alt Hacker News> 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.
Replies
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.
#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.
he was freeloading in CA and now will be freeloading in FL
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.
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.