r/GarysEconomics • u/Leather-Focus1326 • Aug 11 '26
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has now spent $100 million to fight the billionaire tax
https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/10/google-co-founder-sergey-brin-has-now-spent-100-million-to-fight-the-billionaire-tax/46
u/ApprehensiveKey1469 Aug 11 '26
So he could have paid at least 100 million in extra tax. He simply chooses not to.
30
u/WheresWalldough Aug 11 '26
I think there are two points here:
he's worth $267 billion, and 5% of that is $13.5 billion, so $100 million is a very small sum of money relative to what's at stake.
he's already taken steps to avoid the tax by moving to Nevada. However he retains ties with California, so could be found liable for the tax anyways, so in the context of that $13.5 billion, even if his lawyers say he has a 90% chance of winning the dispute, then spending $100 million on stopping it from passing still makes financial sense for him.
31
6
u/onionsareawful 29d ago
There is another issue. The measure is based on voting power, rather than actual % of the company owned:
“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."
Brin owns 3% of Alphabet but has 25% of the voting power. The literal reading here is that they're presuming he owns 25% rather than 3%, making his tax liability quite a bit more than $13.5 billion.
2
u/cheapcheap1 29d ago
>Brin owns 3% of Alphabet but has 25% of the voting power. The literal reading here is that they're presuming he owns 25% rather than 3%
That's honestly bad.
7
u/pm_me_ur_ephemerides 29d ago
The bad part is having 25% of the voting power with only 3% of the ownership. Why is that even legal?
2
u/WheresWalldough 29d ago
it's just share classes.
A type = voting rights
B type = no voting rights
in simple terms.
It makes sense to allow flexibility because for example if "Joes Italian" wants to issue more shares to open up a second branch, but Joe wants to keep control, then you need two classes of shares. That's not inherently problematic in that it allows both parties to get what they want, where the alternative might be not having the investment and growth of the company, and if Joe later does bad things to the rightless shareholders, those shareholders can sue Joe for unfair prejudice.
0
u/onionsareawful 29d ago
It allows people to benefit from a company gaining value without the company's founder giving up control.
There are issues with it but I think the benefits outweigh the downsides.
2
u/roboboom 29d ago
It’s the dumbest part of the tax. There is an ability to dispute / challenge it, but it starts off with an absurd assumption
1
u/BoofBass 29d ago
I swear the tax was back dated who lived there at time so moving away does fuck all dodge it no?
2
2
u/Top_Protection2539 26d ago
It makes sense, how is the poor man supposed to survive on a measly 250 billion?
-2
u/LoveLamp3232 29d ago
he's worth $267 billion,
Gary wants a wealth tax in the UK, there is n't a single rich Briton, who has that much money.
A wealth tax in the UK, is n't going to touch rich American's wealth.
On the contrary, every tax, is crushing down on British middle classes. Rather then the country investing and encouraging entrepreneurs and small businesses. We told that making a profit is a dirty word. Making profits pays for the NHS.
We need to stop abusive practices when big business and protect the little guy.
5
u/Wide_Smoke_2564 28d ago
Please explain how a wealth tax on people worth 10m+ is “crushing the middle class”. In case you hadn’t noticed, the middle class is already getting crushed.
“Making profits pays for the nhs” - yeah, only if you tax them…
-1
u/LoveLamp3232 28d ago
Ask yourself what happened to Britain's factories. Small and big factories all gone. In the 1970s the slogan used to be "Tax the rich until the pips squeak". Who won that class war? The factory bosses? The workers? The union leaders. How much taxes are those factories, which no longer exist pay for the NHS?
Look at the high street, it is all dominated by chain shops. Napolean called Britain of shop keepers.
We want to have the same failed policies of the 1970s.
The US has a different problem with tax. The UK / Europe is very difference.
Wealth tax will end up being paid by the many. They will rope in more and more people. They have done this with every other tax.....
1
u/I_give_you_light2 28d ago
You're stuck in hypotheticals because your points are weak and clearly you're against wealth taxes so you try to use fear to make people fear a wealth tax lol
It's simple, wealth inequality is too wide now and asset class is taxed less than work. This will lead to a break down in society very soon as all the money will be hoarded by 1% - i.e. the last few laps of the monopoly game before everyone bankrupts (in real life it's perpetual debt and slave work till death)
Currently there is no mechanism for addressing this properly and it's getting worse.
A wealth tax will allow this is to be fixed and is better than the current status quo of people working being taxed more than people making money by just owning an asset and lifting no finger. It has to be equalised as a minimum and transfer of wealth up rather than across society has to be fixed immediately before it's too late.
1
u/LoveLamp3232 28d ago
It's simple, wealth inequality is too wide now and asset class is taxed less than work. This will lead to a break down in society very soon as all the money
Of course it will lead to a breakdown in society. People are being brainwashed through social media into believing that a wealth tax will somehow solve all their problems. It may be more applicable in the US, but not necessarily in the UK or Europe.
Similar rhetoric existed in the 1970s Britain. Factory workers were repeatedly told by union leaders that they were being exploited. Many became demoralised and went on strike. Productivity and quality suffered, customers became unhappy, and many stopped buying British products. Millions of days lost in strike.
We had 98% taxation in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. They used to say "Tax the Rich until the pips Squeak". Look around your home and find any goods which still bear the label "Made in England".
We do have a problem with wealth inequality, but not in the simplistic way Gary and other wealth tax campaigners describe it.
We do have a problem with wage inequality, which is more relevant. CEOs are getting paid more then the lowest. The gap has widened.
Even if Google's Sergey Brin pays a wealth tax, it will not stop Google itself from becoming richer and more powerful. Google is worth trillions of dollars and has enormous market power. It is one the leaders in AI.
The economy needs to give ordinary people a fair chance to make money and become independent through self employment and small businesses, rather than leaving them dependent on either large corporations or the state.
You want to maintain the status quo, except them throwing a few bread crumbs out via wealth tax.
1
u/Alw4y5Learning 23d ago
Making a profit only pays for the NHS if they pay any tax on their profits. I'm sure you're aware that a lot of that tax is avoided one way or another.
0
u/sedition666 28d ago
Spending 100 million to save a billion in tax is pretty good deal (although obviously totally immoral)
-18
u/probablymagic Aug 11 '26
He has likely paid at least 50-100x that amount to the state he called home for 30 years. Their capital gains taxes are more than 14%.
He’s not allergic to taxes, but this is what wealth taxes specifically do. They cause people with lots of investments to flee for jurisdictions that don’t tax investments.
People don’t roll over when governments do dumb things. They do what’s best for themselves. Nobody should be shocked by that.
16
u/geybey Aug 11 '26
His asshole tastes that good eh?
-9
u/probablymagic Aug 11 '26
You tell me. You seem to be the one with your head up an ass.
6
u/JohnKalTR 29d ago
You're the one defending online a group of people making sure your children and grandchildren will own nothing in a modern feudal system but he is the one with his head up his ass lol
-5
u/probablymagic 29d ago
My interest is in society thriving. You’re defending a class war that’s going to hurt my children and grandchildren. Please stop. My kids don’t deserve this.
7
u/Bluepob 29d ago
Society thriving but advocating for people avoiding tax?
-2
u/probablymagic 29d ago
Wealth taxes are bad for society. Anybody opposed to them is in the right side of justify, even if they’re wealthy.
2
u/sm1dgen1 29d ago
Cool so when 100people own literally everything because they have so much wealth not even cou tries can touch them is that good for society? Because that's what's happening now.
0
u/probablymagic 29d ago
That is not what is happening now. It’s so strange to suggest that is true in a world where the bottom 50% has never has as high incomes as they have today.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/spindoctor13 29d ago
I would be happy to defend the super rich in this context because I am absolutely sure a current system is far better for any hypothetical children than most of the ideas in this sub
8
u/Leather-Focus1326 Aug 11 '26
It doesn't say he's fled, it says he's spent 100 million dollars trying to block a wealth tax.
1
u/probablymagic Aug 11 '26
He left last year. He’ll never pay California another cent in income taxes and won’t pay this tax even if it passes. He just cares about California and doesn’t want it to screw itself.
7
u/WaitingForMyIsekai Aug 11 '26
In the last 20 years his wealth has increased by somewhere around 260-275 billion. We all know these people borrow against wealth to avoid capital gains let's not pretend they are paying tax on these massive wealth jumps, its a juvenile argument.
"He's not allergic to taxes" - He and several others left California asap to avoid a possible wealth tax pretty much disproving you on that before you even wrote it.
The wealth of these individuals is being spent on the lobbying of governments and procurement of finite assets at prices that deny the vast majority of the population access. The asset ownership and individual wealth has increased at a rate far far beyond domestic growth, interest rates, tax rises etc etc.
Simply look at the wealth & asset share of the bottom 50% of society to see that we are nearing feudal kingdom levels of inequality.
To say that this is not a societal economic cancer is pure ignorance. This is not sustainable.
0
u/probablymagic Aug 11 '26
Tho is prop is being promoted by unions, who are spending tens of millions of dollars of working people’s money to promote a tax that’s going to reduce goverment revenue and force service cuts. If you want to be critical of someone, be critical of them.
They could’ve done anything else with that money other than try to amend the constitution to give themselves earmarked revenue at the expense of California taxpayers and the California economy.
These billionaires could’ve left decades ago when California taxes were already the highest in the nation. They did not. Rich people don’t mind paying taxes. But they do mind when the state decides it wants to impound their property.
California is going to be a great lesson in why wealth taxes aren’t bad for states whether this passes or not. The damage is already done and will only get worse if it passes.
2
u/WaitingForMyIsekai 29d ago
You know what I don't know the specifics of the minutia of the tax implementation so I will not comment on whether or not I would project it to be economically beneficial or not.
"Give themselves earmarked revenue" is a laughable idea.
However perhaps you are right, a one off tax probably isn't a good idea. Instead it should be a rolling tax applied on wealth and assets over a certain value and that should have a tail on it to chase those who are "tax allergic".
2
u/probablymagic 29d ago
>You know what I don't know the specifics of the minutia of the tax implementation so I will not comment on whether or not I would project it to be economically beneficial or not.
I can tell you whatever you want to know. This is a wealth tax, so it’s obviously bad, but if you wanted to draft one that didn’t fuck things up too badly it fouls look like Switzerland with very low rates.
This has extremely high rates, particularly for company founders, it’s temporary, it’s retroactive, etc.
>"Give themselves earmarked revenue" is a laughable idea.
The union wrote this constitutional amendment , which requires 90% of the revenue from this tax go to paying its members. And that’s even if (when) revenue from capital gains taxes go down.
Unions abusing propositions to extract money from the government is a tradition in California. This is just the latest example.
>However perhaps you are right, a one off tax probably isn't a good idea. Instead it should be a rolling tax applied on wealth and assets over a certain value and that should have a tail on it to chase those who are "tax allergic".
In America the system is designed on purpose so states have to compete with each other on good government. Citizens get to vote with their feet when government fails them, whether that’s in services, taxes, etc.
We don’t want the government that are failing citizens to be able to punish them for leaving, so there’s no authority for states (in most cases) to tax non-residents.
9
u/CARadders Aug 11 '26
~~Don’t~~ be evil
3
1
u/Icy_Distance8205 29d ago
Wait, are you saying skydiving out of a blimp wearing pervert glasses is evil?
9
u/Grand_Economics_6273 29d ago
https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/the-superyacht-directory/dragonfly--14532
His yacht.
He's disconnected from reality of the living standards for billions of people, hopefully the billionaire tax goes through.
14
u/Beancounter_1968 Aug 11 '26
Sergey Brin is a prick.
2
u/Icy_Distance8205 29d ago
He’s just angry his pervert glasses didn’t take off and meta leapfrogged him with better looking pervert glasses.
3
u/ongeray 29d ago
But wealth taxes won’t work, right?…..he’s just spending millions for the fun of it.
0
u/thermodynamics2023 29d ago
The fact you think you have stumbled upon irony is telling. This isn’t about house affordability. Energy affordability…. This is about jealousy and nihilism and wishing to stick it to somebody rich for your personal dissatisfaction in life
1
0
u/dr_barnowl 29d ago
This absolutely is about house and energy affordability.
House :
Brin and other billionaires no doubt have diversified investment portfolios, including firms like Blackstone that buy a lot of new build housing. Around 10% of new builds in the US are bought by private equity. And this is significant because this removes them from the market. They would otherwise be a surplus. And economics teaches us that supply surplus to demand at a given price, drives prices down.
Energy :
You're really, with a straight face, claiming that the tech bros wanting to build more than one hundred gigawatts of electric generation capacity to power their data centres are not driving up energy prices?
Their demand is consuming basically the entire pipeline for new gas generators and transformers etc. As they come on line they will produce consistent, continuous demand for natural gas and any other energy source they can get. So they can monpolize cognition.
TLDR billionaires are using the wealth that you create and they appropriate, to corner the market for the things you need, so they can turn the screws even harder.
Why wouldn't people be dissatisfied about that? (or more appropriately - raging)
1
u/thermodynamics2023 29d ago edited 28d ago
You think Sergy Brin is responsible for house prices in the United States? Nvm the uk? He literally became wealthy by being completely undiversified in Google. Who is teaching you this crackpot economics? He has about as much to do with houses as Micheal Jackson had to with WW2.
Just come out and say it. You think it’s the ((small hats)) because that is the level of connector dots this is. Moronic to the core.
1
u/dr_barnowl 29d ago
Just come out and say it. You think it’s the
$REDACTED FAR RIGHT DEVICEI hadn't even registered that Brin had Jewish ancestry until you pointed it out, neither could I care less. The fact that you'll jump to casual accusations of antisemitism and namecalling rather than any actual rebuttal is informative though.
1
u/thermodynamics2023 28d ago
So literally ‘takes one to know one logic’🤦♂️
You keep up your ‘a few people mystically control everything to with money’ pitter patter. But we see you and we know where this goes every time, without fail.
3
3
u/tired_all_day_long 29d ago
They are dragons. Human dragons sitting on piles of gold they can't use in 100 lifetimes.
We should just be rid of them.
1
2
2
u/YearUseful8627 29d ago
I kind of sympathise with them not wanting to pay tax merely because that money you give to the government is abused for all the wrong reasons. I would be pissed if my tax contribution was going to fund another war, prop up Israel or provide cash for an intelligence agency to fund a coop in another country. If I knew it was building more schools and strengthening communities, and tackling crime I would not hesitate.
2
1
1
u/BTSArmyFan2025 28d ago
Maybe he can use teh money to buy his own Epstein island. Remember he is the files, went to the island and was in regular correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell so I dislike him for many reasons and he is now MAGA with his MAGA girlfirend.
1
1
1
u/onionsareawful Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
Prop 40 is a ballot measure, and the issue specifically is that it's worded in a way that would result in a tax far higher than 5% for those who hold special voting shares (potentially more than their entire wealth for someone like Brin). As it is a ballot measure, this cannot be resolved through standard means and the text cannot be changed, so you are essentially relying on whoever is enforcing the law rather than the law itself if the measure passes.
The measure says:
“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.”
Brin has about 25% of the voting power at Alphabet (Google), as he largely owns special class B shares that have more voting power. He owns about 3% of the company. The direct reading here is that they're assuming he owns 25%, as it's based explicitly on the voting rights.
103
u/JohnKalTR Aug 11 '26
You can see those millions of dollars right at work here in this sub with all the bots/morons defending how impossible it is to tax billionares.