I also want to live somewhere where they chase off billionaires.
Congratulations on the achievement!
When ultrawealthy and megacorps get out of the way, smaller increments from everyone else able can absolutely do great things, and more honestly, if vigilant.
We chased off the Citadel fucker and I couldn’t be happier.
It’s really cool how he made all this money in a state that had favorable conditions for his tech business and then wants to run away without paying his share for infrastructure. Asshole.
When shit like this happens, the state should be eminent domaining the shit out of the property he owns in California instead of letting him sell it for a profit. You can't take it with you, biiiiiiiiiiitch!
Yup, "leaving" should mean selling everything, triggering a taxable event, otherwise the millionaire tax still applies.
That's not how eminent domain works. At all.
Eminent domain is when the government forces someone to sell their assets to the government. In exchange, the government must pay them the fair market value.
In other words, the government would be the one paying them all that profit.
Yeah, the word to use here is civil forfeiture. "Oh but that's not how civil forfeiture works", well the way cops use it is not how it works either so I think we're good.
Doing this is effectively unconstitional as it would be interpreted as an interstate tax. So lawyers would get this slapped down pretty much instantly.
Plus, what a gift to billionaires. "See! They're so mean to me. ;..("
The tax policy should draw a clear distinction between taxed individuals and corporations, making this a Larry Page is a bitch problem, not "CA is threatening businesses" issue.
It's not an "interstate tax" interpretation that makes eminent domain seizures of fleeing billionaires not happen.
It's that the states have to pay a fair value for seized property, so "they're selling this" is just the same thing with extra steps.
States can apply whatever tax schemes they want, including confiscatory wealth taxes on billionaires. So long as they're applied evenly and there is a clear connection to the state.
(For example, despite fleeing to FL Trump.still has to pay NYS and NYC tax on the profit from any of his corporate or personal investments in NYC.)
Don't states control the property assessments though?
Kind of. But if it's not "fair market value", the owner can (and will!) sue to either block the seizure or be paid the difference. Plus expenses.
Doesn't the state also control the courts? I think as a country we have gotten too used to the idea that our legal system isn't just a framework used to keep society civil. Just as oligarch can weaponize the system, we can use that same system against them if we wanted to.
There are no less than two separate court systems the billionaire could use -- CA's own, and the federal courts. Plus maybe those of whatever state they fled to.
Since the 5th amendment is what requires states to pay for property they seize, this isnt a CA only thing that could miss the federal court like CA's "all beeches are and have always been public" rule.
if Trump has shown anything its that the courts have no power that isn't willingly given to them. States already have a pretty good justification with the clear departure of president and the extreme use of the shadow docket. An aligned state system can get creative and work around a compromised federal system if the will of the people is there. This exercise is fun but at the end of day our democracy is still based on the collective will of people, for now.
States actually can't apply any tax regime they want if it violates the interstate commerce clause. As the GOP argued against Obamacare, a mandatory penalty is a tax. This SCOTUS would 100% agree with that assessment. If a state implemented eminent domain on a business, which is state nationalization on par with every corrupt despotic regime in history and economoc suicide, that's close enough to a penalty for leaving the state that this SCOTUS would gladly invalidate it
Trump investments were likely still headquartered in NY, so your point doesn't really apply here. Also, sales tax applies to where a sale taxes place. Your best bet would be a sales tax on specific factors that catch tech companies. But just like Ireland and the EU, tax havens can be an office of 10 people in a company of 1000.
Look, thus is a hard problem to solve. Policy people have been trying for decades. These people employ armies of lawyers to get them out of every problem, and they proudly leverage states against each other, and this is what that looks like. Don't give the bastards what they want, and they wany sympathy they don't deserve.
States can and do drive whole categories of business out of their state. Self-service gas stations in NJ, wine stores in PA,.etc etc
And while you're right that the distinction between a penalty and a tax is mere semantics, it's not something that would keep CA from just imposing very high taxes on the rich or NY from continuing it's "we tax NY source income for all".
Trump having his NY corp sell all of its NY assets to a FL corp would still keep those NY assets and revenue subject to NY taxes, same as any other FL corp doing business "in" NY, though it would move the non-NY revenue to a different treatment.
https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/ct/ctidx.htm
If your business is incorporated in New York State or does business or participates in certain other activities in New York State, you may have to file an annual New York State corporation tax return to pay a franchise tax under the New York State Tax Law.
Right, so this is not the infinitie tax power it seems like you think it might be. For starters, making it a franchise tax limits the liability to what's in-state. A clever lawyer can easily move assets around on paper and ensure the tax never goes farther than the site and staff payroll within months. Do you honestly think NY State legislator would ever, ever pass a law that gave them this level of power?
On top of that, NY, NJ and CA have, according to whiner business people, have similar tax environments. NJ and NY are in a race to the bottom since NJ can copy 90% of NY policies and retain access to the NYC market and still claim "lower taxes!" For CA, the state's biggest cities and economic hubs are simply physically too far from other states to make it the same situation as NY and NJ.
CA famously fights with the entertainment industry over this all the time. BC gave them tax breaks in three 90s and everything was shot there for years. Then Chicago in the mid-late 2000s. Georgia right after that. But that industry also is well known for simply disposing of people and being very geographically fluid because it isn't reliant on.
Likewise, the tech industry has priced itself out of the Bay Area just on terms of housing, and started already spreading itself around the US. I expect exactly for this reason. Nothing in CA is holding the industry there other than "tradition" and human emotions. Those are fragile things when dealing with fickle man-children that think they're gods. They know everyone at Trump's inauguration can go to any governor and state their terms. Amazon already played this game with East cost distribution centers. They relished the chance to do it.
Taxes arent magic. They are a blunt tool.
There's nothing direct in the law that stops a state from creating ruinous taxes if they choose. Or Congress, for that matter, although they're slightly more constrained than the states are.
As you note, the biggest check against excessive state taxation is economic flight to other US states. But that's more a consequence of state action or an argument against the same rather than an issue that our hypothetical billionaire could seriously raise in court against a hypothetical billionaire tax.
That clever accountant (who may be a lawyer, but would be wearing a different hat here) wouldn't help at all if, say, NY imposed a 99% revenue tax on any social media company that also issues a cryptocurrency. Such a rule would also bite Facebook, reddit, X, and Bsky, however, so there'd be considerable lobbying against it.
(And the trick isn't to have the lowest taxes, but to keep your taxes low enough that the savings for moving don't offset the loss from what you miss. Which is why movie studios and effects shops are largely still in CA but the actual filming is often elsewhere.)
States actually can't apply any tax regime they want if it violates the interstate commerce clause. As the GOP argued against Obamacare, a mandatory penalty is a tax. This SCOTUS would 100% agree with that assessment. If a state implemented eminent domain on a business, which is state nationalization on par with every corrupt despotic regime in history and economoc suicide, that's close enough to a penalty for leaving the state that this SCOTUS would gladly invalidate it
Trump investments were likely still headquartered in NY, so your point doesn't really apply here. Also, sales tax applies to where a sale taxes place. Your best bet would be a sales tax on specific factors that catch tech companies. But just like Ireland and the EU, tax havens can be an office of 10 people in a company of 1000.
Look, thus is a hard problem to solve. Policy people have been trying for decades. These people employ armies of lawyers to get them out of every problem, and they proudly leverage states against each other, and this is what that looks like. Don't give the bastards what they want, and they wany sympathy they don't deserve.
Fuck billionaires but how would that make any sense? Money is federal and citizens are free to move between states. A state can't take all your shit if you decide to leave.
California isn't a shitty place but imagine if a southern state applied that logic to a normal person. "You're free to move but we're taking all your stuff so you're actually trapped here hehe"
So he wasn't paying his share of taxes before, and he won't be paying them now. Only difference is now he won't also be a drain on the local resources. Seems like a win for californians to me.
Don’t be evil, Larry.
Don't be Evil Larry.
Don't be, Evil Larry!
Don't, be evil Larry.
You see what happens, Larry!
D 01000100 o 01101111 n 01101110 ’ 00100111 t 01110100 b 01100010 e 01100101 e 01100101 v 01110110 i 01101001 l 01101100 , 00101100 L 01001100 a 01100001 r 01110010 r 01110010 y 0111100
Don't be evil.
--Larry.
Of all the options, thats the only one that is factually inaccurate.
Who cares? Silicon Valley/Palo Alto is still in Cali. No one cares about one whiney billionaire, that’s the thing. It will only get better for 99.999999% of the people if the billionaire is gone.
Congrats, California, you just got the proof that you made the right choices.
If you don't want to contribute to success, you are not welcome.
Shouldn’t that free up value and money for the rest of California? Seems like a win.
Yeah, forcing billionaires out of the state is as good as taxing them, but only if they actually leave. Residence, businesses, and property. Let them hoard their gold in some shithole state like dragons in caves.
Bye Felicia. California’s homeless and affordability crisis brought to you by by billionaires. Murica TM
Bye. California doesn't need billionaire parasites.
Good for California. If only all countries of the earth followed suit so the billionaires would have to move into their weird libertarian ocean hubs.
“To the moon, Elmo!”
Kbye.
Does the law say anything about vacation homes? Most states say that to be a resident you must live 6 months and 1 day in the state. Cali could set the wealth tax to, if you have any property in the state and are a billionaire pay up.
That's pretty easy to get around with shell companies. The homes could be setup as a members-only "hotel", owned by a nonprofit entity, with the shareholders being the person's family.
I like the idea, but this won't get there.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try
Move to Texas where you might get electricity.
Please don’t. We have more than our fair share of assholes, scammers, bigots, and billionaires.
Oh no. Anyway...
This is why it's called "eat the rich", not "nibble the rich".
Oh yeah fuck him
I'm sure nobody will take advantage of whatever business opportunities he's leaving behind.
Nice, make space for better people!
And where is the link for this news?
https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-leave-california-wealth-billionaire-tax-koop-google-2026-1
IDK why OP didn't post it
You can infer it through his smirk.
I did and I see it. Idk why others aren't.
Are you on pefied?
Bye Felicia!
buh-bye, Mr B-word!
Wasn't there a thread a few days ago saying billionaires don't/won't move to avoid paying taxes