[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.

[lapcat]

> I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes.

I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence.

> Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it.

In what sense is this different from any other California resident?

> He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others

That's a vast understatement.

> but thats just how this all works.

That's how it has worked. The wealth tax is trying to change it.

> What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay

How is that what matters? Yes, every person should pay what they're legally obligated to pay. I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the discussion, or how it distinguishes Larry Page from any other person.

> It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.

There's no evidence that Larry Page can or will create another Google now.

It's also worth noting that Page was just a relatively poor college student when he founded Google. It wasn't because of his wealth. Perhaps he'd have more incentive to found another Google if he were deprived of all his wealth again. On the other hand, perhaps he just had one really great idea in his life.

> The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.

It's one dude. Maybe a few more dudes will go too. In any case, California will be fine. The largest state in the nation does not depend on one dude.

Larry Page came to California from Michigan, not for the tax rates, but to attend Stanford. Last time I checked, Stanford still exists, and is still in California.

[kcplate]

Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.

California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.