[lapcat]

> it has cost California both Larry's presence and all the tax revenue it made from him.

1. Google itself isn't moving. I don't think Larry is closely involved anymore, and a move out of state seems to prove that.

2. How much tax revenue did California even make from him? If he doesn't sell stock, then he has no capital gains to tax. That's the whole point of the wealth tax. The ultra-wealthy are infamous for tax avoidance schemes such as rotating loans against their stock to avoid capital gains.

[lotsofpulp]

#2 is a problem with California’s tax laws. A marginal land value tax would easily tax wealth without wealthy people having to sell assets. Also, more economic activity, such as rich people buying products and services, results in sales tax and income for other Californians.

[selridge]

Take that up with the CA voters circa 1979.

[tim-tday]

He better watch out. Google instituted a strict return to office mandate. They also frown on people working apart from their teams. He might have to go back and badge in a couple times a week to make it look like he’s still working out of the Mountain View office.

[mc32]

NYC had a similar budgetary/fiscal issue too and they thought they'd manage it by assessing more taxes on companies and people. The result was corporate as well as individual flight.

It's tough to slim down on spending. Be it individuals or governments and quasi-governmental organizations. Companies can swiftly implement spending cuts and RIFs --sometimes aggressively.

Governments, though, there are threads throughout --elected officials often trade support for positions and favoritism and if they take those away, so do many of their fiercest people who get out the vote. Also, their voters are averse to having the services they've grown accustomed to getting cut.

So sometimes you need that official who knows he or she is a one termer but will go in and cut and cut. People will hate them but it will allow the government a chance to make a turnaround.

[bdangubic]

he was freeloading in CA and now will be freeloading in FL

[zeroonetwothree]

IMO capital gains taxes are bad as well, they discourage efficient investment allocation (you are stuck with what you have now).

It would be better if we mainly taxed consumption directly. If you are a billionaire but spend $100k/yr I am fine with you paying the same taxes as anyone else spending $100k/yr.

[rickydroll]

Taxing consumption hurts people more at the lower end of the income scale than at the higher end. It all comes down to what reserves you have to accommodate different scales of financial events. For example, will not having enough money for a tank of gas break you, or just annoy you? Could you survive needing an ambulance ride? Do copays keep you from seeing the doctor, or are they just a rounding error on your income?

I believe that taxing people proportionally on income earned by labor is a unifying element of a social contract. i.e., we are all contributing to the common good. Income from capital is "free money." You didn't work for it; you took it from somebody else in the form of interest, dividends, or some other rent-seeking financial magic.

At some point, wealth becomes corrosive to society. People acquire it just for the sake of acquiring more and building their personal power. It seems that wealth is used to build more mechanisms of rent-seeking to further extract money from people who make their money through labor.

That kind of non-beneficial use of wealth, rent-seeking, and financial magic should be the target of any tax system before taxing money earned by labor.

[_DeadFred_]

If you are able to leverage the current value of stocks to gain personal benefit, you should be taxed on them as if you recognized the value. If you just let them sit, don't use them as collateral, don't take out loans against them, then they shouldn't be taxed.

But if you recognize some benefit based on their value, you absolutely should pay taxes on that value.

[Alupis]

The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet. All of which pay taxes, provide jobs, and benefits to Californians.

It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways.

California just traded what was supposed to be a one-time (lol) tax on total net worth - not liquid assets or even income - for generations of extracting value from the Page family.

I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now - but this is just plainly terrible government policy. California should be encouraging people like Page to move here - not push them away.

It's also short-sighted to assume Google will remain in Mountain View just because it's there today. What makes SV so special today that Boston, Austin, Denver, Orlando, etc don't offer? What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California?

That's what we should be concerned about - create a climate where it's not even a question where to build your company; California should be the obvious right answer.

[greenburger]

What philanthropic initiatives or non-profits? Regarding philanthropy, this Forbes estimate [0] suggests Page is not particularly engaged in philanthropy compared to others in his wealth class.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/ame...

[lapcat]

> philanthropic initiatives, non-profits

> All of which pay taxes

I think not.

> It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways.

Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving.

> generations of extracting value from the Page family

If Larry can just up and leave now, on very short notice, then there's absolutely zero guarantee of any future "generations" of value.

> I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now

Fashionable? Why do you think it's fashionable now? For no reason?

> California should be encouraging people like Page to move here

It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work.

> What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California?

Larry and Sergey met at Stanford as students. They didn't choose a state because of tax policy.

Let me offer a public benefit to driving away the billionaires who refuse to pay higher taxes: less local spending on politicians, i.e., corruption.

[selridge]

I hope he sees this, bro.