[kcplate]

> So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???

What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.

> In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre

I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.

> Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever

I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him. People of all incomes make (legal) financial decisions every day for their own benefit. Of you feel the laws are in some way unfair, elect people who will change them.

> appealing to economic theory…

There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?

[lapcat]

> What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.

Yes, he co-founded Google in 1998, nobody disputes that. But how is that relevant to his personal tax rate in 2026?

You're changing the subject, because we were talking about things Page is doing now, not what he did in the past. I was responding to this: "The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet."

> I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.

What are you arguing, exactly?

> I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him.

No. Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.

> There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?

I am not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. However, many people are proponents, and argue that it leads to the best outcome for society. My point is that nobody, except perhaps the billionaires themselves believes that governments competing for the presence of billionaires leads to the best outcome for society. To me it seems like the worst of all possible worlds.

[kcplate]

> Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.

I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy both by his own efforts as an entrepreneur as well as his own participation in California’s economy. Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others, but thats just how this all works. What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay and what his perception of California’s tax burden is versus other states.

It’s the downstream opportunity loss that someone like him can create for California if he leaves and then decides take investment elsewhere. This is not about the future taxes that Larry Page the individual or family won’t pay in California. It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.

If you are California’s political leadership you better be concerned about why a Larry Page feels the need to leave and not have the “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” attitude. The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.