> 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.
#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 better watch out. Google instituted a strict return to office mandate. They also frown on people working apart from their teams. He might have to go back and badge in a couple times a week to make it look like he’s still working out of the Mountain View office.
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.
What philanthropic initiatives or non-profits? Regarding philanthropy, this Forbes estimate [0] suggests Page is not particularly engaged in philanthropy compared to others in his wealth class.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy both by his own efforts as an entrepreneur as well as his own participation in California’s economy. Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others, but thats just how this all works. What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay and what his perception of California’s tax burden is versus other states.
It’s the downstream opportunity loss that someone like him can create for California if he leaves and then decides take investment elsewhere. This is not about the future taxes that Larry Page the individual or family won’t pay in California. It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.
If you are California’s political leadership you better be concerned about why a Larry Page feels the need to leave and not have the “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” attitude. The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.
I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence.
> Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it.
In what sense is this different from any other California resident?
> He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others
That's a vast understatement.
> but thats just how this all works.
That's how it has worked. The wealth tax is trying to change it.
> What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay
How is that what matters? Yes, every person should pay what they're legally obligated to pay. I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the discussion, or how it distinguishes Larry Page from any other person.
> It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.
There's no evidence that Larry Page can or will create another Google now.
It's also worth noting that Page was just a relatively poor college student when he founded Google. It wasn't because of his wealth. Perhaps he'd have more incentive to found another Google if he were deprived of all his wealth again. On the other hand, perhaps he just had one really great idea in his life.
> The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.
It's one dude. Maybe a few more dudes will go too. In any case, California will be fine. The largest state in the nation does not depend on one dude.
Larry Page came to California from Michigan, not for the tax rates, but to attend Stanford. Last time I checked, Stanford still exists, and is still in California.
Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.
California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
> Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.
The subject of the HN submission is the California wealth tax, which affects only billionaires. There are only about 200 in California. Moreover, only a few of those billionaires have left California, or are threatening to leave. So, I'm "laser focused" on the subject of the HN submission and puzzled by your remark here. Note that Larry Page's name is literally included in the submission title. I don't know what else I should be talking about here.
> I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing
That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax. And again, there are only about 200 billionaires in California, so even if they all left, which isn't happening, that's practically nothing compared to the total population of almost 40 million.
I haven't investigated, but my suspicion would be that high housing prices are a significant reason for people leaving California. Creating another Google wouldn't help at all with that. To the contrary, it would probably drive up the housing prices even more. Even big tech company employees find the housing prices ridiculous!
They have money that you don't think certain people deserve and you want it for your own purposes. Your method of separating the money from them is by force. Not sure what else you would call it?
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.
Taxing consumption hurts people more at the lower end of the income scale than at the higher end. It all comes down to what reserves you have to accommodate different scales of financial events. For example, will not having enough money for a tank of gas break you, or just annoy you? Could you survive needing an ambulance ride? Do copays keep you from seeing the doctor, or are they just a rounding error on your income?
I believe that taxing people proportionally on income earned by labor is a unifying element of a social contract. i.e., we are all contributing to the common good. Income from capital is "free money." You didn't work for it; you took it from somebody else in the form of interest, dividends, or some other rent-seeking financial magic.
At some point, wealth becomes corrosive to society. People acquire it just for the sake of acquiring more and building their personal power. It seems that wealth is used to build more mechanisms of rent-seeking to further extract money from people who make their money through labor.
That kind of non-beneficial use of wealth, rent-seeking, and financial magic should be the target of any tax system before taxing money earned by labor.
If having less money hurts people, then the government should give them more money.
Consumption taxes incentivize reducing waste and is pro environment. Isn't that what California is about?
>people acquire it just for the sake of acquiring more and building their personal power. It seems that wealth is used to build more mechanisms of rent-seeking to further extract money from people who make their money through labor.
So why are you a proponent of earned income taxes? Those hit people who make their money through labor. What you want is land value taxes, those hit people who make money through rent seeking (including tech companies whose assets sit on valuable land).
Consumption tax + land value tax + compensatory UBI should be a winning combination. Someone can hoard all they want but will pay when it comes time to spend the hoard.
You can also reduce or eliminate the tax on essentials like groceries.
Wealthy progressives don’t like it because many of them hold a huge portion of their wealth in housing. They imagine that they can somehow fix inequality without fixing distortions in the housing market.
As I said, I argue for some earned income tax. I'm a proponent of a progressive earned income tax as a way of reinforcing the social contract: we all contribute, we all benefit.
No one tax "solves" the problem. The problem, as I see it, is wealth hoarding beyond what any normal person would need to carry them through to the end of life. Instead of listing everything we should tax, maybe it'd be shorter to say that we look at what billionaires do to avoid taxes and close those loopholes. Then watching them again, and every time they come up with a new tax evasion strategy, fix it.
I wish I had the resources to develop an AI system that could find and document all instances of tax evasion by billionaires. But if I did that, I suspect I would need to be extra careful crossing streets, going near balconies, and reminding people that I'm not suicidal.
My issue is claiming the problem is wealth, and then wanting to tax income, which is not wealth. That is how rich people keep wealth taxes low (e.g. land value tax rates).
All wealth sits on land, and all land is already constantly appraised and subject to land value tax. It would be a trivial change to collect marginal land value tax rates using beneficial ownership.
As an additional benefit, the income tax return, which enables a ton of corruption at worst, and time waste at best, is gotten rid of.
If you are able to leverage the current value of stocks to gain personal benefit, you should be taxed on them as if you recognized the value. If you just let them sit, don't use them as collateral, don't take out loans against them, then they shouldn't be taxed.
But if you recognize some benefit based on their value, you absolutely should pay taxes on that value.
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.