This just isn't true. Lets go through an analysis of this looking at a real word scenario, but ignoring Federal Income Tax since that wouldn't change the situa

This just isn't true. Lets go through an analysis of this looking at a real word scenario, but ignoring Federal Income Tax since that wouldn't change the situation. Assume you sell your company and earn $10M. In CA, you're taxed at 13% right away, and so have $8.7M. Lets say you earn 3% returns each year. Modest but not great. You're taxed another 13% on that 3% by California, meaning you actually earn 2.61% returns. After 60 years, if you leave the money untouched and tax laws don't change, you'll have just under $41M. If there was a state that had no income tax (say, Texas or Florida) and charged a .5% wealth tax, it would go like this. You'd have $9.95M after paying taxes when selling your business. After a year of investing at 3% returns, you'd have $10.248M, on which you'd be taxed .5%. After taxes, you'd have $10.197M. Do that for 60 years, and you'd end up with more than $43M While PG says that "Even a .5% wealth tax would start to keep founders away from a state or country that imposed it", it hasn't. California state income tax is higher, and that is where Zuck, PG, Larry Paige, Brian Chesky and a bunch of other people live.