7 ms·
California Billionaire Tax - November 2026 ballot. One off 5%. Sergey Brin leading the fight against it, donating millions to try to kill it.
by khurs 4mo ago
California Billionaire Tax - November 2026 ballot. One off 5%.
Sergey Brin leading the fight against it, donating millions to try to kill it.
- chabes 4mo agoSo ridiculous that folks will spend millions personally to avoid paying their fair share in taxes. Is the alternative really that bad Sergey? You would be paying a similar amount, and the money would actually go to some use, as opposed to being blown on a political fight.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- bflesch 4mo agoIt sets dangerous precedent Edit: guys, it was a joke! /s
- enraged_camel 4mo agoAh yes, the dangerous precedent of... doing something about obscene and extreme wealth inequality.
- chabes 4mo agoHow so?
- trescenzi 4mo agoDangerous to whom exactly?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- rcpt 4mo agoAnyone who's not able to populism their way into a cash blast for their org. I am not a billionaire. But I don't want to risk losing my job or moving out of state so that the dialysis people can cash a paycheck.
- Avicebron 4mo agoDialysis people is really interesting phrasing. Care to elaborate what you mean?
- rcpt 4mo agohttps://calmatters.org/health/2020/10/california-healthcare-union-proposition-23/ https://calmatters.org/health/2020/10/california-healthcare-... SEIU UHW has a history of bringing economically explosive populist slop to the ballot as a negotiating tactic. Usually it's in the form of something about dialysis clinics but this time they're trying a different angle. What about that were you specifically "interested" in?
- Avicebron 4mo ago> Dialysis companies say the costly requirement would force them to close some clinics, and have so far poured $105 million into fighting the measure, arguing it amounts to a hardball move by the union to drain industry finances until clinics agree to allow their workers to unionize. Seems like the $105 millions could have been used for something more useful, like a few doctors salaries or specialized PAs at the clinics. It sounds like you consider "economically explosive populist slop" is anything that helps poor people. Which you know, I expected, but I'm glad you were able to explain yourself. In the future you can just say "let them eat cake".
- rcpt 4mo agoExamples of SEIU ballot box warfare + Proposition 8 (2018) + Proposition 23 (2020) + Proposition 29 (2022) Probably their best example is "Healthcare Worker Minimum Wage Drive (SB 525)". They created a bunch of populist local initiatives about minimum that would have been a logistical nightmare for hospitals. In exchange for pulling their measures they got SB 525 passed as a truce. I hate these tactics. California direct democracy is awful yes, but the way this group weaponizes it is downright disgusting. > It sounds like you consider "economically explosive populist slop" is anything that helps poor people. But honestly it sounds like you're just flat out not interested. You are the perfect target for their bullshit and I'm sure they couldn't be happier about whatever is in your head
- xhkkffbf 4mo agoPeople who want to use the current system to innovate and create jobs. The current system of venture capital often produces these situations when people have a huge amount paper "wealth". But this wealth is all pretty hypothetical. It's not like some of the "billionaires" can buy 1 billion things from the McDonald's Dollar Menu. It's all tied up in stock that can't be sold for a variety of reasons. Moreover, it's quite likely that the "billionaire" will end up with far less than $1b when he/she retires, even if everything is wildly successful. Yet that big number encourages greedheads to try to tax something that doesn't really exist.
- the_gastropod 4mo agoThe “greedheads” are the ones wanting people to pay their fair share of taxes, and not the people who’ve hoarded billions in wealth, and are using some of that wealth to fight to continue tax avoidance?
- dominotw 4mo agogood
- zeroonetwothree 4mo agoWhenever someone uses the word “fair” about taxes it always seems to mean that they shouldn’t pay more but others should. There also some good economic reasons that a “wealth tax” is a bad option compared to other types of taxes.
- chabes 4mo agoFair means even playing field. These dudes are used to a system that they can cheat. I pay taxes. These people spend copious amounts to avoid paying. There is an economic threshold of money spent vs money not taxed. They spend within that threshold, but the money helps only them.
- bronson 4mo agoIf they paid the 35% that I pay, then it would be fair. It sounds like you think billionaires should pay close to 0%?
- the_gastropod 4mo agoMind sharing these good economic reasons?
- cjkaminski 4mo agoWhenever someone uses the word "fair" about taxes, I assume they mean we should reverse course on the decades-long pattern of reducing the tax burden on companies and the wealthiest individuals here in America. Fair taxation isn't a punishment. Paying taxes is what responsible citizens do. It's an act of patriotism and pride.
- sbayg 4mo ago> patriotism and pride You realize nationalism is the source of all evil in the world, right? Is Brin even a citizen?
- cjkaminski 4mo agoPatriotism != Nationalism
- dribbiy8 4mo agofair_share = fair_share + 1
- ivewonyoung 4mo ago> You would be paying a similar amount, and the money would actually go to some use, as opposed to being blown on a political fight. What? No. You're off by more than 3 magnitudes. He spent about 45 million, his potential tax liability under the new law is $60 billion.
- khurs 4mo agoalso replied below, but his would be 5% not $60bn
- ivewonyoung 4mo agoIt actually would be 122.5% for Doordash's founder, not 5%.
- khurs 4mo agothank you for providing a link to support your hard to believe claim...
- ivewonyoung 4mo agohttps://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-05-06/a-proposed-billionaire-tax-exposes-the-dual-share-racket https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-05-06/a-prop...
- ivewonyoung 4mo agoIt's not just 5%. It's dependent on the controlling shares, so it's close to 25% of Sergey Brin's wealth, so almost 60 billion dollars.
- khurs 4mo agoLooked it up and says it applies to Private companies only, so not Google. i.e. to stop those deliberately undervaluing. And in addition there is a provision allowing people to appeal if they can show that a valuation is overstated.
- ivewonyoung 4mo ago> Looked it up and says it applies to Private companies only, so not Google. i.e. to stop those deliberately undervaluing. That's not true. Private companies have a different valuation method, but public companies like Google are absolutely included.
- khurs 4mo agolink to source? As think you are mistaken
- nianderwallace 3mo agofrom https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/california-wealth-tax-billionaires-proposal/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/california-weal... Under the initiative, “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.” ...Together, for instance, Larry Page and Sergey Brin own about 11.3 percent of Alphabet (Google) but control 52.3 percent of voting rights. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg owns about 13.6 percent of Meta but has 61.0 percent voting control.