4 ms·

> 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 Califor

by lapcat 8mo ago

> 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.

kcplate 8mo ago
> Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving. Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc… > 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. Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? Of course regional governments are going to try and attract local investment.
- lapcat 8mo ago
  > Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc… 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??? In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre. And again, Page is not even involved much anymore in Google, which was founded in 1998. Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever, because he did something in the 20th century? > Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? I'm appealing to economic theory, which posits the benefits of sellers competing with each other for consumers in a free market. It does not posit the benefits of governments competing with each other for sellers, and in fact that grossly distorts the market.
  - kcplate 8mo ago
    > 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 8mo ago
      > 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.

by lapcat 8mo ago

kcplate 8mo ago

> Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving. Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc… > 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. Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? Of course regional governments are going to try and attract local investment.

lapcat 8mo ago
> Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc… 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??? In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre. And again, Page is not even involved much anymore in Google, which was founded in 1998. Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever, because he did something in the 20th century? > Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? I'm appealing to economic theory, which posits the benefits of sellers competing with each other for consumers in a free market. It does not posit the benefits of governments competing with each other for sellers, and in fact that grossly distorts the market.
- kcplate 8mo ago
  > 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 8mo ago
    > 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.