours ago
But I feel like for companies like Meta, people wouldn't mind moving to wherever Meta wants to move to.
Econmajorhere | 3 hours ago
Nah my roommate (and undergrad buddy) is a Stanford PhD grad and researcher. Weâre currently living in SEA and he keeps crying about not being in Bay Area because thatâs where heâd make the most/stay networked/stay competitive.
Sure for a big enough package heâd move anywhere (thatâs how we ended up here) but the demand for these researchers (particularly Ivies) is absolutely wild right now. Most of these guys want to get in on one AI lab/fund, line up the next one, wait till vest and leave immediately for a higher package, then do the same. Being in one geo is a massive advantage here to maximize overall compensation.
Engineering was the same during covid with a ton of cross pollination going on but AI and layoffs have slowed that down now, the researchers are what everyone wants and the difference could literally be hundreds of thousands per year not counting RSUs.
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 3 hours ago
The "buy, borrow, die" strategy is sort of an internet myth, the data is quite clear that it is an extremely rare strategy for the wealthy. I am going to get downvoted for pointing this out but it does not make the data wrong, it just makes you wrong and angry about it.
Slotstick | 3 hours ago
Im not through reading the full paper yet, about 40% done. However there are some issues I would like to mention about it. My opinion may change further into the paper, but I have to put it down for now and digest it.
I find their framing of unrealised gains and debt strange. It is common for many, even low-tier, wealth management firms utilise things like Security Backed Lines of Credit(SBLOC)s. Which is a form of borrowing using your investment portfolio as collateral for a line of credit and unless I missed it. They included things like fixed income, bank notes, and others, but the most popular vehicle for utilising your portfolio for liquid cash was absent. Maybe I missed their reference to this collaterised debt.
Do you not consider using your (the figurative your) HELOC as debt?
Either way, the paper so far has not grappled with the other piece of this which is wealthy individuals will utilise irrevocable trusts. Which again, is allowed by tax law, but significantly shift a tax profile. This isnât caught in their higher-level view and just kind of assumed away from what I can tell. Correct me if I am wrong obviously, because I havenât finished yet.
Now this next part I am using as an example because I feel the paper hasnât addressed this, at least to the point that I am at. Ultra wealthy individualsâ estates become quite complex obviously, but someone common in the majority of estates is how to transfer the tax burden to those with lower tax basis and ensure generational wealth while doing it. Asset freezes, CLTs, CRTs, ILITs are all utilised to benefit one, if not both, of those objectives.
At a high level view, I certainly see why the paper would reach the conclusion it has. As someone with credentials and experience in the field, I see a lack of understanding thus far in understanding the breadth of tools available to ultra wealthy individuals and am not confident in its opinion thus far.
I have raised these points because I would have included them into the data being provided in the material at this stage since similar vehicles were addressed.
CupTableChair1 | 3 hours ago
Iâve tried explaining this to people who spread this bullshit myth. They never get it.
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 3 hours ago
I appreciate ya brother
Long-Blood | 3 hours ago
This is a really popular talking point among a lot of billionaire bootlickers who never even read the article.
If you actually read it, it doesnt help your cause at all.
First of all, they make it a point to say much of their data is extrapolated from the survey of consumer finances and only covers household borrowing, while clearly stating there is no way to track individual borrowing through business entities that are not covered by the survey. They also omit data on the forbes 400.
I especially like how it clearly points out that income tax, or AGI, only captures about 60% of the total economic income of the top 1%. Only 16% of that is salary. The rest is business income, realized capital gains, and dividends and interest.
40% of their total yearly economic income is not taxed.
" Over 2004â2022, for the top 0.1 % (excluding Forbes), average tax rates drop from 24 % using AGI to 12 % using economic income as the benchmark, while rates fall only from 10 % to 9 % for the 50-90th percentiles. Still, average tax rates as a share of economic income rise across the wealth groups until the top 0.1 %, after which average tax rates then fall"
Even this article shows that the ultra wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. It doesnt matter if they pay over half the total income tax. Based on their total economic income, they should be paying closer to 99% of all income tax. Thats how insanely rich they are.
It also states that although their "new economic borrowing" year to year is only 1-2%, their total borrowing over a lifetime is more than enough to cover their consumption levels.
"Since the top 1 %âs assets are 47 % un- realized gains, their borrowing would have unlocked about $475 billion of unrealized gains if it displaced sales of average assets. The parallel figure for the next 9 % is unlocking $1.45 trillion of unrealized gains. Likewise, new borrowing by the top 1 % is economically meaningful: $62 billion in 2022, potentially unlocking another roughly $30 billion in unrealized gains. These findings align with Fox and Liscow (2024)âs conclusion that taxing ultra-wealthy Americansâ new and existing borrowing as a partial realization of their appreciated assets could raise considerable revenue."
They borrow a lot, a little over 1 trillion per year, but compared to their total net worth, it only makes up about 2% of their total net worth. They simply are unable to spend their money faster than it compounds on itself.
Nevertheless, this 2% alone is more than enough to to cover their consumption levels.
Snlxdd | 2 hours ago
You donât need loans to avoid paying taxes on your accumulated wealth. Itâs as simple as realizing less of your gains because they accumulate an absurd amount of wealth.
You can argue that they should be taxed more (Iâd agree) but itâs a separate argument from âtheyâre avoiding all their taxes by using loansâ
Youâre also misinterpreting âwould have unlockedâ as âdid unlockâ. Thatâs just a theoretical upper limit
Long-Blood | 2 hours ago
No im not misinterpreting it. I understand it is theoretical.
Im just really tired of people posting this article without reading it.
Buy borrow die is still a tax avoidance strategy. The top 1% wealthiest borrow around 1 trillion a year against their assets to spend it on nice things and do not have to pay income taxes on it.
But compared to their total wealth accumulation, 1 trillion is such a small amount that it has minimal effect on the overall tax they would pay if all income was taxed equally. Â Yearly it could theoretically contribute another 400 billion to federal tax revenue which is close to 1/5 of our current deficit. That would be extremely helpful in slowing national debt growth
Snlxdd | 2 hours ago
If you understand itâs theoretical, why are you making a definitive statement that they borrow over $1 trillion a year?
Long-Blood | an hour ago
The borrowing is real.
The tax they otherwise would have paid if they sold assets instead of borrowed new money is theoretical
joshcandoit4 | 2 hours ago
>If you actually read it, it doesnt help your cause at all.
What? That is literally from the abstract
"suggesting that âbuy, borrow, dieâ is not a dominant tax avoidance strategy for the rich"
Long-Blood | 2 hours ago
Youre not interpreting it correctly. Its not a dominant tax avoidance strategy because it only applies to a small % of their yearly economic income. Its still a tax avoidance strategy.
Read the whole article.
They dont NEED to borrow much because compared to the total amount they make per year, the amount they borrow yearly is only 1-2% of their total net worth, but still more than enough to cover all of their expenses.
So they they can borrow a small % of their net worth to live off on while their total net worth grows exponentially more untaxed.
Its still a tax avoidance strategy, it just is not dominant because it only covers a small percent of their wealth
Big_Joosh | 2 hours ago
Youâre not mad at the strategy youâre mad at not being able to tax unrealized gains. Which is just absolutely mind fuckingly stupid to be mad about.
Long-Blood | an hour ago
Its not stupid to be mad about when they are raking in trillions of dollars of new wealth every year, while the government is actively and unecessarily stimulating the financial system and allowing inflation to stay elevated which is crushing people who actually do work for a living.
The national debt helped make them rich. There is a direct correlation between government debt growth and passive wealth growth.
And theyre seriously talking about taxing WORKERS more?!
Like i said. Fuck that. Stop stimulating the financial system and tax the wealth that was created by all this debt spending.
Big_Joosh | an hour ago
At least we agree on something. Balance the budget.
Unfortunately the only way to do that is to cut expenditures like social security and the likes.
Long-Blood | an hour ago
Why is that the only way?
What would happen if we found new ways to tax wealth through financial transactions?
Literally what would happen? Not just your best guess.
What would happen if we reversed the Trump and Bush tax cuts? What would that do to the federal deficit?
The government collected 200 billion from capital gains tax in 2024. But the stock market grew by 11 trillion in value. We only collected 1.8% of the new growth while we went over budget by 2 trillion.
It sounds to me like we are missing a huge opportunity to collect more revenue from the financial system.
Big_Joosh | an hour ago
How does taxing unrealized gains work?
joshcandoit4 | an hour ago
This response just says that they borrow (which is true and undisputed). Buy Borrow Die is a strategy that asserts that they continually pay off existing loans with new loans perpetually until death, at which point the step up basis is reset for their beneficiaries and the government doesn't get the capital gains taxes.
You're likely to find that most of us agree that taxation on the rich is outdated and should be changed. But this specific theory is circulated constantly on reddit - that they are specifically avoiding paying taxes forever by simply borrowing money until they die. This assertion is unfounded and as stated in the article it is empirically uncommon.
Long-Blood | an hour ago
The study basically says that although they do borrow money tax free and spend it, its no where near the total amount they accumulate as income per year and has a smaller overall effect on their theoretical tax burden than people say.
It doesnt make the argument wrong, it just minimizes the gravity of it.
Turns out the most significant way they avoid taxes is by just not spending a majority of the money. But its practically impossible to spend that much money anyway..
What i also like about it is how it replaces AGI with total economic income which highlights just how small a percent they actually pay compared to their total income and compared to the rest of us working losers.
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
>billionaire bootlickers
Yes, I anticipated your extreme outrage in advance, that doesn't make the data less correct. Go ahead and shake your fist about whatever you'd like but that doesn't move the data one iota.
AddanDeith | an hour ago
He had a pretty in depth critique and i think its interesting for you to just dismiss it out of hand because he used that phrase. To me, it seems like a cop out and suggests that you either didn't read your own source or don't understand what they are talking about.
OSPF99 | 2 hours ago
Already know when someone leads off with that they aren't arguing in good faith
Long-Blood | 2 hours ago
Read the damn article before you jump to conclusions.
Its a damning article about just how little the top 1% pay in taxes compared to their total economic income and how outdated our tax system is compared to all the ways they are able to avoid paying.
Long-Blood | 2 hours ago
Read what i wrote moron
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
Jeeze Louise redditors are quick to anger
Long-Blood | 2 hours ago
Only when arguing with people who half assedly parrot bs talking points without doing any actual research
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
Quite peculiar how people get so angry about this stuff. I think some people have somehow made their objectively incorrect beliefs about tax strategy into their entire personalities, and so they start mentally cracking apart when they see any data to the contrary. You are just one of a couple dozen repliers I've gotten who are currently in a state of total mental collapse with how much outrage they're feeling, just as I anticipated.
Long-Blood | 2 hours ago
I read the article and it says billionaires pay much less tax as a percent of income than the rest of us.
Then people like you say they pay more grossly than us without actually reading the research that proves its much less than they should be paying.
So excuse me if im feeling a little frustrated with your complete ignorance.
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
Can you show me where I said that "they pay more grossly than us?" If not, when can I expect your apology and retraction?
dontnation | 47 minutes ago
That's the one part that you decided to refute?
eduh_almeida | 2 hours ago
I feel small on Reddit. I'm dumb but here I FEEL dumb.
pacman2081 | an hour ago
"They borrow a lot, a little over 1 trillion per year, but compared to their total net worth, it only makes up about 2% of their total net worth. "
You assumed the billionaire class net worth is $50 trillion
Long-Blood | an hour ago
The study says the top 1%. Thats net worths over 13 million. The top 1% net worth is around 55 trillion total today
Top 0.1% average net worth 62million
pacman2081 | 50 minutes ago
we are discussing billionaires. the title of the thread says so
randomlydancing | an hour ago
It's just taking on debt. Everyone can do this too. Just watch them take out 60% on their stocks then perpetually pay interest and worry about getting liquidated. Great hack lol
Mrikoko | 3 hours ago
Who is angry?
12-34 | 2 hours ago
They've got a chip on their shoulder for some reason.
bomilk19 | 3 hours ago
Wouldnât you consider Mark Zuckerberg to be an extremely wealthy person? Why is it so difficult to believe that he would take advantage of this extremely rare strategy?
CupTableChair1 | 3 hours ago
He clearly isnât using the strategy as you can find him selling millions of Facebook shares to fund his life (vs taking loans like this strategy implies).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/mark-zuckerberg-has-sold-296-million-of-facebook-shares-in-august.html
https://fortune.com/2024/12/13/mark-zuckerberg-stock-sales-meta-shares-all-time-high/
Slotstick | 2 hours ago
Why does his prearranged stock sell schedule preclude him from utilising tools that minimise tax burden?
CupTableChair1 | 2 hours ago
The whole premise of the borrowing money âstrategyâ is that you donât have to sell stocks because you just borrow against them.
To be clear, these loans do exist. However they are typically used as short term bridge loans.
Plus for billionaires, even if they did borrow till they die they still get hit with inheritance tax and end up paying the tax then.
Slotstick | 2 hours ago
I donât disagree for their use case. I have personally used SBLOCs as part of my own financial planning.
I also agree that they donât just borrow and thatâs all there is. The utilise many tools to reduce their tax burden as I would encourage anyone to for tools that are available to them.
There is no reason his prearranged stock divestures exclude him from using tools like SBLOCs, asset freezing, and or the plethora of ways to help with their tax bill is my point.
Its much more complicated than just borrowing with collateral, but the financial engineering yields pretty solid results when it comes to taxes.
Adventurous-Roof488 | 3 hours ago
Itâs rare because itâs stupid. The wealthy are highly liquid because they earn more than they can spend.
klingma | 3 hours ago
Because the strategy is ultimately stupid?
It inherently represents a strain on cash flow that's wholly unsustainable.
justins_dad | 2 hours ago
This is literally unpublished. Why use this source?
Fearless-Cattle-9698 | 3 hours ago
You get my downvote not because of your link. The article is genuine, a researched by Yale. You get the downvote because you're clearly doing the exact same thing, which is over-simplfying. To clarify, I agree with the findings that it's not like these billionaires are funding 90% of their living expenses through loans. But I can sum up why you deserve a downvote in 2 bullet points.
You claim it's just a myth. The paper you cited confirmed loans on stocks is a REAL mechanism. The issue with it not being as impactful as general public feeling is because it only accounts for 4% of the unrealized gains. That's a fair argument to make, but the way you phrased it made it sound like it's a made up story. That's misleading on your part.
You largely ignore the findings of the paper that shows why people are rightfully upset about the very ultra wealthy. I've said this in many many comments. It's not necessarily that I'm supporting the bottom 50% that don't pay federal income tax. I'm complaining about our effective tax rates precisely because high earners (most of us are W2's) pay a higher effective tax rate than the ultra wealthy. This is proven by the paper you cited. Note that top 1% (including top 0.1%) pay between 23.5-24.3%, yet the forbes 400 pay 20.1%?
|Wealth group|Tax / AGI|Tax / economic income| |:-|:-|:-| |50thâ90th percentile|9.9%|8.6%| |90thâ99th percentile|18.4%|13.7%| |99thâ99.9th percentile|23.5%|15.8%| |Top 0.1%, excluding Forbes 400|24.3%|12.1%| |Forbes 400|20.1%|9.6%|
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
I do not care about your upvotes or downvotes, in fact I think far less of you for investing even a syllable in explaining them, because reddit upvotes or downvotes do not affect the data at all. Data doesn't care and I don't either.
Fearless-Cattle-9698 | 2 hours ago
And I don't care whether you care or not. You made the disclaimer you're getting downvoted and I'm explaining why you deserve it.
I love how you have zero counter argument about my points and just go off in a emotional dodging
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
Why would you love that?
Fearless-Cattle-9698 | 2 hours ago
Shows that you started off citing a paper thinking you're intelligent. Then cannot come back with a single relevant counter argument. Typical redditor dismissing other redditors by claiming people don't like facts.
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
Jeepers you guys are quick to anger. My prediction about receiving blind rage is absolutely golden so far.
Fearless-Cattle-9698 | 2 hours ago
Anger? I laid out the analysis. You don't seem to care about facts, while bashing others for potentially not liking your fact (which is just a cited paper). You offered zero actual knowledge sharing.
Read my comment again. I only called out the downvote because you anticipated downvotes and I explained the why.
iloveurarse | 3 hours ago
Provide data. Just saying it doesnt make it true. The Big Newsletter broke this down a few months ago and the data was pretty clear. Anyone who can do this IS doing this. The bills didnt pass these loopholes not to use them. The dude who owns Snapchat or some other social media platform just whined about how much debt he had and tried to pass off that all billionaires are in debt. Technically they are, but they get a no tax bill on that debt and capital gains and then also have loopholes for wealth transfer that minimizes estate taxes down to almost nil.
HeyNiceOneGuy | 3 hours ago
The comment youâre replying to has a 56 page academic paper on the topic full of data analysis lmao
I donât have a dog in this fight either way but leading your reply with âProvide dataâ was a little weird
Fearless-Cattle-9698 | 3 hours ago
Actually we all do have a dog in this fight... I'm a top 10% earner and still feel ripped off. Here is why, from the paper. Notice how the VERY ultra wealthy pay lower than top 1%?
|Wealth group|Tax / AGI|Tax / economic income| |:-|:-|:-| |50thâ90th percentile|9.9%|8.6%| |90thâ99th percentile|18.4%|13.7%| |99thâ99.9th percentile|23.5%|15.8%| |Top 0.1%, excluding Forbes 400|24.3%|12.1%| |Forbes 400|20.1%|9.6%|
HeyNiceOneGuy | 3 hours ago
I meant on this comment thread specifically but congrats on your money big dawg
Fearless-Cattle-9698 | 3 hours ago
That's fine. The issue is average redditer who is against taxing billionaires always think it's only people who don't pay taxes or very poor people that want communism or something.
TylerColfax | 3 hours ago
This is a good article, but it is import that they noted that the strategy is actually âbuy, save, dieâ and that the key part is the dieing. Iâd much rather they get rid of the basis reset than do a wealth tax.
CupTableChair1 | 3 hours ago
That doesnât apply to ultra wealthy because they get hit with estate tax prior to basis reset.
farmallnoobies | 3 hours ago
Regardless of how they do it, nobody should ever become a billionaire. And especially not a trillionaire.
Any net worth over a hundred million dollars or so should have a federal asset tax rate of 100%, and all proceeds redistributed to the masses.
CupTableChair1 | 3 hours ago
So the government should just take someoneâs company they built?
pHyR3 | 3 hours ago
they dont have to run it, just sell the proceeds at market value and use it on public goods
zuck will still have $100bil, he will be okay
CupTableChair1 | 3 hours ago
That doesnât make sense
pHyR3 | 57 minutes ago
why not?
12-34 | 3 hours ago
>extremely rare strategy for the wealthy
Zuck is not in the "wealthy" group. He's multiple standard deviations above that level. The merely wealthy are relative plebes in this new era of wealth inequality.
Indeed, the mega, mega, mega wealthy are the hallmark of wealth inequality today, which has the highest degree of wealth inequality in American history. They are the difference between wealth inequality today and wealth inequality during the Robber Baron era. Our robber barons are richer now.
Properly reading this piece takes time I don't have but apparently you've read it.
The Conclusion section talks about the 1% and the 0.1%. Again, those groups are not Zuck's group.
In fact, in the borrowing section, 3.3, the piece states, "We do not have data on the Forbes 400, so we omit this group in our analysis of borrowing." Well, that's anti-helpful and goes against applicability here.
So why do you believe this piece has any relation to Zuck or his contemporaries when the piece appears to focus on a data set much, much, much poorer than him?
CupTableChair1 | 2 hours ago
You can easily look up the history of Zuck selling off his shares of Meta (itâs a required disclosure). If heâs selling off millions of shares itâs pretty clear he isnât just borrowing money to not pay taxes.
12-34 | 2 hours ago
Question's about his wealth cohort, not just Zuck. Hence "Zuck or his Contemporaries".
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 3 hours ago
Zuckerberg's frequent stock sales over the last few years and extremely high income make him one of the most unlikely users of this extremely rare strategy. I predicted in advance that you would be angry about this, but that doesn't make you less obviously incorrect about your kneejerk reaction to the data.
12-34 | 2 hours ago
Uh, where do you see me "angry"? Asking reasoned questions is anger?
"Kneejerk reaction"? I asked questions because you presented a source. Sources and opinions are not sacrosanct and can and should be questioned.
Pretty ironic the one alleging anger is the one spitting defensive, emotional assertions at people.
And you still didn't address the point about this piece's applicability to the Zuck cohort instead of the wealthy cohort. Still waiting.
Terrible_Bee_6876 | 2 hours ago
His name is "Zuckerberg," not "the Zuck cohort." There are no serious replies so far, and my previous reply adequately covers your objection in a way that you have no meaningful explanation for. You've omitted it entirely in your last outburst, which is how I know that you are currently more fueled by adrenaline and rage than by facts and evidence. Come back after you've taken some time to calm down.
12-34 | 2 hours ago
You seriously need help. I hope you get it. I also hope you're not in academia.
Snlxdd | 3 hours ago
âAll they do is borrow against their holdings and rarely if ever sell anythingâ
The idea that this is ubiquitous is a Reddit myth. Especially given the current interest rate environment.
mattw08 | 3 hours ago
Hilarious every article itâs brought up how they pay no tax. But just search SEC fillings or Google and youâll see itâs true. Undertaxed probably but they still pay the highest $ amounts.
caterham09 | 2 hours ago
This is the nuance that always gets lost.
Of course they pay taxes. I guarantee Zuckerberg will pay more money in taxes this year alone than I'll probably make in my entire life. Anyone who thinks they aren't actually paying taxes is ignorant.
The problem/question becomes though, is if they are paying the appropriate amount of taxes. If I'm in the 28% bracket for Federal taxes and Elon is only paying say 15% on a significantly larger sum of money, then obviously he isn't paying a commensurate amount. That's what needs to be targeted and talked about. Instead of just parroting the incorrect fact that they don't pay any taxes
justins_dad | 2 hours ago
This site says average rate is <5% while rest of us suckers are doing more like 20-30%. They should be paying more like 40% and survive in their remaining billions.
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/based-wealth-growth-26-top-billionaires-paid-average-income-tax-rate-just-4-8-6-recent-years/
Segull | 28 minutes ago
The issue with this statement/site is apparent from the first sentence in that link:
âBASED ON THEIR WEALTH GROWTH, 26 TOP BILLIONAIRES PAID AN AVERAGE INCOME TAX RATE OF JUST 4.8% OVER 6 RECENT YEARSâ
Wealth isnât income. The S&P grew by 86% between the same period this link mentions (2013-18). Half the top billionaires founded tech companies so itâs not surprising their wealth has grown.
pacman2081 | 59 minutes ago
A California resident like Zuckerberg pays
20% to IRS for long term capital gains
3.8% Net Investment Tax to the feds for ACA
13.3% to the State of California
That adds up to 37.1% with no loopholes here. That is not low. Can you go slightly higher ? Probably.
Would the government do anything useful with it ? Unlikely
caterham09 | 55 minutes ago
>would the government do anything useful with it?
Always my biggest hang up on the tax discussion. Yes wealth inequality is a massive problem that needs to be solved, but giving the government more money to throw into the incinerator isn't a great solution
pacman2081 | 52 minutes ago
I am conservative on economic issues. I am fine with the wealth taxes if the California State Government has a good record of doing anything good with it
growaway9172 | 40 minutes ago
Do you think the last few years of spending increases in CA is a good record? Are they allocating the money they currently have well?
pacman2081 | 32 minutes ago
I am a California resident. California State gets a C- or D+ on spending. the voter initiative process has them on a tight leash
growaway9172 | 38 minutes ago
Exactly, and framing the government as "what is it doing for us" on a dollar per dollar basis, Zuck paying $1b in taxes gets maybe $10m in government services, a 100:1 ratio. The median citizen is at 1:1 or even lower.
evil_illustrator2 | 3 hours ago
I keep seeing this astroturf narrative with no links or info to back it up.
Snlxdd | 3 hours ago
https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1548760.htm
ants_are_everywhere | 2 hours ago
It's 2026 and you have access to the internet. You should almost never rely on someone else providing you sources. It's basic literacy to be able to find credible sources of information for yourself.
If you are unsure whether a source is credible, you can ask. But being unable to find basic information is a problem.
pacman2081 | 58 minutes ago
what links to information do you want ? google is your friend.
IRS https://www.irs.gov/
FTB. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/
BuvantduPotatoSpirit | 2 hours ago
Providing links to Young Earth Creationists, Anti-Vaxxers, or Buy, Borrow, Diers doesn't change their beliefs, so why would soneone do it?
stron2am | 3 hours ago
"Buy. Borrow. Die." Is an extremely well-documented strategy utilized by the ultra-wealthy. Source: I fundraise from the ultra-wealthy.
What is your source that they don't?
Snlxdd | 3 hours ago
SEC Filings. Zuck has sold billions of stock. Itâs also easily verifiable, vs âI work with rich peopleâ
stron2am | an hour ago
Just because Zuck uses a different strategy doesn't generalize to others.
IKillZombies4Cash | 3 hours ago
Buy Borrow Die isnt tax / interest free - (And Im NOT defending these freaks btw lol) they still have to pay the banks interest and they can't kick the can forever on that. Even if they die, they owe the bank interest, and the banks love these loans because they are zero risk, so they do give them a good rate.
Again - Im NOT defending the billionaires.
Jalapenoplanter | 3 hours ago
Interest is not tax. Interest paid to a bank does not fix potholes
CupTableChair1 | 2 hours ago
To be fair the bank does pay corporate income tax on the interest earned âŚ
Jalapenoplanter | 2 hours ago
I always leave a penny on the table when I dine and dash so âto be fair I did pay for the mealâ
CupTableChair1 | 2 hours ago
Alright. Completely ignore what people are explaining to you like a true top 1% commentator would.
marxist_Raccoon | 2 hours ago
how is that ignoring?
Jalapenoplanter | 2 hours ago
I didnât ignore what you said. I illustrated what you said.
To be fair, leaving a penny when you dine and dash is paying for the meal
I am making sure everyone knows how smart you are
pacman2081 | an hour ago
Interest has to be paid with post-tax money.
pinpoint14 | 3 hours ago
Paying interest to a privately held bank isnt a tax!
They owe us
mattw08 | 3 hours ago
They need to sell shares to pay the interest.
LC__LC | 10 minutes ago
They don't sell. They take loans and use the stocks as collateral. So there's no tax being paid on the value of stock used as collateral.
mattw08 | 7 minutes ago
Yes, they do. You can check SEC filings and read about selling shares.
random-meme422 | 3 hours ago
They borrow against holdings for liquidity. They sell tons of stock for a reason. Theyâre not living their entire life on credit cards against stocks, despite what reddit would have you believe. One can easily know this by looking at massive stock sales.
Adventurous-Roof488 | 3 hours ago
Do they pay taxes?
The top 1% pay about 38% of federal individual income taxes. In 1980, it was 19%.
FiftyLoudCats | 3 hours ago
Yes
ControversialQuerier | 3 hours ago
Yes, he pays taxes at least via periodic stock sales and dividends from his Meta stock.
The_Real_BenFranklin | 3 hours ago
Yes they pay a lot of taxes. They should pay more, but the large majority of taxes are paid by the wealthy.
CupTableChair1 | 3 hours ago
Zuck has sold billions of dollars worth of Facebook stock which he was taxed onâŚ
lorde_dingus | 3 hours ago
Someone is clearly conflating instagram reels with reality lol. This method is not only rare, but disallowed in many jursidictions...
Salute-Major-Echidna | 2 hours ago
Waving goodbye đ
deadbeatsummers | 2 hours ago
Exactly.
eduh_almeida | 2 hours ago
He should leave Earth with his other billionaire friends. I would start taxing 100% of any income exceeding $999,999,999.99. To the argument that 'they don't actually have that money in cash,' my response is this: if they can use their assets as collateral to secure loans, then I would treat them like monopolies. Once their net worth reaches $1 billion, they would be forced to liquidate assets to ensure they never exceed that threshold. And that's just the beginning. Break them up!
Emergency-Style7392 | 2 hours ago
"the only risk is if the entire company leaves the state, but even then itâs not really doable" why not? Why can't tech companies or any other type do it when most industrial production already moved continents?
Manufacturing also kept the offices initially, until it was all gone
It becomes even easier with remote work, and since most workers in tech in california are migrants, they'll just pack up and move again
whatisdylar | 59 minutes ago
Yeah, they pay taxes, and the risk is they take their companies and thousands of jobs with them, like Musk did.
Solid_Owl | 54 minutes ago
They don't, that's why they're facing a wealth tax. I don't know if a wealth tax is the best way to go about closing this tax loophole, but it's certainly one possible solution.
Jabjab345 | 3 hours ago
Yes, and this law would mean a net negative tax collection by the state when capital flight occurs.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w35899
NeptuneOverlord43045 | 3 hours ago
They just donât want to see any movement against the wealthy. Even if the initial tax barely impacts them, itâs a sign that more will be coming in the future that will impact them, and they wonât take that sitting down.
This really has to happen at the federal level because these rich powerful fucks will find ways to punish individual states if itâs done at the state level.
farmallnoobies | 3 hours ago
They pay the taxes they're required to pay, which at the moment is nothing.
If we federally tax their assets, they would likely pay it, and there wouldn't be many ways to exit their positions without paying other taxes as well.
And yeah, they could leave the country, but the assets are in the country by definition and so could be seized if necessary.
Fresh_Republic_7776 | 3 hours ago
WHY ARE THEY TAXED NOTHING. Nothing?!!!!!
BuvantduPotatoSpirit | 2 hours ago
Because you're listening to an anonymous Russian bot on the internet to get your info on how much tax they pay, rather than looking for a source that might know what they're talking about.
farmallnoobies | 3 hours ago
Yeah, nothing. They don't have any income, and that's the only thing taxed federally.
I suppose they pay a small amount of sales tax, but you don't pay sales tax when buying things like stocks or people, which is the majority of what they spend their money on
pacman2081 | an hour ago
"Do these people even pay taxes in the first place? "
Question for you - why doesn't your employer just give you a loan instead of paying you a wage ?
u/Mrikoko. would not have to pay taxes, won't he/she
FiftyLoudCats | 2 hours ago
This sub seems to be as much about economics as the law sub is about law.
Comments feel like they are straight out of a Jerry Springer show a lot of the time.
DJanomaly | 2 hours ago
This sub has grown to big. This happens in all the bigger subs. Lowest common denominator comments and all that.
Fortunately some of the smaller threads here actually still manage to be about economics. Some.
PointyPython | an hour ago
It's frustrating how the vast majority of people commenting on the sub now don't know about economics. They discuss political, social issues, morality, etc.
And they get angry when you try to articulate an argument (that can by all means be informed and influenced to some extent by your political, social or moral views) in purely economic science terms, and not political bickering with some mention of taxes, GDP, inflation or interest rates sprinkled in
Bright-Pilot-3970 | 2 hours ago
I hate saying it but itâs the algorithm. Reddit just spams your sub to everyone who visits something remotely similar. I bought a house about 6 months ago and half my feed is about mortgages and home buyer stuff now.
DJanomaly | 37 minutes ago
Yeah I get the same for one of the smaller local area subreddits Iâm on. A random thread will get flooded with people from all over the west coast now if something remotely political pops up.
I absolutely hate it.
ants_are_everywhere | 2 hours ago
The Jerry Springer show at least aimed to be entertaining and different from what was on the other channels. This is more like muzak. About as boring and undifferentiated as can be.
Prime_Marci | 2 hours ago
The post is not really economic
DenialNode | an hour ago
You can have a debate over the economics of the billionaire tax or the unintended consequences of mark Zuckerberg leaving California for example. The problem is every sub just turns political.
Semper-Veritas | 2 hours ago
This entire proposal is an interesting window into peopleâs thought processes and values. It seems likely that the threat of prop 40 passing have already cost the state $40B in PDV from billionaires fleeing, and take into no consideration any second or third order effects this would have on start up founders choosing California as their place of business. When confronted with this information, most responses Iâve seen are some variation of âbye Feliciaâ, which suggests to me that many supporters are less concerned with whether this policy will actually generate positive tax dollars and wonât impede economic growth in this state, and are more interested in how this will get rid of the billionaire classâŚ
GWooK | an hour ago
so you should heed to billionaire class because they provide economic opportunities? sounds less like an economic argument but more like neoliberal argument on why conserving current practices of protecting billionaire class is good for the economy
pacman2081 | an hour ago
a lot of billionaires are from the technology sector. Would you rather have a technology sector or not ?
GWooK | 39 minutes ago
you make it sound like we have tech because of billionaires, not because of the brilliant minds around silicon valley. itâs a typical neoliberal and conservative argument that billionaires are the reason why we have strong tech sectors. this argument provides 0 credit to employees and tech leaning education in california. it sounds like we should get in our knees to suck billionairesâ cocks because they created a whole industry sector (untrue)
growaway9172 | 34 minutes ago
Its a feedback loop, billionaires generate power law returns for investors who get rich, need to re-invest their fund, so they look for companies to invest in. Top talent is educated and moves to CA to find those investors, the investors invest in them, and some become billion dollar companies. Repeat.
So yes, what makes the CA tech sector special, is indeed the billionaires and their billion dollar companies. Smart people exist all around the world, but theres only one CA for a reason.
Gsusruls | 28 minutes ago
Isnât it the other way around?
We have a lot of billionaires because of the tech sector. Computers, the internet, and mobile devices made it possible to develop services and apps and social media platforms which have made them rich due to tremendous scalability.
pacman2081 | 26 minutes ago
Does Europe have a tech sector comparable to USA ?
pacman2081 | 36 minutes ago
there is a lot of brilliant minds around the world. Europe has a lot of brilliant minds. Why is it that European technology companies lag behind their American counterparts ?
"Â tech leaning education in california."
What percentage of technologists are native Californians ?
Semper-Veritas | an hour ago
Proponents arguments for this is that it would generate significant tax revenue and is a one time tax. If it leads to less revenue in present discounted value already, before it is even law, is that truly what the goal of prop 40 is?
https://www.clarin.com/us-news/bad-news-for-california-stanford-study-reveals-billionaire-tax-could-cause-39b-net-revenue-loss_0_9Jcz1nBxq7.amp.html
SignificantError6221 | an hour ago
Agree these discussions are... interesting... because people often talk about the "lost tax revenue" and other 2nd order effects of taxing the wealthy to the point of them leaving, but those very same people often simultaneously ignore the "extra costs" and other 2nd order effects of retaining said wealthy.
Semper-Veritas | an hour ago
What extra costs are you referring to? Be specific. If the goal of prop 40 isnât to generate tax revenue long term, and to get rid of a class of people whoâs wealth and influence you dislike, thatâs fine but thatâs not how itâs being positioned and sold to the public at large.
SignificantError6221 | 59 minutes ago
It has 2nd order effects on a multitude of things, such as asset prices, resource diversion, politics, wages and talent acquisition.
I mean for hyperbole, just look at what happens to company towns where the company leaves the town... asset prices drop, and opens opportunities for the poor to acquire the assets and start businesses amongst each other.
And the inverse happens when wealthy move into a poorer area (aka gentrification) - the poorer people get priced out and suffer the brunt of the effects.
GWooK | 20 minutes ago
Read the paper. The authors want to emphasize on the point the billionaires will just leave and the state will lose out of the tax revenue. Prop 40 doesnât care if these billionaires move or not, they will be taxed based on their residency on 2026/1/1. Yes, the state may lose up to 3.9 billion per year if all the billionaires up and leave.
Prop 40âs argument isnât just tax revenue alone. California billionaires took advantages of subsidized workforce and healthcare to increase their own wealth. Over last three years, their wealth grew by 144%, thatâs over 350 billion a year. And they pay 3 billion per year over the last three years. Youâve gotten to be kidding if you think thatâs fair. Economically, it only further strengthens wealth inequality, a catastrophic failure of current policy and economic model.
Billionaires are not the reason why these companies are strong. If that was the reason, Apple should have collapsed long ago after Steve Jobs died. Their fundamental basis are the employees. California tech employees paid more in percentage of tax than the billionaires who employ them. Something is extremely wrong with society if you think that is remotely okay.
Prop 40 can drive away the billions and California can lose the billionaire class overnight and lose 3.9 billion per year after 2026. But how many billions would California will lose by subsidizing these billionairesâ lifestyles with social goods and services that make their companies significantly better? The authors of this paper are arguing unfaithfully. They are part of the issue with higher educationâs economics departments. They canât look further ahead than direct impacts on their friends and familiesâ pockets.
MelodiusRA | an hour ago
The study is bogus so itâs not really useful anyway.
Actual studies done on the historicsl effects of higher taxes on the wealthy have nigh-unanimously concluded it improved the state of the economy.
Semper-Veritas | an hour ago
Bogus how? Also how many countries that have levied wealth taxes in the past have them on the books today?
TheLooperCS | an hour ago
Get rid of billionaire class? Oh hell yeah
BobaLives01925 | 37 minutes ago
Iâd rather my state have higher tax revenue than not but to each their own
TheLooperCS | 36 minutes ago
Yeah me too, would be a lot of tax revenue if they were taxed out of existing
BobaLives01925 | 21 minutes ago
Thatâs not an option for CA
johnnyBuz | 32 minutes ago
I see you are a Nic Carter thread enjoyoooor.
Semper-Veritas | 22 minutes ago
Who the fuck is Nic Carter? Maybe contribute to the discussion in Economics by offering a counter viewpoint, or anything other of substance on the topic?
snorkeler247 | an hour ago
If you earned the comp via stock options while employed in CA. Moving wonât do anything.
BarooZaroo | an hour ago
People like these arenât serious people, the statements they make and the actions they perform are performative. Itâs a complete clown show and shouldnât be taken seriously. Donât expect serious discussions around people who are wildly unserious.
user485928450 | an hour ago
Cash me ouside howboudat?
events_occur | 20 minutes ago
this sub is just r/politics at home.
CanaKitty | an hour ago
Iâm not super familiar with this sub, but Iâve spent a bit of time on the law sub and was starting to think it seemed kind of odd.
LAspring99 | 2 hours ago
Leftists overtake any sub and scorn you if your one inch to the right of Bernie Sanders
artisanrox | 2 hours ago
so go back to Conservative and cry that Paxton is running ads against trans people
LAspring99 | an hour ago
Not a conservative you absolute dope! You think about trans people more than me lmao
NutzNBoltz369 | an hour ago
He threating to leave or is he threating to leave and relocate all his businesses in CA to Texas or Florida etc? Him leaving is no big deal really. However if he divests all his business stakes in California and forces all the employees to move, that is different.
It is not like he is "home" much. He does whatever social rotations Billionaires do. Pretty much the British Nobility from the peerage era is what they do. "Social Seasons". Nothing has changed in the past 1000+ years.
funkdatship | an hour ago
So leave. Leave the country even. Donât talk about it, be about it. California is one of the greatest places on Earth, and so is the U.S. Go on, git!
imthelyricalgangster | an hour ago
If Hawaii passed a similar law he might have no choice but to putter around endlessly in his super yacht.
BobaLives01925 | 36 minutes ago
If youâre the state of California, you want a stronger tax base to help people in need, improve infrastructure, fund education, etc
j3kka | 27 minutes ago
And then when all the wealthy people leave, you pull a Kathy Hochul and ask them very nicely to come back
Jabjab345 | 3 hours ago
It seems like the Economics subreddit has devolved into dumb populism too, but NBER concluded the tax will be a net negative tax collector for the state. This is just a really bad law.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w35899
ants_are_everywhere | 2 hours ago
Was it always this way? I thought there used to be economics discussion here.
klingma | 3 hours ago
That's even if the law is Constitutionally sound, which is dubious. Court cases have already said that state's can't wholly target all "worldwide" income and this bill targets all wealth even wealth that's not domiciled in CA or has nexus in CA.
The retroactive nature of the tax too is legally dubious.
The valuation methodology for public stock and small company stock is arbitrary and potentially excessive which would violate the Constitution as well.
Best_Change4155 | 44 minutes ago
>state's can't wholly target all "worldwide" income
Also the retroactive nature of it is probably on thin ice too
growaway9172 | 32 minutes ago
Hadn't even considered that, imagine if you owned a multimillion dollar property in a different country you have to of course pay property taxes on. Is CA going to include that in your wealth tax? The more you think about it, the more impossible it becomes.
klingma | 15 minutes ago
Well, the bill technically avoids real property, but it would grab a car wash business you own in Florida for example or in Mexico.
"Worldwide" is a non-starter for a tax policy because it's unconstitutional.
BlondDeutcher | 2 hours ago
Redditors are dumb. News at 11
Jandur | 2 hours ago
Once upon a time this was a small/niche sub with actual econ content and discussion. Rip
No-Spray246 | 2 hours ago
That paper is written by two authors from the Hoover Institute which is widely regarded as a conservative thinktank. If you are citing biased resources as objective analysis, how much better are you than those you are critiquing?
NotNullException | an hour ago
OMG ITS BIASED! EVERYONE IGNORE IT BECAUSE THE AUTHORS ARE BIAAAAAAAAASED!
Jabjab345 | 2 hours ago
Cite something to the contrary then, or address the actual paper.
You clearly think it's a gotcha to just claim bias without addressing any of the content, which it's just not. Who cares even if they come from a conservative think tank, that determines more about what they choose to study rather than the veracity of the claims.
xIllustrious_Passion | 2 hours ago
Man thatâs like saying the Supreme Court isnât rigged just because the majority are all conservatives.
Big_Joosh | 2 hours ago
What?
Seaman_First_Class | 2 hours ago
Itâs actually not like that at all.
Jabjab345 | an hour ago
No it's not, papers have citations and can be neutrally peer reviewed. It's not a decision handed down by a high authority.
rtt445 | 7 minutes ago
Retroactive part really bothers me. That a robbery by the masses essentially.
Calimancan | 2 hours ago
Who cares? Tax these fucks. Or they can leave. Thatâs fine too. CA will be just fine without them.
Jabjab345 | 2 hours ago
So well argued lol. The median voter craves slopulism.
Kaheri | an hour ago
itâs not good if they leave because we wonât be able to tax them again later. theoretically if every billionaire left we would line 3-5 billion in annual tax revenue according to his link do you acknowledge that that would theoretically be bad for working Californians or not?
Big_Joosh | 2 hours ago
Wow⌠and to think this is your average Democrat voter. Concerning times we live in.
Darkpumpkin211 | an hour ago
You think the republicans are any less "Fuck the billionaire epstine elite class!" with their rhetoric?
BlondDeutcher | 2 hours ago
lol no they wonât dude
ArmokTheSupreme | 2 hours ago
It won't matter if he left. There's a date set a few years back that if you were a California resident then, the tax hits you. The "leaving" California narrative is propaganda and misinformation at this point.
yelloworld1947 | 3 hours ago
The only billionaire who comes out as a good guy is Jensen, who said heâs okay with whatever tax rate is decided.
For the rest, how much money is âenoughâ and impossible to spend in one lifetime and what legacy they leave? Do you think anyone outside the yes men will respect them?!
HobbyHunter69 | 3 hours ago
But it's such a cop out to say that. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have said it for years because they know somebody is going to prevent it from happening or work behind the scenes themselves. There simply are no good billionaires.
WaterChicken007 | 3 hours ago
Bill Gates is no angel, but he has given away billions. Same with Warren Buffet. They arenât all bad. At least when it comes to doing philanthropic work.
Definitely not as black and white as you suggest. They arenât all some sort of shade of grey. Some are darker than others.
sck178 | 3 hours ago
Sure, that's true. I'll give Gates that. However, his foundation has been a primary source for billionaire tax avoidance since its inception. Which I personally haven't been able to overlook
WaterChicken007 | 2 hours ago
Is it really tax avoidance if he literally gave billions away for the greater good of society? His foundation has done some seriously great work. And I seriously doubt that Bill's tax bill would have been smaller than the billions he gave away freely.
sck178 | an hour ago
Yes it is absolutely tax avoidance. There are "charitable giving" loopholes that allow anyone to jam money into "Donor advised funds," and that money can, and does, just sit there, tax free, until the person that gave that money says "yeah, donate it here."
WaterChicken007 | an hour ago
I am not sure I see your point. Yes some taxes werenât paid, but they donated a ton of money to presumably good causes. If I donated $10k to a good charity to save $1k in taxes, is that really tax avoidance? I mean, technically I avoided some taxes. But I paid more than the taxes to do so, theoretically doing some good for the world in the process.
Warren Buffet has also been fairly vocal about how he doesnât like the fact that his marginal tax rate is lower than many of the people who work for him. I havenât followed Bill G close enough to know if he feels the same.
InclinationCompass | 2 hours ago
Look at a real leader like Jonas Salk. He sacrificed billions of dollars by refusing to patent his drug so more people can gain access to the Polio vaccine.
growaway9172 | 30 minutes ago
Jensen doesn't care because it doesn't affect him, he doesn't own a controlling stake in $NVDA so he actually doesn't care as much.
For Zuck and similar, this bill means they cede control of their company, and by extension, their lifes work.
bojackworseman | 3 hours ago
jensen is a good guy? wtf is this dumb shit. the fuck do you gain for thinking hes a good guy
PlantedinCA | 3 hours ago
Jensen is not bad at all. He donated $75M to Vanderbiltâs new Bay Area art college, $50M to Oregon State for computing, and quite a few smaller donations to local organizations like the Monterey Aquarium.
klingma | 3 hours ago
Yeah, he did that literally off the back of chip costs skyrocketing and refusing to increase supply in any meaningful capacity.
yelloworld1947 | 2 hours ago
The bar is at people relocating to another state to avoid taxes, others funding elections to avoid taxes to the tune of $200m. Yes in that light, positively an angel, but I also respect Mackenzie Scott for her philanthropy, and Gates/Buffett in those terms.
IaAranaDiscotecaPOL | 3 hours ago
Oh no! He may have to move to his property in Hawaii, or his property in Florida, or his property in Washington DC, or his property in Ireland, or his super yacht all to avoid this billionaire tax. Damn you billionaire tax! Targeting these ~~poor~~ sad people.
Efficient_Basis_2139 | 3 hours ago
I believe it highlights more of the problem for California than it does Zuckerberg, as we've been watching the trend over the last few years.
savedpt | 3 hours ago
Of course he will leave. Probably go to the Miami area. The only way you will get significant taxes from billionaires is a national tax not a state tax. Even then some may leave the US.
K3453R_S0Z3 | 3 hours ago
Ever wonder why gains and profits are privatized and debt is nationalized? Because of dirt bags like this and Elon. Especially when companies like Tesla use government funding to grow and scale up but god forbid they fail only the few end up winning.
growaway9172 | 28 minutes ago
How much debt does Meta have from the government? Its zero because thats silly.
Anyways you can participate in this by buying $META, so its actually not privatized, its a public company!
LC__LC | 14 minutes ago
Stocks held by private citizens. Not the government. When big companies are "too big to fail", who bails them out? The government.
whatisdylar | an hour ago
Who wouldn't? I mean, seriously. Anyone sticking around for what could end up 5% coming out of their portfolio every year isn't really thinking straight.
dublin87 | 49 minutes ago
Itâs a one time tax not repeating every year.
growaway9172 | 26 minutes ago
"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program"
BobaLives01925 | 41 minutes ago
Nobody believes that
GlacierWolf8Bit | 3 hours ago
Do it, pussy! No one would miss ya!
I'm tired of these soy boys saying that they'll leave a state if a tax on unrealized gains is even being discussed.
lorde_dingus | 3 hours ago
Like clockwork, those acting the toughest on the internet are in fact the most pathetic...
GlacierWolf8Bit | 2 hours ago
I'd hedge my bets that Zuckerberg knows that his doomsday bunker plan is as good as a piece of wet paper and is just bluffing about it to look cool and tough.
lorde_dingus | 2 hours ago
I wonder if other billionaires have "bluffed" and taken their assets elsewhere (Musk and Tesla, 2021). Boy would California love to have that revenue back.
To prempt the expected "yeah but", give New York a look and the recent exodus of millionaires to miami who were also "bluffing". Even Governor Hochul public ally calls for them to come back lol. But sure, keep basing your economic stance on normative beliefs unsupported by anything realistic...
WallabyBeginning9443 | an hour ago
But... But.... Eat the rich đ¤
Longjumping-Sail4948 | 22 minutes ago
Why would they not miss the income? Heâs paid billions in taxes. Having your tax base flee to a different jurisdiction is very problematic.
GhostWrex | 3 hours ago
Bye bitch. And since this was too short, let me reiterate: bye bitch, bye bitch, bye bitch, bye bitch, bye bitch, bye bitch, bye bitch, bye bitch
Jabjab345 | 3 hours ago
Man what happened to this sub
OSPF99 | 2 hours ago
Mods stopped caring about the quality of discussion, it's just full of front page posters now
GhostWrex | 2 hours ago
You're not wrong, tbh. I'm just drunk and angry
Edit: ironic that I would be downvoted for being honest, but if I had started a fight, I would have probably garnered up votes from the polarized crowd
IKillZombies4Cash | 3 hours ago
This can be a concern to the States, NJ had a very wealthy investment firm owner leave the state over a tax issue, and he single handedly reduced the States revenue by (i think) 90 million, and that directly impacted a program for schools.
(Zuck actually looks human in this photo)
Civil_Deer7337 | 3 hours ago
What was his name? Where did he go?
koalasarentferfuckin | 3 hours ago
Heâs referring to David Tepper, former resident of New Jersey and current resident of the state of Florida. Also owner of the Carolina Panthers.
ShredGuru | 3 hours ago
Lol. Parasite billionaire trickling down lunch money. Fuck that guy. We could build a lot of schools if we dragged it out of him.
Hmm_would_bang | 3 hours ago
And how do you keep funding those schools after you run out of others peopleâs money to take?
LAspring99 | 2 hours ago
Heâs a leftist so he doesnât think of second and third order effects
Fatefire | 3 hours ago
He's referring to David Tepper I believe . Who did leave NJ in 2016 but returned in 2020 sooooooo
RedPanda_Explorer | 3 hours ago
Almost all of this is incredibly misleading.
David Tepper left to be closer to his family in Florida according to CNBC, and he never said he left for tax reasons. We don't know how much tax revenue him leaving cost, because his taxes were never publicly disclosed. And he didn't leave because of an increase in NJ taxes, we've had the same top income tax rate since 2010 and he left in 2016; he just... left. And I looked it up, I can't find any story about a specific school program being affected.
Sandman3769 | 2 hours ago
When he left, The Star Ledger, which was the major NJ newspaper, right on a front page article, said it caused a $150 Million shortfall for the state. So it was disclosed to someone.
RedPanda_Explorer | 2 hours ago
You might be right, my bad. Frank Haines testified under oath about the 1% drop in tax revenue, they just couldn't literally say "David Tepper leaving causes $150 million" because state tax records are confidential.
K04free | 29 minutes ago
The point is, it only takes a very very small number of people to leave for the bill to turn into a net negative.
C1andestino | 3 hours ago
I wouldnât imagine Zuck actually realizes that much in terms of capital gains.
canadiantaken | 2 hours ago
I think they were referring to a one time âwealth taxâ being proposed by CA.
Suitable_Occasion_24 | 2 hours ago
The most human representation of him I ever seen of him was his wax statue in San Francisco.
AmethystOrator | 3 hours ago
The same zuckerberg who had multiple interactions with epstein? For example in this picture epstein took: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1qy2nzh/found_a_photo_of_zuckerberg_musk_and_others_in_a/
MaffMaffMu | 14 minutes ago
Thieves always run. It's not like they pay taxes anyway. How much revenue is lost when these thieves flee their obligations? Honestly, they should focus on closing loopholes to make sure billionaires pay even this nominal sum
Laurielusky | 2 hours ago
California should be so lucky. While the rest of us pay our fair share, billionaires find ways to avoid most taxes. The working class have no choice. Taxes come out of your pay and directly to the government. We need a flat tax paid by everyone. No loopholes, no exceptions.
growaway9172 | 27 minutes ago
The top 1% in CA pay for 45% of all CA taxes, so I hope you are ready to pay a far increased share when they leave!
Thanatine | 2 hours ago
Why do we care where he lives? When he lives here it's not like he contributes a lot either. The same goes for Sergey Brin and Larry Page and others.
They don't have any income to tax with hence the proposed billionaire tax. Unless they were buying everybody's dinner, we don't really lose anything if they move. In fact it's probably even better for housing market.
Their company still can't leave, and that's the only thing that matters.
fremeer | an hour ago
A wealth tax is not a bad idea but also hard unless you assets are tied up in physical assets like land.
A better strategy imo is aiming to tax their consumption at a higher level. You want to live in California with your jets and yachts etc. That's fine but you will pay through the teeth to own those things here.
Such a consumption tax is still a wealth tax because then keeping their play things there still taxes them. And they won't exactly fly into lax in commerical so you get them more often. Want to look good or stay in a nice place while you are here you pay a premium.
Like imagine if you just did 100% luxury tax on any item that's a certain price or value above the standard cost of something.
Or you need to go after their IP. That's the other thing people don't understand. Billionaires get a lot from the law as an institution.
Capitalism(property rights) only works with the law or some way to enforce the rights. They technically pay very very little for such huge benefits.
sleepiestOracle | 3 hours ago
Mark Zuckerberg splits his life between his Hawaiian estate and a superyacht, anchoring offshore while keeping business strictly in California
High_Society_Dweller | 2 hours ago
The amalgamation of social capital within California is immense. If Mark Zuckerberg and all his businesses were to leave California, he would have a hard time finding the same level of talent in other states, such as Tennessee, Wyoming, Florida, or Texas.
As_I_Lay_Frying | 3 hours ago
These leeches benefit so much from everything the state provides in terms of infrastructure, education, national defense, and research spending and they refuse to pay more in taxesâŚfor what exactly? To have slightly more to pass on to their heirs? Itâs grotesque.
The modern economy makes me very sympathetic to Robespierre.
ControversialQuerier | 3 hours ago
Is the concern that the one time tax can be repeated? My knowledge of Prop 40 is embarrassingly low since I feel modern wealth tax proposals are usually just spite based and not productive.
Even with that though, I wonder if this was a genuine concern for Mark or more of a bargaining/PR thing?
muskthecheeto | 3 hours ago
Better than what Iâm sure a lot of people would rather target of his âŚ. And I definitely am talking about his wealth , no lie , cross my fingers
Tasty-Hour4040 | 26 minutes ago
FFS leave then. Who actually cares where a billionaire lives? Why does everyone pretend like billionaires are some massive boon to a state economy? Whatâs the point of pretending they even pay taxes?
AnchezSanchez | 3 hours ago
These people are fucking nuts. I genuinely can't imagine using tax rate as a reason to upend my and my family's lives and move to a completely different state / province, and yet it could actually make a meaningful difference to me earning six figures. Just utterly bizarre to do it when you're one of the richest guys in the world.
These people are not right in the head man.
Ateist | 2 hours ago
It's not about tax rate, it is about what is taxed.
They don't have the money on hand to pay what is asked - and trying to cash out their shares would result in disastrous losses not only for them but to other investors too - investors like pension funds.
$76 trillion US stock market value is based on $50 billion daily trade volume and brings in only several percentages in profit margins. That's very small amount of liquidity that can be taken out daily.
aNuggetsUncle | 3 hours ago
I'm just sayin...if you are for a wealth tax, why on earth would you want the government to have that money. In this specific case, the insanely corrupt government of California will be the only people who will benefit from a wealth tax. The Public won't see a penny, in fact, taxes will probably go up...again.
WillingPlayed | 2 hours ago
You donât know what a government is, do you?
adwrx | 2 hours ago
Lolllll government is the only thing that works for people
CroatianSensation79 | 2 hours ago
For services, duh. It worked great until dumbfucks voted Reagan in and trickle down economics became the thing. We need it again. Too much money concentrated into too few hands is a recipe for disaster. As weâre seeing now.
aNuggetsUncle | 2 hours ago
I agree, too much money in too few hands. But that also applies to the few greedy hands at the top of the California government. And getting rid of Billionairs in that state eliminates the competition.
CroatianSensation79 | 2 hours ago
I hear you. Newsom is a part of the problem when it comes to the Democrats.