6 ms·

endless greed is remarkable. guys with $200B can't afford to pay taxes to the state that allowed them to gain such excessive wealth in the first place, often vi

endless greed is remarkable. guys with $200B can't afford to pay taxes to the state that allowed them to gain such excessive wealth in the first place, often via government subsidy. this cancerous version of capitalism can't end quickly enough.

kelseyfrog 5mo ago
If we don't allow them to hold us hostage they will all leave.
- ohNoe5 5mo ago
  Oh no, a couple thousand people, largely engaged in little more than modern conservatism, might leave the rest of us 300+ million alone for a change rather than demand fealty to their personal story and personal autonomy (fealty to which actually distracts us from our own lives); people who do nothing to assure the rest of us have food and shelter and healthcare may take their ball and go home! How tragic. End of the day we all have the same freedom to not care if Sergey has food shelter or lives in his car as the billionaires give themselves End of the day we all have the ssme right to select ourselves and tell Sergey Brin "your needs aren't my problem."
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
VirusNewbie 5mo ago
[flagged]
- HaloZero 5mo ago
  How did you come up with 50 billion? It’s a 2% one time tax no?
  - VirusNewbie 5mo ago
    No, Sergey owns non pubic, shares that are not available on the open market that have move voting rights. So the tax 'values' those at the % of voting rights as a percentage of the company valuation. Likewise, Evan Spiegal would have to sell 100% of his SNAP stock the first year because of how the voting rights work.
- wbronitsky 5mo ago
  Sergei Brin is worth around $230b. The tax seeks around 5% of that, which is $11.5b. I don’t see how, when most of his net worth is in Alphabet stock, he would have to sell anything but trivial amounts of his ownership of the company to fund this. The tax is also one time, so saying things like “the first year” is extremely misleading. It seems to me like the real propaganda is your post.
  - ashwindharne 5mo ago
    I believe it's calculated based on voting equity, of which Sergey owns significantly more than 230b.
    - wbronitsky 5mo ago
      From my reading it is only equity that has monetary value that they are taxing; this has nothing to do with disgorging voting stock, it is merely intended to raise revenue.
      - anamax 5mo ago
        For private companies, valuation for the purposes of this tax is company-value * max(% owned, % controlled) From https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0024A1%20%28Billionaire%20Tax%20%29.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0024A1%2... Section 50303(c)(3)(C) says "For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights." Section (D) says that the tax applies to earnable profit-percentage even if the prerequisites for said earn haven't occurred.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
    - anamax 5mo ago
      The "tax based on control" clause (quoted below) doesn't apply to public companies.
- bdangubic 5mo ago
  the math is not mathing today
- anamax 5mo ago
  Google is public, so the 5% of max(ownership, control) clause doesn't apply. However, there are a bunch of private unicorns whose founders are subject to the tax even though their ownership is well under $1B. See Section 50303(c)(3)(C) quoted above.
  - VirusNewbie 5mo ago
    It does apply, because Sergey's shares are not the same kind available on the public exchange.
- soganess 5mo ago
  Everyone seems to be objecting to the arithmetic error, but what’s more interesting is the underlying assumption: that “Sergey Brin owes $50B” is so morally dispositive that it would end the argument. Brin is not a sympathetic marginal case. He is the standard: founder equity, $1 salary, unrealized appreciation, deferral, and access to liquidity without needing wage income. It is a little strange to look at a very large tax bill landing at his feet and decide that is where the scandal starts. Is the number supposed to make the idea disqualifying because it is drastically more than most people make in many lifetimes? Said another way, the revealing part is not that someone on the internet multiplied wrong. The revealing part is how quickly the error resolves into a fairness argument on behalf of Sergey Brin, a man whose fortune is almost a laboratory specimen of the thing the regular income tax keeps failing, decade after decade, to reach.
  - ece 5mo ago
    Not only this, but a person with this much wealth cannot possibly consume enough to pay their fair share in taxes. They've already used all the loopholes to avoid income taxes which aren't even progressive for billionaires as mentioned by Buffet.
  - VirusNewbie 5mo ago
    it's not an arithmetic error, it's literally written in the tax bill to value voting ownership shares as a percentage of the company if they are not available on the open market. Section 50303(c)(3)(C) says "For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights." Sergey Brin is not 'hoarding' anything. There is not a bank vault of jewels or wheat that the rest of the world is deprived of having. Stock 'wealth' is not a fixed quantity of wealth. To think that divesting people of ownership is egregious and immoral. You are advocating for laws you do not read, regarding concepts of which you have not read about nor seem to be able to comprehend, and people like that are my enemy.

kelseyfrog 5mo ago

If we don't allow them to hold us hostage they will all leave.

ohNoe5 5mo ago
Oh no, a couple thousand people, largely engaged in little more than modern conservatism, might leave the rest of us 300+ million alone for a change rather than demand fealty to their personal story and personal autonomy (fealty to which actually distracts us from our own lives); people who do nothing to assure the rest of us have food and shelter and healthcare may take their ball and go home! How tragic. End of the day we all have the same freedom to not care if Sergey has food shelter or lives in his car as the billionaires give themselves End of the day we all have the ssme right to select ourselves and tell Sergey Brin "your needs aren't my problem."
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

VirusNewbie 5mo ago

[flagged]

HaloZero 5mo ago
How did you come up with 50 billion? It’s a 2% one time tax no?
- VirusNewbie 5mo ago
  No, Sergey owns non pubic, shares that are not available on the open market that have move voting rights. So the tax 'values' those at the % of voting rights as a percentage of the company valuation. Likewise, Evan Spiegal would have to sell 100% of his SNAP stock the first year because of how the voting rights work.
wbronitsky 5mo ago
Sergei Brin is worth around $230b. The tax seeks around 5% of that, which is $11.5b. I don’t see how, when most of his net worth is in Alphabet stock, he would have to sell anything but trivial amounts of his ownership of the company to fund this. The tax is also one time, so saying things like “the first year” is extremely misleading. It seems to me like the real propaganda is your post.
- ashwindharne 5mo ago
  I believe it's calculated based on voting equity, of which Sergey owns significantly more than 230b.
  - wbronitsky 5mo ago
    From my reading it is only equity that has monetary value that they are taxing; this has nothing to do with disgorging voting stock, it is merely intended to raise revenue.
    - anamax 5mo ago
      For private companies, valuation for the purposes of this tax is company-value * max(% owned, % controlled) From https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0024A1%20%28Billionaire%20Tax%20%29.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0024A1%2... Section 50303(c)(3)(C) says "For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights." Section (D) says that the tax applies to earnable profit-percentage even if the prerequisites for said earn haven't occurred.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
  - anamax 5mo ago
    The "tax based on control" clause (quoted below) doesn't apply to public companies.
bdangubic 5mo ago
the math is not mathing today
anamax 5mo ago
Google is public, so the 5% of max(ownership, control) clause doesn't apply. However, there are a bunch of private unicorns whose founders are subject to the tax even though their ownership is well under $1B. See Section 50303(c)(3)(C) quoted above.
- VirusNewbie 5mo ago
  It does apply, because Sergey's shares are not the same kind available on the public exchange.
soganess 5mo ago
Everyone seems to be objecting to the arithmetic error, but what’s more interesting is the underlying assumption: that “Sergey Brin owes $50B” is so morally dispositive that it would end the argument. Brin is not a sympathetic marginal case. He is the standard: founder equity, $1 salary, unrealized appreciation, deferral, and access to liquidity without needing wage income. It is a little strange to look at a very large tax bill landing at his feet and decide that is where the scandal starts. Is the number supposed to make the idea disqualifying because it is drastically more than most people make in many lifetimes? Said another way, the revealing part is not that someone on the internet multiplied wrong. The revealing part is how quickly the error resolves into a fairness argument on behalf of Sergey Brin, a man whose fortune is almost a laboratory specimen of the thing the regular income tax keeps failing, decade after decade, to reach.
- ece 5mo ago
  Not only this, but a person with this much wealth cannot possibly consume enough to pay their fair share in taxes. They've already used all the loopholes to avoid income taxes which aren't even progressive for billionaires as mentioned by Buffet.
- VirusNewbie 5mo ago
  it's not an arithmetic error, it's literally written in the tax bill to value voting ownership shares as a percentage of the company if they are not available on the open market. Section 50303(c)(3)(C) says "For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights." Sergey Brin is not 'hoarding' anything. There is not a bank vault of jewels or wheat that the rest of the world is deprived of having. Stock 'wealth' is not a fixed quantity of wealth. To think that divesting people of ownership is egregious and immoral. You are advocating for laws you do not read, regarding concepts of which you have not read about nor seem to be able to comprehend, and people like that are my enemy.